Will Obama Make Them Love Us?

By DemocracyRules

This NYT article "From Russia With Loathing" sees trouble ahead, and so do I.

The historical evidence suggests Obama will not improve foreign relations. "But," you may ask, "All those countries seem so happy about Obama's win. What's that about?"

Well, Obama is charismatic and good looking, and to socialists, he seems like a great guy.  Also, many countries think he will be weak, and they want America to be weak.  For example, the Russians don't care if America is "nice".  Why would they?  They want America to be weak.

When Jimmy Carter took over, many leftists thought he would be "nice,"  and he would support “social justice”, and other countries would love America because of it. 

Russia showed their love by invading Afghanistan, and Carter reciprocated the affection by letting Russia keep Afghanistan.  Carter initiated support for some Afghan resistance, but It was Reagan's stalwart support, providing lots of Stinger missiles to shoot down Russian helicopters, that turned the tide and helped the Afghans get rid of the Russians. 

The Russians and Chinese basked in Carter’s love, and Communists took over many African countries, strengthened their hold on South East Asia, and encroached on Chile, Grenada, Nicaragua, and other countries.

Iran loved Carter so much they seized the US embassy and took dozens of hostages.  Ahmadinejad was one of the hostage-takers and interrogators.  This was Iran's loving response to Carter's determined efforts to throw out the Shah of Iran and replace him with the bloodthirsty madman Ayatollah Khomeini.  Carter thought Khomeini was a well-meaning religious scholar, a "man of the cloth" who would do no harm.  America still suffers from Carter’s “nice guy” decision, as Iran's "religious scholars" continue to sneak around trying to undermine the US and Israel in every way they can think of.

Many current US foreign policy initiatives are efforts to reverse the disasters of the Carter administration.

Who would be glad if Obama weakened the US?  Russia, China, many in the European Union, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia, basically all of America's enemies would be glad if Obama became another Jimmy Carter.  They would be even happier if Obama was "nicer" than Jimmy Carter.

But who would be glad if Obama strengthened America?  Canada, Britain, Australia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, the Ukraine, Georgia, Romania, the Slovak Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, the Philippines, Columbia, and many other countries which are friends and allies of the US.

Basically, every weak post-war president was pressured and tested by America’s enemies.  Truman, a weakly-supported Democrat, gave up China to the Communists, and had to fight tooth and nail to fight North Korea back to the pre-war borders.  The Commies thought Truman was weak. 

Eisenhower won the presidential election on his promise to end the Korean War, and promptly did so by testing nuclear artillery shells very close to the North Korean border.  The Commies signed an armistice almost immediately thereafter.  Both Presidents deserve credit for winning in Korea, but Eisenhower's toughness  ended the conflict.

Kennedy was pushed around and browbeaten by Khrushchev in an early summit meeting, and then Kennedy flubbed the invasion of Cuba.  He refused to give air support to the Cuban nationals at the Bay of Pigs.  The Soviets couldn't believe such weakness, and that led to the Cuban missile crisis.  The Soviets thought Kennedy was weak, and it took a threat of nuclear war to convince them otherwise.

Johnson was deeply ambivalent about Vietnam, and it showed. He micromanaged the war, and wouldn’t aggressively attack North Vietnam.  The US was losing, until Nixon stepped in and bombed the heck of North Vietnam and Cambodia, using laser-guided bombs.  That’s why the North came meekly to the bargaining table.  It wasn’t just Kissinger’s charm.  Once Nixon and Ford, his VP and successor, were weakened by Watergate, people like Jane Fonda, Bill Ayers, John Kerry, and other America-haters gloated while the North re-invaded the South, and the Dems blocked another bombing campaign.

Clinton balanced the budget by drastically cutting military spending.  America didn't just look weaker, it was weaker.  Osama Bin Laden and his goons started calling America weak (they still tell themselves that, but now they do it in caves, far underground).  The perceived weakness of the USA was the basis for 9/11.

Bush restored the tough American posture that Clinton had let slide.  America’s enemies didn’t like that, and they complained a lot about America being "too strong". "Anti-war" demonstrators marched on Washington, but never on Moscow, for some reason.  Russain genocide is still going on in Chechneya.  Churchill said having some enemies is a good thing, because it means you stand for something in your life.

Thus, whether it’s true or not, Obama will be seen as weak, and he will be challenged.  Russia, China, Islamists, and others don’t really understand “nice”.  But they certainly understand “weak”, and they know exactly what to do about it.

Pro Patria

Comments

[Karl]

I'm afraid it is your post that is "weak," especially on historical accuracy. The truth is that Carter started the covert operation to support the Nicaraguan Contras to fight against the Sandanistas. It was Carter who started the covert operation to support the Mujahadeen against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Finally, it was Carter who begin the massive upgrade of our nuclear forces.

All Reagan did was continue these programs and increase governmental support for them and so they became associated with him as his doctrine. But, don't fool yourself, every president merely continues the policy set out by the others before him. Just look at the Vietnam era: 25 years of policy continuation and escalation.

Obama will continue Bush's policies and Russia won't think we are "weak" as you say, merely stupid and ignorant.
________________________________
{From DR -- Thank you for your comment, Karl.
I think you have a couple of good points.

First, I agree about the tendency for one President's policies to cascade into those of his/her successor's. For example, both Truman and Eisenhower deserve credit for the victory in Korea. I will revise my post to reflect the cascade effect.

Second, I agree that Obama will probably continue some of Bush's policies.

However, I insist that some US Presidents are regarded as weak by America's adversaries, and this often has negative consequences. Some Presidents look weak, and some actually are weak. Kennedy looked weak, but he was not. Carter looked weak, and he was.

Obama looks weak. -- Pro Patria}