Obama as The Godfather.

by

Richard Fernandez has an interesting take on Obama’s present foreign policy iteration. He sees himself as The Godfather negotiating among his capos and arranging the territories that each are allowed to possess.

The White House is also exploring what could be a diplomatic blockbuster: possible new limits and controls on Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Such an accord might eventually open a path toward a Pakistani version of the civil nuclear deal that was done with India in 2005….

Pakistan prizes its nuclear program, so negotiations would be slow and difficult, and it’s not clear that Islamabad would be willing to accept the limitations that would be required. But the issue is being discussed quietly in the run-up to Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s visit to Washington Oct. 22. Any progress would break a stalemate that has existed since the U.S. detected Pakistan’s nuclear program in the mid-1980s, and especially after Pakistan exploded its first weapon in 1998.

This is behind our negotiations with the Taliban, which seems just as intent on upsetting Obama’s applecart as they ever were. No matter. Obama will keep negotiating. As Woody Allan once said of stockbrokers, “They invest your money and keep investing it until it is all gone.”

David Ignatius seems to approve of this approach.

The U.S. recognized more than four years ago that the best way out of the Afghanistan conflict would be a diplomatic settlement that involved the Taliban and its sometime sponsors in Pakistan. State Department officials have been conducting secret peace talks, on and off, since 2011. That effort hasn’t borne fruit yet, as the Taliban’s recent offensive in Kunduz shows.

But the pace of negotiations has quickened this year, thanks to an unlikely U.S. diplomatic partnership with China. A senior administration official said Monday that “we’re hopeful that there will be a willingness on the part of the Taliban to resume negotiations,” despite the intense fighting in Kunduz and elsewhere. Beijing’s involvement is a “new dynamic” and shows an instance where “U.S. interests overlap with those of China.”

Yes, China will pull our chestnuts out of this particular fire. We can trust the Chinese. After all, we trusted them with the OPM database management.

It’s not just that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) failed to certify nearly a quarter of its IT systems as secure.

The real news is that outsourcing government IT tasks led to Chinese contract workers, and at least one person working in China, having root access to OPM systems.

Having root access, of course, means having access to any data you want in the system regardless of any security application that may protect the data against “unauthorized” users.

Yes, we can trust the Chinese.

Meanwhile, Obama was lecturing Putin on his responsibilities.

Russia’s leadership is challenging truths that only a few weeks ago seemed self-evident, that in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force, that international law matters, that people and nations can make their own decisions about their future. …

And that’s why Russia’s violation of international law, its assault on Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, must be met with condemnation, not because we’re trying to keep Russia down, but because the principles that have meant so much to Europe and the world must be lifted up….

Understand as well this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. … I believe that for both Ukraine and Russia, a stable peace will come through de-escalation, a direct dialogue between Russia and the government of Ukraine and the international community, monitors who can ensure that the rights of all Ukrainians are protected, a process of constitutional reform within Ukraine and free and fair elections this spring.

Yes, this is no Cold War. “The 1980s are now asking for their foreign policy back.”

Yes, very insightful. This is what passes for foreign policy in Obama’s last term.

David Petraeus testified last month to the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in the Middle East. Regarding Syria, the former general and CIA director urged a credible threat to destroy Bashar Assad’s air force if it continues to bomb its own people. He also recommended “the establishment of enclaves in Syria protected by coalition air power, where a moderate Sunni force could be supported and where additional forces could be trained, internally displaced persons could find refuge, and the Syrian opposition could organize.”

But Barack Obama does not agree. At his Friday press conference, the president described such views as “mumbo-jumbo,” “half-baked ideas,” “as-if” solutions, a willful effort to “downplay the challenges involved in the situation.” He says the critics have no answers to the questions of “what exactly would you do and how would you fund it and how would you sustain it.”

America’s greatest living general might as well have been testifying to his shower drain for all the difference his views are going to make in this administration.

The “smartest man in the room” is in charge. What could go wrong ?

The Washington Free Beacon thinks it is no coincidence that “Obama’s top advisers on ISIS, Russia, and Cyber-Security have all resigned over the past two weeks”.

Last week, President Obama’s education secretary Arne Duncan announced that he was leaving at the end of the year. Far less attention has been paid to the string of other high-profile resignations that have rocked the administration since September 22, when Bloomberg reported that John Allen, the retired general Obama hand-picked to lead the U.S. war effort against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, was stepping down.

One week later, on September 29, POLITICO reported that Evelyn Farkas, the top Pentagon official responsible for overseeing U.S. relations with Russia and Ukraine, was leaving her post after five years. According to the site, the administration is expected to “have a hard time finding a replacement,” as Farkas’s resignation comes at a time of considerable division within the Obama administration over how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria.

The resignation of Ari Schwartz, the administration’s top adviser on cyber-security, was barely acknowledged. Schwartz stepped down on October 1, having served in the position since March of last year. His tenure coincided with a series of damaging cyber attacks believed to have been carried out by the Russian and Chinese governments, including the large-scale theft of sensitive employee information from the Office of Personnel Management.

He had yet to learn that the men who could rearrange the world over snifters of brandy could also beat each other to death with baseball bats. It will be interesting to learn from future histories (if any are written) exactly when Putin and other American enemies first realized that he was faking it. But when the moment of discovery came, Obama soon realized that running with wolves came at the price of terrible danger.

He doesn’t know it and probably never will.

13 thoughts on “Obama as The Godfather.”

  2. “in the 21st century, the borders of Europe cannot be redrawn with force”: but they could be in the late 20th century. After all, Slick Willie redrew the boundaries of Serbia. Is that different?

    “how to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine and Syria”: or counter-aggression, as some might say.

    “Bashar Assad’s air force … continues to bomb its own people”: that’s the sort of thing that happens in civil wars. Ask Mr Lincoln.

    Is US foreign policy really formed at this primitive intellectual level?

  3. “Is US foreign policy really formed at this primitive intellectual level?”

    Obama’s chief foreign affairs advisor, Ben Rhodes, has an MFA in “Fiction Writing.”

    Any questions ? Typically, in this administration, Rhodes brother is President of CBS News.

  4. And also “Rhodes is married to Ann Norris, chief foreign policy adviser to Senator Barbara Boxer.” [WKPD]

    I somehow suspect that Mr Rhodes, indeed either Mr Rhodes, is not subjected to a diversity of critical thinking on foreign policy.

  5. Barbara Boxer;s contribution to the Iraq debate was to sing “From a Distance” in the Senate.

    She was over matched in her role as County Supervisor in Marin County, a laughably leftist San Francisco suburb. There have been movies made about the looney residents of Marin County. Unfortunately, California is not much better and she was re-elected over Carly Fiorina. Jerry Brown defeated Meg Whitman, so the left defeated the two smartest women in the country. So much for the War on Women.

  6. “Is US foreign policy really formed at this primitive intellectual level?”

    Not really, but it’s spin sure is, but then they have to deal with the American public. The reality show people, most of America these days.

    That it’s formed not far above there though, is quite obvious.

  9. Closer to Fredo, actually.

    Aligns himself with actors who seek to harm the family, insists he’s smart, will be remembered by his betrayal

  10. Your article credits Obama with intelligence. Actually he avoids decisions. Decisions are made for him by people who live in the shadows. Obama makes speeches which he sees the first time on the teleprompter. The actual decision makers don’t want any credit. They try out new ideas – like bombing hospitals or hiring Al-Qaeda as peacekeepers to fight terrorists.

  11. Whatever indecisiveness Obama has shown is largely offset by his reckless droning, his decision to surge in Afghanistan.
    He also pressured Maliki for a SOFA in Iraq, was denied.
    But from a neocon rather than neocon lite perspective (neolib) perspective he is indecisive, granted.
    This itself is due, however to the American public still being exhausted from a failed war which ushered Obama’s first term in.
    Obama realizes the exhaustion, even if admirers of such as Krauthammer, Perle and Cheney prefer not to.

Comments are closed.