Do We Even Have A Foreign Policy?

 

imageEven The New York Times is piling on Susan Rice for this — so perhaps it’s unnecessary to pose the question — but her comments strike me as so wondrously stupid and terrifying that I’ve got to wonder whether there could be any charitable or vaguely reassuring way of reading it:

[Rice] was peppered with critiques of the president’s Syria and China policies, as well as the White House’s delays in releasing a national security strategy, a congressionally mandated document that sets out foreign policy goals. On that last point, Ms. Rice had a sardonic reply.

“If we had put it out in February or April or July,” she said, according to two people who were in the room, “it would have been overtaken by events two weeks later, in any one of those months.”

I get that she was being sardonic. I get it that this is not what she literally and officially thinks about this. But she’s an experienced public official who knew this would make the front page of The New York Times. It would therefore seem that she knowingly told the whole world — and not entirely in jest — the United States no longer has foreign policy goals because there have been a series of crises in the past year. Oh, and by the way, to hell with Congress.

Does that sound as epically mad to you as it does to me? Is there any way her comment could have been funny and appropriate at the time, or that she could have thought, reasonably, that it would never leak? I suppose it’s possible that I’ve lost my sense of proportion and this actually makes perfect sense. But even The New York Times is freaking out, so I fear it’s every bit as Under-the-Reign-of-Elagabalus as it sounds.

 

Published in Foreign Policy, General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 69 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Totus Porcus:

    AIG:Like for example the criticisms that Obama has released Guantanamo detainees. Yes “he” has (he, as in this current administration. I don’t think the President makes these decisions).

    Seriously? You think the US traded 5 top Taliban for a deserter and the President didn’t approve the trade?

    If this were true, I’m sure we would have read about his reaction when he read about the trade in the newspaper.

    Totus,

    Just as I thought, it’s that Mr. Nobody guy again.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #61
  2. user_358258 Inactive
    user_358258
    @RandyWebster

    I suppose the Bush administration would have cancelled the installation of the ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic, too.

    And, it would have acquiesced in the acquisition of nukes by Iran.

    And it would have torpedoed the “special relationship” [sorry, I should have said “had,” Obama’s managed to ruin that, too.] we have with Britain.

    And, it would have alienated the chickensh*t Israelis as much as possible.

    Real bastards, they were.

    • #62
  3. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    AIG:

    CuriousKevmo: I didn’t say anything of the things you ascribed to me. Not one. Not sure how that is a logical extension

    You said that the foreign policy strategy should be “enduring” and be robust enough to endure changes that may happen from year to year.

    I disagree with that somewhat (you can’t foresee things like ISIS, which change quite a big chunk of the strategy)…but if we take the “enduring” part of your argument, then the logical extension is: “why do we need a new document every year then?” It should look like the previous year’s one.

    And they do.

    All depends on whether you look or not. ISIS is not some new phenomenon. It began as AQL, and did pretty much what it is doing now. The reaction then was the Marine Corps in Anbar province and Patreaus’ strategy of getting the Sunni tribal leaders on his side.

    This is not the same as getting them on the Iraqi side. Unfortunately, we tend to view the world as if they think like we do. They do not.

    But ISIS was predictable. It was driven out of then-Iraq and into (fortuitously for it) the Syrian civil war, where in the chaos they thrived. When they then returned to Iraq, the Shia had pretty much destroyed any fibre of commonality there.

    Even in much of its current form it has been present in Syria for some time. Any reasonable intelligence gathering would have discerned this. I am afraid we have an administration that simply did not want to be bothered with all this.

    It may be an altogether different question of whether we should be involved or just let them thrash it out themselves. But knowing is not part of that discussion.

    • #63
  4. Devereaux Inactive
    Devereaux
    @Devereaux

    James Gawron:

    Devereaux:

    James Gawron:

    tabula rasa:

    James Gawron:Claire,

    Here is my scale for Women in Politics. Sorry if this seems sexist but it is the only way I am able to hold onto sanity with all of the false ideological gender obsessions running loose.

    10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Margaret Thatcher Indira Ghandi

    Susan Rice is seriously messing up my political science (Where is Groseclose when I need him?) Rice continues to drive her numbers down and I am forced to extend the scale into the negative range. Please ask Groseclose if this is allowed or am I dead when the peer review starts.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I’d rate Golda Meir at 9.5. Hillary has already demonstrated that she’ll be in the 1-2 range.

    tr,

    I hate to admit it but I don’t rate Golda that high. She was an extremely effective ambassador in the early years when Israel hung by a thread. She, of course, was adored by the Israeli public. However, the Prime Minister’s job involves being commander in chief in war. She did not perform 100% in this. Also, in economics she continued the Israeli socialist pattern without much new creative free enterprise activity. Overall I would still give her a 7 especially because of her early work. (Mrs. Thatcher is 10).

    We are in full agreement about Hillary. She has all the ingredients of Indira Ghandi.

    Regards,

    Jim

    You have to give her some points for turning the Mossad loose after the olympic killers.

    Dev,

    OK Ok, I’ll go to 7.5, especially if I can scrape the .5 points off the hide of a certain arrogant left wing American Jewish film maker who should have known better than to dis the mossad.

    Regards,

    Jim

    PS Love the A10

    ?How about 8, and take it out of the hide of all the lefties. I personally love the fact she brought retribution on their heads. She wasn’t that bad in the ’67 war either.

    PPS: The Air Force hates it, but us grunts love it. Sort of reminds me of the old Sky Raider of my time. Big and carries a LOT of ordnance. Rather like the sentiment under it, too.

    • #64
  5. user_82762 Inactive
    user_82762
    @JamesGawron

    Devereaux:

    James Gawron:

    Devereaux:

    James Gawron:

    tabula rasa:

    James Gawron:Claire,

    Here is my scale for Women in Politics. Sorry if this seems sexist but it is the only way I am able to hold onto sanity with all of the false ideological gender obsessions running loose.

    10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

    Margaret Thatcher Indira Ghandi

    Susan Rice is seriously messing up my political science (Where is Groseclose when I need him?) Rice continues to drive her numbers down and I am forced to extend the scale into the negative range. Please ask Groseclose if this is allowed or am I dead when the peer review starts.

    Regards,

    Jim

    I’d rate Golda Meir at 9.5. Hillary has already demonstrated that she’ll be in the 1-2 range.

    tr,

    I hate to admit it but I don’t rate Golda that high. She was an extremely effective ambassador in the early years when Israel hung by a thread. She, of course, was adored by the Israeli public. However, the Prime Minister’s job involves being commander in chief in war. She did not perform 100% in this. Also, in economics she continued the Israeli socialist pattern without much new creative free enterprise activity. Overall I would still give her a 7 especially because of her early work. (Mrs. Thatcher is 10).

    We are in full agreement about Hillary. She has all the ingredients of Indira Ghandi.

    Regards,

    Jim

    You have to give her some points for turning the Mossad loose after the olympic killers.

    Dev,

    OK Ok, I’ll go to 7.5, especially if I can scrape the .5 points off the hide of a certain arrogant left wing American Jewish film maker who should have known better than to dis the mossad.

    Regards,

    Jim

    PS Love the A10

    ?How about 8, and take it out of the hide of all the lefties. I personally love the fact she brought retribution on their heads. She wasn’t that bad in the ’67 war either.

    PPS: The Air Force hates it, but us grunts love it. Sort of reminds me of the old Sky Raider of my time. Big and carries a LOT of ordnance. Rather like the sentiment under it, too.

    Dev,

    Alright then 8 it is.  On your authority she gets a battlefield promotion.  I’d just love to see A10s loose on ISIS.  Those guys show nobody any mercy.  Somebody should return the favor.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #65
  6. Totus Porcus Inactive
    Totus Porcus
    @TotusPorcus

    This, for my money, is the most terrifying quote in the NYT article:

    Mr. Obama is also leaning more than ever on his small circle of White House aides, who forged their relationships with him during his 2008 campaign 

    So much for that whole “Team of Rivals” garbage we were being fed in 2008.  The kids driving the campaign vans are now deciding whether we make a nuclear deal with Iran or send arms to Syrian “moderates.”

    • #66
  7. MarciN Member
    MarciN
    @MarciN
    • #67
  8. user_358258 Inactive
    user_358258
    @RandyWebster

    Totus Porcus:This, for my money, is the most terrifying quote in the NYT article:

    So much for that whole “Team of Rivals” garbage we were being fed in 2008. The kids driving the campaign vans are now deciding whether we make a nuclear deal with Iran or send arms to Syrian “moderates.”

    We were the ones we were waiting for.

    • #68
  9. swatter Inactive
    swatter
    @swatter

    Claire Berlinski:swatter:

    Clare, I wasn’t part of your first writings on ricochet, so I didn’t know what the readers were weeping about when you quit for a time.

    However, this article you wrote and your questions really clears things up. You are quite talented on asking questions that require you to think.

    Thank you.

    But as for the bigger question–how did we get from there to here?

    I’m stumped. And no one has ever explained it to my satisfaction.

    How did we get from there to here? We may never know. Perhaps, as stated previously, Epstein’s recollections of fellow law professor is best. Paraphrase, after talking and engaging with Obama for hours, he listened to your opinions, but after leaving, you never knew what Obama’s thoughts and opinions were. He was like a cold fish. (Apologies ahead of time if I paraphrased Epstein incorrectly).

    So, we have a canvas we are trying to figure out. The blankness (referring to Obama’s inner being which is molded by upbringing) is now being unfolded. Looking at his role models, it becomes much clearer why our foreign policy is where it is at.

    Another question you can ask is how did the Republicans and especially the Democrats, allow this to happen? I don’t like the answer I am getting, so I need help with this one.

    • #69
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.