Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
It’s Time for Patriotism over Politics
Our country today is in a crisis the likes of which we’ve never seen before: during a period of exceptional global instability, we’re being led by a president who has absolutely no grasp of the danger we’re in; who seems almost bemused by it.
Yikes. It’s like being aboard a jumbo jet at 30,000 feet above the ocean with thunderstorms all around, the number-two engine sputtering while under the control of a pilot who marched with Occupy Wall Street, somehow got hired by the airline even though he’d never actually flown a plane before, and is having so much fun sending out selfies of himself decked out in a captain’s uniform that he doesn’t even hear the alarms going off all around the cockpit.
In a ghastly situation like this, you don’t waste time organizing a review of the airline’s hiring practices. And even if there’s a qualified pilot on board, there’s no way to break through the cockpit’s steel security door to replace the clown at the controls. This is an emergency, which means that all that matters is figuring out how to talk that pilot safely down onto a runway, with the least possible loss of life.
If you think I’m exaggerating, just look at the world:
We’ve thrown away the victory our troops won in Iraq by pulling them out too soon, and now we’re making this same mistake a second time by pulling out our troops from Afghanistan. The Islamic State is spreading its power across the Mideast. The government in Yemen has collapsed. Libya is in chaos. The war in Syria threatens the stability of our ally Jordan. Al Qaeda seems to have re-invented itself and launched a new series of deadly attacks on Western targets. Iran is moving ever-closer to having a nuclear bomb. Russia is pushing further into Ukraine, and starting to make noises about the Baltic states, which could mean that Estonia, Latvia, or Lithuania is next on Moscow’s hit list. North Korea apparently managed to execute a cyber attack that nearly destroyed one of Hollywood’s most famous studios.
Never has American leadership, and American power, been more needed. Yet our president has so little interest in national security issues that he spends more time watching football games on television than reading intelligence reports in the White House Situation Room. He doesn’t get along with our most reliable allies, and he’s held in contempt by our most dangerous adversaries. He cannot even bring himself to accurately name our country’s enemy, and — after six years in office — it’s obvious that his guiding diplomatic principle is that the world would be a better place if the United States played a smaller role.
This is a national emergency. It means we cannot waste time debating how Barack Obama got elected, or trading punches with the president in hopes of helping whichever Republican candidate we prefer to score a debating point. What happens during the next two years will shape our world for decades to come, and we’re stuck with our current commander-in-chief. We just don’t have the luxury of adopting the old Russian Nihilist slogan “The Worse, the Better.” The cost to our country, and to the world, would be too high. Our overriding objective must be to work as best we can with this president, to get through the current turbulence with the least possible damage.
In other words, we will need to stop thinking like politicians and start thinking like patriots. For example, it means resisting the temptation to stick it to the president the way he sticks it to everyone else. Sure, it felt good to see Speaker John Boehner go over the president’s head to invite Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress. I loved watching the White House staff squirm, and I nearly fell out of my La-Z-Boy laughing as that blonde State Department spokesperson — the one who looks like she’s running for high school class president — made a total jerk of herself trying to read her talking points.
But was it smart to infuriate the president? What if Iran or Hezbollah attack Israel next week, or if there’s some sort of natural catastrophe like an earthquake that flattens Haifa? Boehner can cry on camera while his GOP majority passes resolutions of support, but only Barack Obama can send an aircraft carrier, or rescue helicopters, or Seal Team Six, or whatever else Israel might need urgently to survive. Does infuriating the president make it more, or less, likely that he’ll act as he should? Alas, the question answers itself.
And that’s just one example. Additionally, we seem to be on course to a deal with Iran that will keep the current Tehran regime in power, but with nuclear bombs; at the very least, this will trigger a nuclear arms race in the Mideast (we all know what will happen at the very worst). While he’s at it, the president may decide to emulate Europe by offering diplomatic recognition to the Palestinians. And, if he has his way, he’ll keep releasing prisoners from Gitmo until none are left, and — on his last day in office — he could issue an executive order closing Guantanamo and giving the entire base back to Cuba, probably for nothing at all in return.
What can we do to stop these disasters, or other disasters like these, from happening? And if we cannot stop them from happening, can we delay them, or find some way to lessen the resulting damage? If we cannot stop the president from doing this, can we stop him from doing that? Are there some “deals” that Republicans can cut with the White House that are just awful, but better for our country’s future safety than no deal at all? For instance, if Obama would agree to walk away from his talks with Iran and re-impose harsh economic sanctions on Tehran, would we be willing to give up on the Keystone XL Pipeline?
We need to think hard about making deals like this — revolting though they may be — for our country’s sake. Again, the sad fact is that Obama will be at the controls for another two years, whether we like it or not.
So, my fellow patriots, what do we do now?
Published in General
Given that Republican’s spent the entire Bush administration telling us of the President’s primacy in all things Foreign Policy I would say there not much we can do. Ride it out and pick up the pieces.
I agree with everything you’ve written here Herbert and as a step-parent of three 20 somethings our current path upsets me greatly but I think Larry is correct — it will have to get worse before it gets better.
Obama was elected twice; I just read an article that had his approval rating at 50%. That means 50% or more of the electorate haven’t figured it out yet, they don’t see a problem. To them it’s all unicorns and free health care.
Until more of them figure it out, I don’t see the trajectory changing.
Herb,
Unilateral Patriotism over Politics is like unilateral Peace over War. The other side has a vote and we already know what that vote will be. Dream on.
Politically we grab him by the nose and kick him in the ass for the next 21 months.
Regards,
Jim
Is it Patriotic to support someone who isn’t acting in America’s best interests?
James Gawron:
Would you have advised Churchill against making that alliance?
Herbert Meyer is the guy who basically took down the Soviet Union – he was the one at the CIA who put together that the Sovs, far from being a permanent fixture, were actually rotting away internally…and so it proved.
Here I see things as not as hopeful as he does. Very likely, Netanyahu figures that Obama is not going to send the cavalry to Israel whatever happens, so he might as well take the invitation.
Ditto for Boehner. Boehner is a better guy than he seems, but he has been constrained (a) by the respect due the office for the American Experiment to keep working and (b) by Obama’s being so ignorant of his own proposals that it is impossible to negotiate with him – he knows so little that a shrewd offer is lost on him. Like playing tennis with a backboard rather than an opponent.
It is likely that Saudi has given up on Obama and is trying to take down the mullahs by ruining the Iranian economy while they still have the power to do it. If Netanyahu is in on that then Israel / Saudi are going with a non-Obama or a post-Obama strategy. Very dangerous, but what else is there to do since Obama is rooting for the Islamists?
With the Netanyahu invitation, Boehner is establishing the independent nature of Congress in the three branches of government. So Obama can’t just walk over them. The crunch will come when Congress votes to deny, or doesn’t vote to approve, some spending. And Obama spends the money anyway.
The Republic is in a crisis, but there is no goodwill on the Obama side. What deal would he agree to on an important point?
We live in interesting times.
Herb,
Your post suggests appeasing Hitler not making an alliance with Stalin. If say 14 Democratic Senators want to align with us to override vetos I’d be glad to talk to them but not to deflect our prime objectives. That would be like agreeing to a pact with Stalin that accepted the Pact of Steel. No Deal.
Regards,
Jim
Herb,
Just for the Historical record, I believe England “Stood Alone” until she repulsed the German air invasion. Then Hitler turned on his partner Stalin and only then did Stalin become our partner.
Funny how that works.
Regards,
Jim
Right analysis, wrong solution. Dealing with this president is not possible without giving him his way. His way got you on the plane.
Furthermore, not fighting at all turns will get us another Obama in 2/6/10 years. He Must Be Deconstructed!
Seem to be the nub of the argument, yes? Half of the country cannot decided what is in “America’s best interests”
Since I have the floor, Herb; Most of this post is on the president’s rudderless malfeasance w.r.t. the international governance of Pax Americana, yet did not the international types award this guy the Nobel Peace Prize for the equivalent of just being there.
I am strongly of a mind to think of Mr Mencken aphorism should be in play for those feckless international leaders who though Obama was a good idea. I am no isolationist, yet perhaps this could be the strong lesson for those vocal western elites, since they seem to have an overly influential sway on the thinking of the people of their respective countries. Perhaps they should have a glimmer of a world where we stayed home for a while?
In the mean time we need to develop a effective strategy against an asset-less, geographically borderless ideology that has become very effective at playing against our Western ideals. I suspect that straight up appeals to materialism is not the answer, (i.e. some sort of international “Life of Julia” lefty approach).
A Middle East Marshal Plan is not going to culturally fit.
I needed a little more space,
My own specific response can be found here:
http://ricochet.com/in-response-to-herbert-meyer-no-its-not-really-that-bad/
Doc,
Long time no see. Great to have you back in town.
Deconstructed? You mean like this?
Regards,
Jim
I’ve just posted a comment to your comment….
Herb
I think the Herb is asking an important question: What do the Republicans/Conservatives want in the foreign policy arena?
Short List:
Iran not to get the bomb. Not only do we not trust the Iranian regime to live up to its commitments not to develop nuclear weapons; we don’t trust the Obama administration and the State department to realize that they are getting played by Iran.
Stop Putin from further foreign incursions. The big one here is if Putin makes a move on the Baltic states, which are part of NATO. A move by Putin on one of the Baltic states could spell the end of that organization.
Containment and defeat of ISIS and Al Qaeda. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have made Americans care less about the plight of the innocent people in those areas, and more just concerned with how to prevent terrorism from hitting home. The scary part of ISIS is not that they now control 1/3 of Iraq and Syria, it is that there hundreds of young men with western passports fighting with and being radicalized by ISIS.
A real solution to the Cuba/Castro situation. Yes, the previous policy wasn’t working, but the way in which the Obama administration went about opening up relations with the Castros garnered little trust that the Castros will give up anything in return.
I would argue that the more important difference is that we did not face any armed resistance from the populace to our long-term occupation of Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Sure, we were willing to stay, but our soldiers weren’t being blown up as they patrolled the streets of Tokyo or Frankfurt.
I agree with you that we should have stayed in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the situation we faced in those two countries is really not analogous to that which we faced in our post-WWII occupations.
It is?
Sorry I don’t see it.
What’s so exceptional about this period? What’s so important to any of us about …Yemen, or Syria or NK? What do I care? It doesn’t affect me in the slightest bit.
Not to mention that none of it is “exceptional” in any way. Yemen? I’m supposed to think the US is in an “exceptional” danger because of Yemen? Yemen has always been in civil war.
Quite the opposite I would say the US is in an “exceptional” period of economic growth, where the rest of the world no longer looks so attractive to investors, but the US…because of its stability and growth…looks very attractive.
PS: What about ebola? Why did we all forget about ebola all of a sudden? Come on! My favorite non-story scare-story for cheap political points.
PPS: We won the November elections? Why are the scare stories coming back? I would have expected something like this in October 2014, but now it’s too late.
I’m pretty sure I read this exact quote on Sept. 10, 2001, or is that just dejá vu?
Our founders saw this guy before, and wrote the Constitution in response.
In the meantime, America has proven itself incapable of dong any of the above. COIN etc could have worked, theoretically. But it’s not going to.
Yes, very sad indeed.
There’s a major logical fallacy in there somewhere. I just can’t figure out which one is the biggest one to pick.
Obama is the petulant boy-king who will raze the cities and salt the earth if the peasants oppose him. I used to think that the United States was strong enough to withstand one delusional President, but I remain shocked at just how much damage this one man has done to our nation.
Wasn’t Mitt Romney’s campaign slogan ‘Believe in America’? I thought it was great, but the problem is that now so many people are uncomfortable with that ‘patriotism’ stuff.
Left and right see America differently, so when we say we love America we are talking about different things.
Yes, so right.
The right sees America as it has been historically and this includes the aspirations of all Americans from the founding of the country.
The left — if it talks about America in a positive manner at all — is talking about 1) getting rid of all the historical values and 2) replacing everything with their new vision — as in Obama’s fundamentally transforming America.
As Dennis Prager often points out: if you love someone you don’t start by telling them that you want to fundamentally transform them. You love them for what they are — in the main. The Utopian or perfection standard is presented as being possible (which it’s not and if it is it won’t be put in place by the mass murdering leftists) and when they are given power they will cram it down our throats.
This is because Germany and Japan were thoroughly defeated. We had different goals in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it showed.
BDB- I agree, but that’s sort of my point. The situations were not analogous.