I don't always agree with Ralph Peters, but I think
his latest piece has some useful observations and analyses, even though it is harsh and overstated in places, and tends to ramble. Essentially, Peters argues that the president pandered to an
Islamist-oriented regime in Turkey out of general naivete, and a lack of understanding about the Turkish situation in particular.
in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.
Conceding that Obama has good intentions, like Jimmy Carter, Peters writes
the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions -- coupled with distressing naivete.
Exactly. That's my biggest fear about Obama in terms of foreign policy. Peter's argues that
Obama's spineless diplomacy had the following result:
he gave his seal of approval to a pungently anti-American Islamist government bent on overturning Mustapha Kemal's legacy of the separation of mosque and state.
Peters blames
Obama's missteps on bad advice from the State Department,
appeasement artists who understand neither Turkey, Islam nor the crises raging between the Bosporus and the Indus. State's answer is always "More love, more humility, more aid."
That sounds about right. When is the State Department ever in favor of taking a hard-line approach to any diplomatic situation? Appeasement is usually the first and favorite option.
I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe
Me either.
Obama's apologizing for the U.S. and bending over backward is getting old -- and he hasn't even been in office very long. But then Peters writes,
Obama omitted any mention of Turkey's wartime betrayals of our troops, its continuing oppression of its Kurd minority or the AKP's determination to turn a state with a secular constitution into a Wahhabi playground...When it came to the Armenian genocide, Obama bravely ducked: He never dared use the g-word.
Here's where I disagree with Peters. A state visit to Turkey isn't the time to publicly air grievances about how the Turks knifed us in the back during the run-up to the Iraq War. What good would that do? Issues of military cooperation should be discussed privately. Peter's argues that Turkey's quest to join the EU is none of our business and we should stay out of it. I agree. The Turks don't deserve our support. But given that position, how is Turkish oppression of minorities or their structure of government any of our business? And slamming Obama for not mentioning the Armenian genocide is ridiculous. What possible good would it do to bring up an old wound as part of the visit? Do the Ottoman Empire's actions back in 1915 really matter to U.S.-Turkish relations today? Attacking Obama for weakness is one thing, but being stupid and unnecessarily offensive wouldn't be any better.
> I, for one, don't think our country has anything to apologize for, either to Turkey or to Europe
ReplyDeleteIt's not so much Turkey and Europe specifically as it is most of the World. Other countries definitely think we have apologizing to do, and so did 95+ percent of the people who voted Obama into office, I hazard to guess.
> Obama's apologizing for the U.S. and bending over backward is getting old -- and he hasn't even been in office very long
Undoing the last 8 years of damage will take time, but I'm sure he'd like to get it over with ASAP. So I don't blame him for stepping on the gas a little while pulling this reverse.
"Other countries definitely think we have apologizing to do"
ReplyDeleteWho cares? Countries aren't people in a social club. We shouldn't expect apologies from other countries, and we shouldn't apologize for acting in our own national interest. Most of the people that don't like us will continue to not like us regardless.
" so did 95+ percent of the people who voted Obama into office, I hazard to guess."
Yeah, and that was an excellent reason not to vote for him.
"Undoing the last 8 years of damage will take time"
Doing more damage can be done pretty quickly.
> we shouldn't apologize for acting in our own national interest.
ReplyDeleteDo you suppose Bush's domestic and worldwide approval ratings were piss-poor because he was acting in the national interest?
> Doing more damage can be done pretty quickly.
Let's just say that Obama doing more damage than Bush isn't a possibility that should be keeping anyone up at night unless they're a wingnut with no perspective.
"Do you suppose Bush's domestic and worldwide approval ratings were piss-poor because he was acting in the national interest?"
ReplyDeleteDomestic approval is entirely different.
"Let's just say that Obama doing more damage than Bush isn't a possibility that should be keeping anyone up at night unless they're a wingnut with no perspective."
You must be joking. Things can always be made worse.
> Domestic approval is entirely different.
ReplyDeleteFor some value of 'different', but Bush's job approval was low well before the domestic economy took precedence over his international blunders.
> You must be joking. Things can always be made worse.
And life on Earth could always be destroyed by a large asteroid or $INSERT_FAVORITE_DOOMSDAY_SCENARIO.
It's no joke to see Obama as far more qualified in international matters than Bush. Heck, Bush didn't even know what the G20 is.
"And life on Earth could always be destroyed by a large asteroid or $INSERT_FAVORITE_DOOMSDAY_SCENARIO."
ReplyDeleteI can list all sorts of things that could happen, all way more probable than a doomsday scenario.
"It's no joke to see Obama as far more qualified in international matters than Bush.
It's not a joke but it's not too clear either. He hasn't been in office long enough yet. Obama has no qualifications at all. He has zero experience. Just because he appears to have more general competence than Bush, doesn't mean he can't make horrible mistakes. Who knows how Obama will react to a major foreign policy crisis.