"Smart Power" Isn't Smart or Powerful

Hillary Clinton made the laughable claim that the U.S. is employing "smart power" with regard to Libya and Syria. With all the focus on President Obama's miserable handling of domestic policy, it's always worth reminding people that this administration is almost as clueless when it comes to foreign affairs. Here's Clinton on what she thinks we are doing in Libya.

Libya was a study in the use of "strategic patience," whereby the United States resisted the impulse for immediate intervention and instead helped to build support for the country's nascent opposition, which the U.S. now recognizes as Libya's legitimate government. She said the unprecedented NATO-Arab alliance protecting civilians on the ground was a key result of the tactics of smart power.

Here's what we are actually doing in Libya. Despite already being involved in two wars, fighting Islamist terrorists across the globe, and mired in an economic mess, we decided to intervene in the Libyan civil war. This intervention was completely unnecessary, particularly given that Britain and France were already going to intervene. Not only did we do so anyway, but we created a terrible precedent at the UN by signing on to a resolution that could easily be directed against America in the future. In addition, once in the war, we refused to win it by taking the obvious action of trying to eliminate Gaddafi. We are basically helping prolong a civil war, wasting money, and keeping forces tied down in yet another open-ended commitment. If that's a smart use of American power, I'd hate to see a dumb one.

In Syria, we are doing essentially nothing. In my opinion that's actually pretty smart. But it has nothing to do with exercising some sort of power. We are refusing to employ our power at all. Hillary Clinton even thinks it would be going too far if we called for Assad to step down. And then there's this gem from the Secretary of State that demonstrates yet again how Obama's foreign policy is based primarily on naivete and wishful thinking.

"I think this is smart power, where it is not just brute force, it is not just unilateralism," she said. "It is being smart enough to say you know what we want a bunch of people signing out of the same hymn book and we want them singing a song of universal freedom, human rights, democracy, everything that we have stood for and pioneered over 235 years."

Brute force is an actual application of power. It can be smart or it can be dumb. It depends how and why it is employed. Doing things unilaterally is sometimes necessary and can also be smart, and in American interests -- which aren't exactly a priority for the Obama administration. What is "universal freedom" supposed to be? Maybe it's the same thing as "a universal set of values and interests."

"The United States stands for our values, our interests and our security, but we have a very clear view that others need to be taking the same steps to enforce a universal set of values and interests,"

There is obviously no such thing as universal values or interests. But Clinton wants to "enforce" them somehow. Hopefully we can replace the Obama administration with one that at least grasps the basic fact that different states have different interests, and that values vary wildly across the globe.

Sending the Wrong Message on Egypt

After initially remaining silent with regard to the Egyptian situation, the Obama administration decided to send exactly the wrong message. According to MSNBC, the administration will "review its $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt." In addition, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly criticized the Mubarak regime.

"We are deeply concerned about the use of violence by Egyptian police and security forces against protesters, and we call on the Egyptian government to do everything in its power to restrain the security forces," ... "We urge the Egyptian authorities to allow peaceful protests and to reverse the unprecedented steps it has taken to cut off communication," Clinton said. "These protests underscore that there are deep grievances within Egyptian society, and the Egyptian government needs to understand that violence will not make these grievances go away."

She called for the government to,

"engage immediately" with opposition groups and others to make broad economic, political and social changes.

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me to see this level of Carteresque stupidity and diplomatic incompetence from the Obama administration. The last thing we should be doing is trying to undermine an allied regime. We should be reassuring Mubarak of our support, and making nothing more than bland statements of regret for the violence and unrest. Telling Mubarak that he should "engage" with those who want to overthrow his regime is complete idiocy, as is dropping hints that we are going to cut-off support. We are pushing him to do the things that will loosen his grip and cause his government to collapse. It's almost as if the administration wants to see another hostile Islamic republic in the Middle East. They obviously don't, but their foolish statements and attempts to triangulate make the downfall of Mubarak more likely.

Diplomatic Stupidity - Hillary Edition

One of the main benefits of the New START treaty -- possibly the only benefit -- is its effect on maintaining decent relations with Russia. After pushing hard for the treaty, the administration, along with some European allies, turned right around and damaged relations with Russia for no good reason.

If you haven't followed the case, Russia just convicted a major oil tycoon, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, of theft and money laundering. Critics of the Russian government at home and abroad see it as a politically-motivated prosecution. It may well be. But what does it have to do with the U.S.? For some reason Hillary Clinton issued a statement on Monday "saying the oligarch's conviction raised 'serious questions about selective prosecution - and about the rule of law being overshadowed by political considerations.'" She also said that "the case had a 'negative impact on Russia's reputation for fulfilling its international human rights obligations and improving its investment climate.'"Britian and Germany took similar positions. Naturally the Russians were not happy.

a foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow said: "Judgements about some kind of selective application of justice in Russia are without foundation." He added: "We are counting on everyone minding his own business – both at home, and in the international arena."

This case is a prime example of diplomatic stupidity in action. How Russia prosecutes cases against Russians is clearly an internal matter for that country. The Russian spokesman is correct. By interfering in Russia's internal affairs the U.S. gains absolutely nothing. Making a public statement criticizing Russia is entirely counterproductive. Not only does it invite other countries to critique how the U.S. applies its own laws, but it does nothing to help Russians such as Khodorkovsky. By making such a statement, Hillary Clinton has practically guaranteed that Russia will take a hard line in support of its own legal system. The bottom line is that A) it's none of our business, and B) intefering is not in the interests of the U.S. So why interfere?

Even Hillary Clinton Understands that Wikileaks is an Enemy of the U.S

Here's the Secretary of State,

``This disclosure is not just an attack on America's foreign policy interests,'' Mrs. Clinton said, ``it is an attack on the international community: the alliances and partnerships, the conversations and negotiations that safeguard global security and advance economic prosperity.''

``It puts people's lives in danger, threatens our national security and undermines our efforts to work with other countries to solve shared problems,''

As I've been arguing, Wikileaks is not a journalist organization, it's an enemy entity targeting the United States. Hillary Clinton is claiming that it is also an attack on the mythical "international community." It isn't. The target is clearly the U.S. But the secretary is obviously attempting to build international support for suppression efforts aimed at Wikileaks. With that in mind, casting the attack as an assault on the international system of diplomacy is a reasonable tactic.

But words aren't enough. The Obama administration is big on talking. In fact, it puts great faith in diplomacy, "engagement," and so-called "smart power" or "soft power." The Obama approach to foreign policy -- even more than most -- is directly undermined by leaks which reveal candid assessments, gamesmanship, private conversations and all sorts of other information which diplomats and leaders expected would never see the light of day. Like other leaks, it reinforces the perception that the U.S. government simply can't be trusted to keep secrets secret. When you know someone can't keep a secret, you naturally become much more guarded and wary in your conversations.

Some have attempted to dismiss this leak as much ado about nothing, or at least see the concern as overblown. I'm one of the first to cry "much ado about nothing" in many cases, but this isn't one of them. Anyone who knows how foreign policy and diplomacy operate has to understand the serious damage of these leaks. Hillary Clinton is exactly right when she calls the Wikileak's action an attack. But recognizing an enemy attack is one thing, responding to it effectively and eliminating the possibility of future attacks is another. Let's see if the Obama administration does anything beyond talk.

North Korea is Probably Laughing

Somehow I doubt the North Korean leadership is shaking with fear after the administration trotted out Hillary Clinton to give a speech in response to the unprovoked sinking of a South Korean ship.

"This will not be and cannot be business as usual. There must be an international — not just a regional, but an international — response," she told a press conference in Tokyo

Wow, an "international response." That's pretty frightening.

While it was "premature" to discuss exact options or actions that will be taken, Clinton said it was "important to send a clear message to North Korea that provocative actions have consequences."

Yeah, but in Obama world, "consequences" means a mildly harsh talking-to. The spineless Obama administration, with its instinctual desire to appease, does not scare anyone -- let alone a rogue state such as North Korea. Obama & Hillary can't even summon up the courage to call an obvious act of war an act of war -- even while North Korea routinely screams threats.

U.S. officials have refused to call the North's attack on the ship an act of war or state-sponsored terror, warning that an overreaction could cause the Korean peninsula to "explode." Instead, they said they would explore diplomatic steps through the U.N. or increase Washington's unilateral sanctions against North Korea's Soviet-style state.

Projection of weakness -- it's the Obama way.

So what should be done? As I've argued before, the North Koreans respect one thing and one thing only: overwhelming force and the willingness to use it. Communications from the U.S. to North Korea should be in the form of clear, unmistakable threats -- something the communist thugs running the country will understand. At a minimum, the North should be put on notice that since their submarine force has initiated an act of war against the South, from now on any North Korean submarine detected outside its home waters will be treated as a deadly threat to navigation and sunk without warning. This edict will continue until North Korea apologizes for the sinking, pays compensation and agrees to refrain from further incidents in the future. In addition we should hold direct, private talks with North Korean leaders and make our policies clear and unambiguous in the event that they decide to start a war -- so there is no misunderstanding. The North should be told in no uncertain terms that if they initiate a war, we will use our full power to crush their state forever, including directly targeting and killing the communist leadership. Any offensive use of nuclear weapons will be answered with the utter annihilation of North Korea.

The reason North Korea can act as it does is that it feels it can get away with it -- particularly with a weak president in charge of the U.S. A state willing to starve its own population to build its military doesn't fear the type of weak & ineffective sanctions that Clinton's threatened "international response" might entail. With China as its patron, its nuclear weapons, the U.S. occupied in the Middle East, and its ability to threaten Seoul, it feels it can do whatever it wants with little serious consequence. And so far it has been proven correct. Unfortunately I have no confidence whatsoever that the Obama administration will do anything to change that equation, and is far more likely to embolden the North further.

Laughing at Hillary & Obama

It's hard not to laugh when reading front page news today about Hillary, Obama & Iran. It's a carnival of foreign policy cluelessness. Here's Hillary,

“We see that the government in Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving towards a military dictatorship.”

From this quote it appears that Clinton actually thinks the current government has some sort of legitimacy, and that we should worry about it being supplanted, as if it were just some normal state rather than a theocracy that conducted a sham election, and is currently engaged in a vicious repression of dissent.

she reiterated that the United States had no plans to carry out a military strike against the Iranian government.

Yeah, that's real smart. We are trying to pressure them on their nuclear program, but let's tell them that the only thing they actually fear isn't going to happen.

Her comments on Monday underscored the Obama administration’s determination to single out the elite corps as a way to curb Iran’s nuclear program.

Translation: They don't have the slightest idea what to do. Appeasement hasn't worked, and they are looking for some narrow way to impose sanctions and pretend they are actually doing something.

“We have bent over backwards to say to the Islamic Republic of Iran that we are willing to have a constructive conversation about how they can align themselves with international norms and rules and re-enter as full members of the international community,” Mr. Obama said in a news conference last Tuesday. “They have made their choice so far.”

Yes you have. And it was pretty stupid. How about waking up? Obama still hasn't figured out that Iran isn't worried about the so-called "international community." Their entire policy toward Iran is a big joke, and they still don't get it. 

Controversial Muslim Scholars Unbanned from US

The Obama administration, in the person of Hillary Clinton, has lifted the travel ban on Tariq Ramadan of Oxford University, and Adam Habib of Johannesburg University. Although they were banned for alleged ties to terrorism, a state department spokesman said that neither of them "represent a threat" to the U.S. The ACLU, which has been advocating a removal of the ban, is overjoyed.

"The orders ending the exclusion of Adam Habib and Tariq Ramadan are long overdue and tremendously important," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project, saying this was "a major victory for civil liberties."

"For several years, the United States government was more interested in stigmatizing and silencing its foreign critics than in engaging them. The decision ... is a welcome sign the Obama administration is committed to facilitating rather than obstructing the exchange of ideas across international borders."

I have no problem with removing the ban. It's unlikely that a couple of academics pose any sort of threat, and the FBI can always keep them under surveillance and arrest them if necessary. If they do have ties to terrorists, watching them might actually provide some leads. Having said that, I find the ACLU's position pretty laughable. 

There's nothing "tremendously important" about whether or not we allow a couple of foreign academics into the country. As for the "exchange of ideas across international borders," we've got plenty of people making excuses for terrorists, and spreading anti-American propaganda right here in the U.S. It's not like we need to import any of those ideas. It's highly unlikely that these two professors have anything in particular to add that hasn't been covered by others. Even if they did, it's ridiculous to pretend that they have to be physically present in the U.S. for their ideas to be heard. And finally, this decision has nothing whatsoever to do with "civil liberties." Neither academic is a U.S. citizen, and the U.S. has every right to determine which aliens it lets into the country. This is just another example of the ACLU losing sight of its core mission of protecting the rights of Americans. 

"New" Policy on Iran

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the Obama administration has a new stance toward Iran. Have they given up on negotiation and decided to impose sanctions? Could they be supporting efforts to undermine the regime and force a change? Might they even be considering some sort of military move? No, no, and of course not. Here's the earth-shattering new policy,

The Obama administration has settled on a policy of speaking out modestly but regularly against human rights violations in Iran, even as it continues to focus on Tehran’s nuclear program and the fading hopes of a dialogue with the Iranian regime.

Speaking out "modestly"? Wow, that will show the mullahs and Ahmadinejad. They'll be quaking with fear when they hear about this new policy. I guess that's why Obama and Secretary of State Clinton will only speak out modestly, they don't want to scare the Iranian leadership too badly.

Our current policy on Iraq is centered on empty talk and wishful thinking. This new policy will continue the old policy but add in some more empty talk -- but not too much -- just a modest amount. For some reason this is currently the lead story at the Christian Science Monitor site. I guess with Christmas around the corner, there just isn't too much going on.

No Surprise in Iran

Wow, Iran has a secret nuclear facility. Who would have guessed? Anyone with the slightest clue has known for years that Iran is attempting to create the capability to produce nuclear weapons. Of course they are concealing aspects of their nuclear program for obvious reasons. Yet we've had to endure a parade of useful idiots telling us that maybe Iran really does just want peaceful nuclear power. We can talk to them. We can make a deal.  You know, all the other nonsense regularly put forth by the appeasement crowd. Will this new "revelation" finally convince them to abandon their naivete and wishful thinking? Will they wake up and understand that the regime in Tehran can't be trusted to abide by any agreement? Probably not. 

An article in the LA Times notes that during the presidential primaries, Hilary Clinton called Obama's position on Iran and other rogue states "irresponsible" & "naive," clear evidence that Clinton has been right at least once on foreign policy. The writer also points out the responses of Obama, Sarkozy, and Brown to the formerly secret nuclear facility. Here's Obama,

Obama warned that unless Iran acts immediately, punishment will be swift. "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," he said.

I'm sure that got a big laugh in Iran. Our enemies aren't scared of the president in the slightest -- and for good reason. Next up, Sarkozy.  

"everything must be put on the table," and that if by December Iran has not reformed, sanctions will be imposed.

No! Not sanctions! No doubt the mullahs are quaking in their robes. And then there is Gordon Brown.

"the international community must draw a line in the sand."

Translation: we are going to do what we do best -- talk.

Pandering to our Enemies, Punishing our Friends

The Obama administration continues to demonstrate its foreign policy incompetence today, by cutting off aid to Honduras in support of ex-president Zelaya, a friend of every leftist enemy of the U.S. in Latin America. Rather than congratulate Honduras for ousting him, the Obama administration has steadfastly sided with our enemies in the region, using the ridiculous pretext that Honduras has failed "to restore democratic, constitutional rule."

The removal of Zelaya, a would-be Chavez-like strongman, was at least arguably in accord with Honduras' "democratic, constitutional rule," as if that should be any concern of the U.S. at all. What should concern us is whether or not the Honduran government pursues policies favorable to U.S. interests -- something that is (or was until we aligned ourselves against them) much more likely with the current regime than an ally of Chavez such as Zelaya. And since when do we predicate aid on "democratic, constitutional rule"? If that was a significant criteria for foreign aid we'd be giving out a whole lot less of it.

Rather than standing up for U.S. interests and backing the new government of Honduras, or at the very least staying out of Honduran internal affairs, the Obama administration has yet again revealed its willingness to pander to our enemies while taking a tough line against our friends. Obama (and Hillary Clinton) probably think that currying favor with the leftist leaders of Latin America will pay some sort of dividends. It won't. They are no doubt just laughing at American weakness, and our unwillingness to recognize our own interests. 

Hillary "Revolutionizing" U.S. Foreign Policy?

So says David Rothkopf writing in the Washington Post. I read Rothkopf's columns at foreignpolicy.com pretty regularly, and normally find him one of their better analysts. But this particular article is basically just assertions without much evidence.  Rothkopf makes some sweeping statements, which he fails to back up.  

what is Clinton actually doing? Only overseeing what may be the most profound changes in U.S. foreign policy in two decades -- a transformation that may render the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush mere side notes in a long transition to a meaningful post-Cold War worldview.

Really? What profound changes? He's pretty short on details. Most of the things he mentions are nothing special, and things any administration and secretary of state would be doing.

The secretary has quietly begun rethinking the very nature of diplomacy and translating that vision into a revitalized State Department

Rethinking the very nature of diplomacy? Hmm, that's sounds like ridiculous hyperbole. Again, what does that mean? He even throws in a strange assertion about Obama.  

More unusual has been the avidity with which the new president has seized the reins of foreign policy

That's funny. Many think Obama is far more interested in domestic affairs and generally clueless about foreign policy. Obama has done very little other than irritate some of our allies, and pander to our enemies. Some of his positives moves, such as outreach to developing powers like India, are continuations of things done by the Bush administration. We have two wars going on, and Obama's vision is apparently to close his eyes and try and make Iraq go away in 2011, and keep escalating in Afghanistan -- not exactly great innovations.

In searching for answers, Clinton is leaving behind old doctrines and labels.

Yeah, pretty much like every new administration and secretary of state. When things change, new doctrines and labels are necessary. The whole article reads like a puff piece glorifying Obamariffic hope & change in foreign policy. It's hard to even take it seriously. I was actually laughing out loud at parts of it. Toward the end of the piece Rothkopf returns to reality by noting,

It is still early, and a president's foreign policy legacy is often defined less by big principles than by how one reacts to the unexpected, whether missiles in Cuba or terrorism in New York. Promising ideas fail because of limited attention or reluctant bureaucracies, and some rhetoric eventually rings hollow, as the self-congratulatory "smart power" already does to me.

No kidding. It would have been nice if he'd remembered that before he wrote all the ridiculous fluff that precedes it. You love Hillary & Obama. Fine, just say so, without jumping to all sorts of wild conclusions about a revolution in the "very nature" of foreign policy.

Clinton Helps Block Terrorist Release

Every once in awhile, in between lying and demonizing the opposition, the Obama administration actually does something right. The Scottish government was actually planning to release Abdul Baset Ali al-Megrahi to Libya. Al-Megrahi is the convicted so-called "Lockerbie Bomber," responsible for blowing up Pan Am flight 103 in 1988, killing 259 people. He has "advanced prostate cancer" and Scotland had made a deal to send him back to Libya as a "compassionate release," an obviously controversial decision.

According to the Times Online, pressure from the Obama administration in the the form of "the intervention of Hillary Clinton" has killed the deal. Al-Megrahi will remain in prison. He should have been executed a long time ago, but of course that would just be too uncivilized. Thanks to Hillary, it looks like he will at least die in captivity.

Hillary on Iran

At an event in Asia today, Secretary of State Clinton talked about the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea. With regard to Iran she said that the U.S. would,

consider extending a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran does not heed calls to halt its nuclear weapons program.

She later clarified that there was no change in the administration's policy of pretending that it can talk Iran out of its nuclear program.

Some have pounced on her remarks. Niles Gardiner, writing in the Telegraph, says she's "sending the wrong signal."

There is very little evidence to suggest the United States under Obama is actively seeking to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions through a credible threat of force. Nor has there been a sustained effort to significantly strengthen international sanctions against Tehran. The Clinton/Obama approach to the Iranian nuclear issue is flawed, weak and far too trusting in the intentions of a vicious adversary.

All true. But my take is different from Gardiner's. Clinton's statement, assuming it is backed by Obama, appears to be an acknowledgement of reality. The U.S. is not going to talk Iran out of its nuclear program, or get rid of it with international sanctions. And any sort of direct U.S. military action is highly unlikely and probably counterproductive. Barring an Israeli nuclear first strike, the complete collapse of the regime, or some other major unforeseen change, it appears that Iran will most likely achieve the nuclear capability it is working toward. A policy of deterrence is the only viable option. Maybe it's a bit too soon to be putting it forward publicly. I'm sure the administration wants to keep up its pretense that talks could solve the problem. But overall, Clinton seeming to understand that talk won't get the job done is a good thing. It seems to indicate that at least the administration isn't bent on deceiving itself about Iran.

Obama Administration Does Something Right

There's been plenty to bash the administration for lately, but it deserves credit for advancing U.S.-India relations. Secretary of State Clinton's visit has paid off. India & the U.S. today announced a new agreement that will "pave the way for greater defence cooperation." The Indian Prime Minister is now scheduled to make a state visit to the U.S. in November.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the new deal "could bring American defense contractors and power companies billions of dollars in business." Despite failure to agree on climate change measures, and assorted details, the Obama administration in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular, should be commended for pushing forward and securing an important agreement with India. There was some fear that the Obama administration would neglect India in its focus on Pakistan. It's good to see that hasn't happened.

Great Opportunity for What?

The headline on the Drudge Report at the moment is, "Crisis is a Great Opportunity." Some right-wing blogs (for example) have been pushing a conspiracy theory that Obama is deliberately destroying the economy in order to enact a sweeping left-wing agenda. I find that ridiculous. The way I see it, Obama has no idea what to do about the economy, is listening primarily to left-of-center economists, and really believes that his measures are the best solutions. 

But when Obama says things like,

"Yes, this is a moment of challenge for our country," Obama said. "But we've experienced great trials before. And with every test, each generation has found the capacity to not only endure, but to prosper - to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis."

You have to ask: what great opportunity is  he talking about? An opportunity for what? There's obviously no evidence that he's deliberately trying to worsen the crisis -- the opposite is far more likely -- but these kind of statements fuel conspiracy-theory thinking, and leave the administration open to charges that it's manipulating a national crisis situation for political gain. Along with Obama himself, you have Secretary of State Clinton making the comment that we should "never waste a good crisis." A good crisis? What's good about it? They might as well be asking for people to question their motives, if they are going to throw out these kinds of ill-advised statements.

Useless Diplomacy

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea today against launching any missiles, according to ABC News. Clinton said that if North Korea follows through on its plans, that would

damage its prospects for improved relations with the United States and the world.

Yeah, I'm sure North Korea is really impressed with that warning. No doubt improved relations with the U.S is high on their list of priorities. Clinton also noted that a missile launch would be "very unhelpful in moving our relationship forward." What relationship? While the Secretary of State is making these useless statements, the North Koreans are busy threatening us with "destruction," and claiming that they haven't made

a concession despite threat and blackmail from the U.S. nor will make one in the future"

Why do we insist on pretending that North Korea is anything other than a hostile nation run by a deranged dictator? Diplomatic efforts aimed at North Korea are totally useless, and merely encourage Kim Jong Ill and his cronies to keep doing what they are doing, in the hope that they can extract concessions from U.S. administrations stupid enough to give them something. Anyone who trusts a single word out of North Korea, let alone makes some sort of agreement with them and actually expects it to be honored, is a complete idiot.

North Korea doesn't need to be "engaged" or talked to; it needs to be contained & deterred. Our diplomacy in that regard should be directed at China, with the intention of making it very clear to the Chinese that we expect them to maintain a certain degree of control over their insane client state. As a rational actor, we expect China to prevent the insanity of North Korea from spilling over its borders. As long as they keep Kim Jong Ill on a short leash, there will be no need for U.S. involvement - a win/win for both the U.S. and China. 

Hillary as Sec. of State?

It appears that Hillary will accept the position. As with most politics, this is a lesser of evils situation. Obama isn't going to pick anyone I, or most Republicans approve of.  The other most talked about candidate was John Kerry. Given a choice between Kerry & Clinton, I'll take Clinton any day.