The Obama Doctrine Exposed


On Monday, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for his administration’s disastrous handling of American foreign policy, which has had catastrophic consequences — most recently in the form of the heinous attacks against our embassies in Libya and Egypt. To understand what happened in Benghazi or in Cairo requires more than poking around the rubble, wiping off some of the ashes and pronouncing the whole thing a tragedy. The German invasion of Poland wasn’t the tragedy; the Munich Agreement was. Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks, but the foreign policy that caused them to happen.

The underlying philosophy Romney pointed to, the Obama Doctrine, has often been described as appeasement, but that’s a vague and general criticism. The Munich Agreement was appeasement, but the Obama Doctrine goes beyond anything as simple as appeasing as a single nation’s territorial ambitions.

The Obama Doctrine sought to resolve the War on Terror by dividing Islamists into two camps: the moderate political Islamists and the extremist violent Islamists. These categorizations were wholly artificial and everyone from Obama on down knew how artificial the differences between the so-called extremists and moderates were.

In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood had transitioned the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from the status of violent extremists allied with Al Qaeda to political Islamists committed to political reforms. That did not actually make the LIFG, which exploited its newfound moderate status and the freedom that came with it to go on fighting Gaddafi as part of the civil war, non-violent. The difference between the Al Qaeda-affiliated LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated LIFG was a few pieces of paper.

But the gruesome absurdity of the whole thing was laid out plainly for all to see in Afghanistan. The plan for Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban, though that was how it was sold to the American people, it was to divide the Taliban into moderates willing to engage in a democratic political process and extremists who would be defeated and isolated.

The Afghanistan surge, which cost nearly 1,500 American lives, was a brute force mechanism for engineering a divide that was supposed to result in the military defeat of the Taliban and their transformation into a political party. The Taliban would be free to lock up Afghan girls again, so long as they did it after winning a democratic election.

The Muslim Brotherhood was called in to oversee negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, as it had between Gaddafi and the LIFG, but unlike the LIFG, the Taliban showed no interest in following the Muslim Brotherhood’s devious route to political power.

The difference between Afghanistan and the Arab Spring countries is that those countries had strong governments capable of suppressing Islamist groups and forcing them to resort to the political process to accomplish what they could not manage through violence. However Obama’s withdrawal timetable made it clear to the Taliban that all they had to do to win in Afghanistan was wait him out.

“Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich,” Hitler told his generals. The Taliban commanders have likely shared a similar opinion of Obama’s coterie of amateur peacemakers and of the great man himself.

1,500 American soldiers died in Afghanistan to improve Obama’s leverage in his failed bid to transform the Taliban into a political party. It is hard to think of any aspect of his foreign policy more hideously repulsive than this simple fact.

The greatest error of the Obama Doctrine lay in assuming that the political path and the military path represented a fundamental and irreconcilable parting of the ways between moderates and extremists, when they were actually just two approaches for seizing power. Hitler used the political process to come to power, but then went back to the same old tactics to stay in power and to expand his power base.

The Obama Doctrine depended on moving as many Islamists as possible from the military camp to the political camp, assuming that they could not then go back or would not want to. But just as there was no barrier preventing violent Islamists from turning political, there was no barrier preventing political Islamists from turning violent. A totalitarian ideology need not turn its back on violence to participate in the political process.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations” made its ends clear without specifying how they had to be achieved. The political revolution or the suicide bombing were two means to the same end.

Obama attempted to use the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve his objective of ending the War on Terror by isolating the violent Islamists and bringing them over into the ranks of the political Islamists. But the rise of Salafist violence in countries taken over by political Islamists has rekindled the War on Terror. North Africa is burning and the Islamists are the ones holding the torch.

The attacks of September 11, 2012, showed that not only had Al Qaeda not been defeated, but that the Islamist takeovers of Benghazi, Tunisia and Egypt had actually given it more freedom to operate. The overthrows of Gaddafi and Mubarak had left the security of the Benghazi consulate and the Cairo embassy in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Muslim Brotherhood has always been at war with the United States.

Obama had taken credit for the Arab Spring and the defeat of Al Qaeda, but the attacks were a reminder that Al Qaeda was not defeated and that the governments of the Arab Spring now had him at their mercy. The plan to divide the Muslim Brotherhood from the other Salafists had failed. Instead it had put the Muslim Brotherhood into the position of being the brokers of the Salafist violence, offering their protection against the “extremists” even while letting them do their worst.

In North Africa, the Obama Doctrine put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and despite their current “moderate” political status, it will take a coup, a revolt or a war to get them out again. In Afghanistan, the Obama Doctrine squandered 1,500 lives to create a moderate Taliban while losing the war. In the Middle East it has destroyed every peace process that Israel has engaged in. All of these are the overlooked tragedies that will lead to true bloodshed.

Like Chamberlain, Obama’s appeasement has given an aggressive supremacist ideology a confidence boost and a deep foothold in vital strategic territories, while dismantling and demoralizing allies. The Islamist program has moved ahead a generation, far faster than its leaders ever dared to anticipate. Osama Bin Laden is dead, but his phase of terrorist attacks is outdated now that Islamist parties and militias control entire countries that are far richer and better armed than Afghanistan.

The Obama Doctrine has been implemented and its net result has been to accelerate an inevitable war by a generation, and as the two-thousandth soldier killed in Afghanistan returns home in a flag-draped coffin, that victim of Obama’s cynical politics of appeasement is one of a number that may one day fall into the millions.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Chezwick

    Friends, I'm 100% for Romney over a plethora of issues, the most relevant of which is structural deficits. I think Obama's foreign policy HAS been disastrous, including his handling of Britain, Israel, Colombia and Hondurous (allies) and his appeasement of Russia, China, and Islam (adversaries).

    Nonetheless, one of Barry's real, actual accomplishments was getting us the hell out of Iraq….and furthermore, Romney's stated desire to prolong our stay in Afghanistan is very worrisome. How many of our best and brightest need to be murdered by their Afghan "allies" before we realize that this sh*t-hole of a country is not worth the blood and treasure we're expending.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

      Do you realize how they are suffering violence because of our scheduled withdrawl?
      If the time was right for pulling out, notifying the enemies like Iran that there was a vacuum in security wasn't a smart move

      • Chezwick

        I'd much rather they be killing each other (as in Iraq) than killing Americans (as in Afghanistan). The idea that we're going to somehow civilize these Islamic hellholes in a few short years and magically end their ancient, confessional hatreds…is just absurd.

        If our efforts had built secular, democratic regimes (or secular regimes of ANY type), that would be one thing, but to send our young men over there to die for SHARIA???…which is encoded in both the new Iraqi AND Afghan constitutions? We've committed no greater folly in our history!

        The Lefties used to shout "no more blood and treasure for oil". I say: "No more blood and treasure for Sharia"!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLNn2YflwNs Roger

          I didn't agree with Bush on that either.

          If we go in with troops, it needs to be for our best interests / defense issue. Afghanistan hosted Osama and wouldn't turn him over to us after 9/11. Iraq attempted to assassinate Bush 41 in Kuwait, that's an act of war.

          Why Bush didn't just say so and stomp them hard enough and say it was the will of allah that they submit is beyond me. It's the only thing muslim respect.

      • trickyblain

        Do you realize who scheduled the withdrawal?

    • ChevalierdeJohnstone

      It's easy to remove military forces from a foreign country, it's just a logistics problem that takes some time, money, and manpower. Obama didn't accomplish anything special in "getting us the hell out of Iraq". You think the U.S. military doesn't know how to pack up a cargo plane?

      The actual strategic plan for withdrawal, which was laid out by Obama and which he failed to deliver, was to sign a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq which would extend past 2011, obtaining basing rights to place a U.S. military presence there in order to represent U.S. interests in the region. Not to defend sharia or anything stupid like that, just, you know, "Hey the Iranian border is over there, Syria is over there – mind if we keep some planes and missiles here just in case? Mkay thanks." Obama completely failed to deliver on that strategy.

      The difference between Obama and Romney in Afghanistan is again on the method of withdrawal. Obama wants to pull out the bulk of U.S. forces in the middle of the fighting season, regardless of support from the Afghani "army", and of course that's a laughable concept but somebody providing cover fire is better than nobody. In fact, the U.S. military asked for far, far more troops to be sent in a "surge" to Afghanistan, specifically to be used to help shore up and provide security and breathing room in preparation for withdrawal, but Obama instead signed off on only about half the number asked for – so not enough to actually achieve any of the strategic objectives necessary to improve security of the withdrawal, but plenty more guys to go over and get blown up and shot at. So this means we pull out troops in an undersupported withdrawal in the middle of peak season for Taliban military operations. Sucks to be the last guy on the roof of the Hilton with no backup, while the helicopters are leaving and the bullets are flying at you, huh?

      Romney's plan is for a strategic withdrawal, coordinated with Afghani support and potentially additional U.S. military backup, at a time when U.S. assets and servicemen can be reasonably assured of being defended while they undertake the somewhat lengthy logistical process of packing up and leaving the country. So…yeah.

      Chezwick, there are no indulgences for being "100% for Romney" on other issues; this has nothing to do with party politics. Maybe it is true that this administration has been particularly mendacious in not telling the American people what's actually going on…but all the information is out there, it's public record. You don't appear to have any conceptual idea of the facts surrounding this issue. Do your homework next time.

    • http://teapartyreaganconservative.blogspot.com/ Sonny119

      Chezwick,. You're an idiot.. Did you hear one word that was written. It's about Obama, and what Obama's agenda entailed, into his implementation of that agenda. Like Hitler who had his own ambitions and agenda, Obama has his. Obama wants to the world controlled by the radical militant islamist fundamentalists, that includes America and Israel, which is all happening before our eyes, because Obama has the power to do so.

  • joe get

    "Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks".

    I wish people would stop referring to events such as these as "a tragedy". It was not a tragedy. It would be a tragedy if the ambassador was walking down the street, and was hit by a meteorite, or lightning.
    In this case, he was murdered. That's not a tragedy. It's a calculated move by muslim psychopaths.

  • oldtimer

    There should be, done secretly, a massive airlift of ALL American personnel out of Afganastan. Torch the equipment and everything else. Bring our people home, and let those barbarians kill themselves. AND don't tell 0, he'll announce it to the world.

  • Andy H.

    Hopefully, Romney will hit Obama in the next debate with all of this to let all Americans know what they didn't know before. If Obama came across autistic in the first debate, watch him completely fall apart when hit with a summary of his foreign policy which extends to domestic lunacy (left out by Mr. Greenfield in this excellent piece) – the forbidding of the uttering of the phrase "Islamic terrorist" or "Muslim terrorist," calling the Ft. Hood massacre “workplace violence,” etc.

  • Dean

    As a Canadian I see the Obama administration as a foreign government that is pro-Islamist in the same way that parts of Europe are pro-Islamist. It does not matter that Obama claims to be Christian because no Christian (except for some leftist Christians) will bend that far to accommodate Islamic terrorists who are changing the world to suit their totalitarian ideology. The left-wing press is either willfully blind/ignorant or is part of some conspiracy that involves western destruction as well as its own. It is very hard to fathom the length the press will go to put lipstick on a pig defecating on our freedoms, killing our troops and making us submit to their plans for our own annihilation.

    • Spider

      Well said Dean – I have the same take on this administration. It's whole goal is the desctruction of western (democratic / constitutional republic) culture and promotion of foreign totalitarian 3rd world culture using so called "fairness / social justice" as a guise.

    • Ar'nun

      Actually, the Obama administration may appear similar to the European Islamist appeasers but underneath it all it is much different. Obama feels a bit of a kinship to them. As if in order to set past wrongs right, he needs to give them whatever they want. Europeans Islamist appeasers do it out of a sense of compassion. They believe they are actually being charitable by giving them a place to migrate to and a little daylight to do as they wish. The European ideology behind it is mostly based in ignorance and compassion. Where Obama knows full well what it is the Islamists desire, and he wants in.

      Rev Wright, the man Obama claims brought him to Jesus, was a disgruntled member of the Nation of Islam. He left them because he would never be its leader and started his own church unopposed for Leadership. But his ideology is steeped in Islamist doctrines.

  • BLJ

    Having an agent of the Muslim Brotherhood as POTUS is not a good thing. Obama and the Left could care less about our military. They are just human fodder to them.

    The only thing Islamists respect is overwhelming force. They are never going to like us (like, not love). Their goal is to force Islam upon us or kill us. Our duty is to give them the dirt naps they deserve.

    Barrack HUSSEIN Obama is a traitor to the United States of America and should be dealt with as such.

    • Worried American

      AGREED WITH 100% HE BELONGS IN PRISON NOT IN OFFICE

  • WildJew

    Daniel, Romney in the White House I "believe" will be better for my own self-interests and for the nation's self interests. I am talk about this miserable economy that Obama is presiding over. That having been said, though Romney's foreign policy should be an improvement over Obama's foreign policy, Mitt Romney's policy proposals are not faultless in my opinion.

    1) It was reported at the private fundraiser last May, Romney said the following: "I look at the Palestinians not wanting to see peace anyway, for political purposes, committed to the destruction and elimination of Israel, and these thorny issues, and I say, "There's just no way."

    Yet last August Romney tasked Senator Jim Talent to ensure the Republican national platform was in line with his policy proposals. Talent objected to every amendment put forward by conservatives which would strike language calling for a Palestinian (terror) state from our national party platform.

    "The overwhelming majority of Republicans don't support the creation of another terror state like the ones that have since been created in southern Lebanon and Gaza," declared South Carolina delegate Randy Page.

    Buzzfeed reported: "Three separate amendments to the draft platform were offered and shot down after Romney surrogate, Sen. Jim Talent objected to each.

    Minnesota delegate Kevin Erickson offered two of the amendments, which would have removed the line, replacing it with tough language on terrorism.

    Erickson said he didn't want to pressure the Israeli government by specifying the conditions of an ultimate peace…."

    Yesterday, Romney reaffirmed his commitment to the establishment of a Muslim-enemy state in Israel's heartland.

    2) Obama had bi-partisan support for his initiative to depose Muammar Gaddafi at the hands of al-Qaeda affiliates in Libya. I am thinking of Senators John McCain, Marco Rubio and others who supported Obama and are presently complaining about the murder of U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens as well as administration incompetence and lies surrounding the murder. Now Republicans like McCain and Romney support providing aid to some of the same actors in Syria. Syria's Assad is a ruthless dictator. What will replace Assad if Romney has his way could be much worse.

    • Choi

      It's ridiculous not to believe that Romney is 1000% better to have in the White House than Obama.
      Considering Obama is IMPLEMENTING his monstrous Foreign Policy at this very moment,your comment is akin to having a person who is drowning being tossed a life preserver and REFUSING to grasp it, because they would prefer it was green instead of orange.

      • WildJew

        If you Google Tea Party and the word "accountable," you will see several links to the effect that the Tea Party is about holding "our" leaders accountable. Here, try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyL9bNM02YE

        By not holding "our" side accountable, that is how we get a Barack Hussein Obama in the WH. That is where we went wrong with George W. Bush and I would submit that I suspect you "might" be one of those who refused to hold him accountable when he went recklessly off the conservative reservation. Am I wrong?

    • Ar'nun

      I agree that some of Romney's policies are off. As far as declaring Palestine a "terror" state, is not a good strategy.

      Romney's speech yesterday on foreign policy, he said something that threw me off a bit. He stated he would support and arm Syrian rebels and help them overthrow Assad. I think this is stupidity personified. If we learned one thing from the Arab Spring, it's that the Devils we know are better than the Devils we don't. Kaddafi, Mubarak, not going to win the Nobel Peace Prize (unless the same people that gave Obama one were voting again!) but they were stable, and they didn't cause a whole bunch of trouble outside their boarders.

      Israel is now facing a Nuclear Iran, a hostile Egypt, Libya run by al Qaeda with a direct Sea route to their coast, and possibly a Hezbollah run Syria. The diabolical Arab Spring plan is starting to be exposed for its true goal.

      • WildJew

        Governor Romney did not declare that he would seek to establish another terror state, this one in Israel's heartland but is there any doubt that is what such a state would be?

  • Indioviejo

    Mr. Greenfield, _I believe you are overly generous in assuming that the Obama Doctrine, if you can call it that, “attempted to use the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve its objective of ending the War on Terror by isolating the violent Islamist and bringing them over to the ranks of the political Islamist.” I believe his Cairo Speech was an attempt to confuse his real intent: the empowerment of the Muslim Brotherhood and salafist everywhere. I believe that a man with his radical pedigree is compelled “to fundamentally transform” our country into a lesser, and unsafe nation. He probably will get away with all the damage done until know, even if we vote him out of office in November, because we can not prosecute a former President for his “failed” policies. I do believe the man is a traitor.

  • cruiser navy 67

    The enemy is stronger more heavily armed thanks to our POTUS Satin himself. Like his mother, this man has no idea how to act unselfishly. Like his mother he is a racist,that hates America.

  • Marty

    The muslim brotherhood and its offshoots such as hamas and islamic jihad are the most recent manifestations of the genocidal islam that has pursued the destruction of western civilization for the last fourteen centuries. This is an assault on democracy that accepts no compromise and relentlessly attacks the values of the Englightenment, the notion of mutual toleration, and human freedom and dignity. islamic imperialism must be met with unconditional force and be reduced to a harmles state. Ignoring islam or trying to appease it will only result in its victory and a new and violent dark age.

  • JakeTobias

    Nice redesign. Sleeker, less cluttered, it seems more open. And bigger lettering. Yet it's still the same. I like it. No comment on the posting for now. Gotta go.

  • Sam G

    From Obama's speech in Cairo in June 2009:

    "I've come here to Cairo to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles — principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."…

    "I also know that Islam has always been a part of America's story. "…

    "And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States."…

    What a lying BS artist!!!

    • Boo

      Obviously during that speech he didn't give a sh!t about the 10% of Egypt's Coptic Christians. Egypt isn't all Muslims, not that he was interested in anyone but the Muslims.

  • Drakken

    When the so called arab spring was happening I told a friend in Iraq at the time that this was going to get us into a much wider war, he said no way and he called me last week to oppolgize that I was right and things are getting a lot worse. Events are proving me right, when Israels back is against the wall, they will attack Iran and hold up the nuke program, the Persians will hit targets all over the world and then that is when the real fun begins. Attacks in Europe will result with govts falling and new nationlism turning on it's muslim colonizers and the west along with Russia will take the opportunity to really bring back that time honored tradition of total war, amenesty international and the leftist be damned, islam is going to rue the day they pissed us infidels off because they thought (wrongly) that we were weak. War is not years off, but months away. You can bet on that and take it to the bank.

  • Danny Caplan

    In 2009, for the weeks that the young heroes in Iran were protesting, they looked to America, (a country that is supposed to value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), for support, and heard nothing, NOTHING in response to them. Had Bush or even Clinton been President, America would have had their backs, and we would have helped them to oust this evil, holocaust denying, genocidal dictator and his regime. At the very least, America would have given them moral support. President Obama did and said…nothing. For thirty years Iran has been a thorn in America's side, and not just America, but the entire free world. The Green revolution of 2009 was the best chance America has ever had to change Iran for the better, and Obama THREW IT AWAY! This alone, in my opinion, should make Obama unelectable this November.

    • marlene stobbart

      Obama didn't 'Throw it away" – he gave it away to his friends, imho.

  • http://www.facebook.com/WinstonBowie Winston Bowie

    ††† If only this article could be published on CNN / Fox / The NYTimes †††

    and every other trafficked conspicuous place. I will publish this article on my websites and I hope everyone is active on high traffic networks such as Youtube, USMessageboard and anywhere people will see your links. I seek out high traffic youtube videos and can literally watch my sites get hundreds of extra hits, just from one post with a provocative title and compelling content. Those crosses above do wonders to make your post stand out.

    If you go to http://Thedevil.com/post you'll find Ideological Post Weapons. These IPW's are built to fit Youtube boxes and on facebook, because of the weblinks, the post will automatically scan the linked site and pull a specially tagged photo which is then injected into the post. If you include http://TheDevil.com in a facebook post, it will cause that post to contain a damning photo of Imam Obama.

    Why should Imam Obama be damned? Because, from the Blood Won Seat of American Freedom, he dares to dance in the blood of our Patriots and Founding Fathers by propagating Islam – earth's greatest cauldron of Tyrannical Oppression: the imposition of a subjective moral calculus upon unwilling dissidents through coercion and violence.

    We all have to be busy little bees in this GREAT WAR between Freedom and the Dissicide of Islam – Imama Obama's main advocation.

    Daniel has given us the brilliant analysis and divine rhetoric. Now we owe it to him to disseminate his work in every place and in every space.

    TheDevil . com † TheAngel.com † http://BanIslamNow.com

  • Hugh Rockford

    Latest Death Threat for Decrying Islam's Murders

    I speak out against Obama's adoration and support of Mohammad's filthy murderous meme all over the world. Below is my latest death threat. Below that is my response.

    =========
    Just a warning
    =========
    Hey,I appreciate what you are doing here but I have got to warn you, your life may be in danger with what you are doing. Be sure that your identity is protected in every way you can think like IP address blockers, Kaspersky and etc and even so, they can still find you. There was a family I know of in New York that were all slaughtered with their throats cut in Islamic Sharia style because the dad was speaking out. They were members of my husband's church. Just remember, you can be traced anywhere. It might be safer to make a new email from a library or college computer, and use it for this so you can say everything you want.So be careful and watch you back. And thanks so much for getting the word out.
    Don't forget, there is a death penalty for all of those who speak out against the Koran or Islam
    ======

    The above threat is by the book: http://www.citizenwarrior.com/2007/09/20-year-pla
    Islamic Takeover Rule 19:

    19. Send intimidating messages and messengers to the outspoken individuals who are critical of Islam and seek to eliminate them by hook or crook.

    I responded this way:

    =========
    Hello Friend,
    =========

    Are you sure they haven't already sent a few into the fly trap, who didn't make it out to tell the tale, for who will miss fatherless dogs? Are you sure Romans 13 Christians do not exist, those who do not bear the sword for nothing? Did God leave the earth without agents of wrath, furtively grinning and winking, as they dance among us?

    If I were you, I would send warnings and sympathy to Muslims (and their widows) and explain to them, as many as come, are as many as will need to be replaced, that they too might enjoy 'allah's rivers of liquor and doe eyed virgins," also known as HELL.

    Listen to the Reaper sing his leaden song, "Hark and hear Muslim demons, the Reaper's sickle is astir at your approach, to exact a precious price for unauthorized visitations to the Lambs of WRATH. Scarcely is the blood wiped clean, before crimson justice shines again."

    Go in peace,
    http://TheDevil.com † WhatChristDid . com † WhatMoDid . com

  • marios

    No more Barack Hussein Obama in WH! He changed not only country but changed the world radicalizing Muslims regimes. Muslims hated our country and our pres. GW Bush but feared of our mighty. They as always hate our country and despise it together with our pres. B. Hussein Obama. He wanted to destroy US domestically and put us down so low in foreign affairs and he did it. Behind him falsely named Democratic party, party of American socialists.

  • Ghostwriter

    In my opinion,the Obama administration has been living in a fantasy world. It believed if that you appeased the Islamists,they'll leave us alone. The recent riots in the Muslim world has proven this false. We need leaders who live in the real world,not the Never Never Land that people like President Obama seem intent on living in. Fantasy may work in fiction,but it's terrible at making good policy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marvin.fox.526 Marvin Fox

    I keep hearing this notion that Obama has a foreign police. So far I can find nothing that appears to be a policy in his foreign peregrinations. He obviously favors the Muslims above the Jews even while he courts the Jewish vote . That isn't a sign of a policy, it is a sign of a politician's attempt to keep his job by walking on both sides of the street at the same time. He might have an economic policy but he keeps that failure so well stirred it is difficult to pin down as an actual policy. The new job's math doesn't reveal the policy.
    If there is a consistency in Pres. Obama, it appears he wants his personal preference , instead of a national policy, to be done his way. He doesn't seem to have a national policy, just an Obama policy he expects all of us to follow as a nation.
    Marvin Fox

    • Goering

      Hey Marvin,
      The National Policy is actually a 60 page document that is fairly easy to find: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss
      And I am sure you know Foreign Policy is usually about, well, foreigners and not U.S. citizens that vote. And generally speaking Foreign Policy is about how the U.S. government deals with other sovereign states. So not sure what you mean about Jews, Muslims and Jewish voters in the context of Foreign Policy as none of things things are actually foreign states. Presumably you mean something or rather about how the President is not doing what you would like in regards to Israel, but its not clear.

      • http://www.facebook.com/marvin.fox.526 Marvin Fox

        I understand what national policy should be and how it should originate. My comment about Jewish and Muslim votes as they apply to foreign policy is this. Obama obviously favors the Muslim nations and expects to get the votes of Muslims in this country.
        Obama seems to be attempting to straddle the fence on Israeli issues. He shuns meetings with Netanyahu in this very perilous time for the jewish State, while giving lip service to supporting Israel. The lip service is for the American Jewish vote.
        I am sure the Gov. foreign policy document is a coherent wishful exposition of our government's ability to say what it wants us to believe. However, Obama's words and actions are the controlling factors in the practice of foreign policy. His words and actions during the present Libya Embassy debacle is a perfect example of what I believe is true of Obama's foreign policy. Obama says one thing; the facts of the matter say something different. Obama appears reluctant to accept those facts.
        Marvin Fox

  • fanlad

    From Obama's speech in Cairo June 2009, " Principles of justice and progress ", is code for social justice, and the redistribution of wealth with a progressive move to a larger totalitarian government. " Dignity of all human beings ', is code for socialist, communist ideology that puts man as the center of the universe, not God. Your rights now come from man ( government) not God.
    In short the radical's, made up of socialist, communist, and radical Islamist have come together to destabilize the Middle East in the name of Arab spring, and Democracy, that is , "The Obama Doctrine", making our enemies stronger, and our allies weaker, with a redistribution of power, and influence.
    Define Democracy? Majority mob rule under Sharia law, and socialist communist ideology.

  • ChevalierdeJohnstone

    My God you people are morons. Greenfield is a star and deserves better readership than this. None of you has any freaking clue of the actual facts at hand, the strategic decisions involved, the timetables, the costs and benefits of various decisions. I mean this article by Greenfield is a serious critique of a recognizable foreign policy strategy, but instead of responding to any of the cogent and detailed points Greenfield lays out illustrating how Obama has failed, all you talk about is…code words, party politics, and sheer lunacy. I mean I get it, I get that you don't like Obama, and Greenfield doesn't like Obama, and I don't like Obama. We all don't like Obama. I just wish any of the rest of you had an actually rational intellectual reason for not liking Obama. As far as I can tell, you don't like Obama because you've been told not to like him. But there are some very, very good reasons for considering Obama an abject failure, which you could easily discover for yourselves. Unfortunately many of you, in accepting the "Obama bad" message, seem to have missed discovering for yourselves how incredibly bad Obama really is.

    You remind me of liberals.

  • http://teapartyreaganconservative.blogspot.com/ Sonny119

    Caroline Glick : "Since taking office, Obama has made clear that he views the US as an imperialist power on the world stage. As a result, the overarching goal of Obama’s foreign policy has been to end US global hegemony." unquote

    Obama has destroyed more than the economy.. He has destroyed our US Military, ie; our troops moral, our troops careers, ie; he has almost completely dismantled our Military, thus has seriously damaged America's US National Security, not to mention the Democratic Western Free World's Security- thus the State of Israeli's security. Thus, reduced America's influence, strength, and power to a hollow shell of what we used to be.

    Obama has his own agenda- he wants to the world controlled by the radical militant islamist fundamentalists, that includes America and Israel, which is all happening before our eyes. Obama is not an American President, he is an anti-American President.

    How can anyone vote for a leader who deliberately sets out to destroy the very country he is elected to protect and defend, can only be analyzed by Obama and the radical far left liberal socialist maxrist agenda, ie, their end goals.. which is the internal destruction of America, the US Constitution, Capitalism, Democracy, ie; the Republic as we know it, since the founding of America by our forefathers.