US and the World

But first, I must retract the error in judgement I made in my last blog. The president's trip to Geneva was not just a photo op for the president to take credit for bringing the Olympics to the United States. I can admit I misinterpreted the president intentions of the trip but I also question what the trip actually tells us about the president and the world's view of our leader. At the risk of sounding too partisan, I must admit I am quite surprised that a President of the United States would risk his credibility on a trip that resulted in such a disastrous result. Not only was he and his wife unable to win the Olympics for Chicago but they were apparently unable to sway a single vote towards the last place United States. Their narcissistic speeches with included 70 uses of the "I" or "me" became more about the Obamas and only impressed the what house reporters. You wonder what this actually says about the world's view of America?

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE - The list of recipients includes individuals who brought waring nations together, fought for rights of the underprivileged, spent their life caring for the poor, led the fight against world problems and now..."for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." Even the white house and every news person in the country is asking, "what did he do?" The answer to that question is, he's not George Bush. President Obama has spent the first nine months of his presidency and his entire campaign apologizing to world about the U.S. and promising better relations. The world did not like a super power acting like a super power and flex their muscles in unilateral attempts to protect the country. The world likes a weaker more cooperative superpower and is willing to reward a leader who acts more like themselves. They were willing to even pass over an American president who has accomplished as lot of charitable works around the world with the William J. Clinton Foundation in an attempt to reward soft talk and to attempt to affect future policy decisions of the United States.

AFGHANISTAN - To prove to you I am not an anti-Obama person who opposes everything he does I am going to agree on his action/inaction in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a very complicated situation and quite different than Iraq. The reason the Surge was successful in Iraq was , in part, because they were able to gain the support of many of the Iraqi people through the religious leaders But Afghanistan is a much more sparse country with a lot of little communities or tribes and to win the support of the Afghan people is a much more difficult task. They have seen the Soviets occupy their country and eventually left, unable to accomplish their goal and do not see the Americans as much different. I like to compare this to the American Revolution. The British had all the military might but were unable to extinguish the rebellion and this had a lot to do with an inability to win the support of the American people. I believe, and I may be giving President Obama too much credit here, he is waiting to see how the election comes out and to get assurances from the new leader that the U.S. will be supported before he commits more Americans lives. The goal of victory in Afghanistan will be difficult enough with the support and next to impossible without. This will be a tough sell to the American people with either decision. I hope I interpret his motives correctly and that he is not "dithering" with American lives at stake in "a war of necessity."

RUSSIA: This summer President Obama took the missile defense program of Poland and Czech Republic off the table to appease the Russians, much to the dismay of those two countries who watched their Russian neighbors all but destroy the American ally of Georgia. This was another olive branch the Obama administration was extending this time offering to sway the Russians into supporting sanctions against the Iranians for their nuclear ambitions. Although this did bring the Russians more actively to the table, Putin refuses to bring any sanctions upon their strategic partner. Russia claims that sanctions are counterproductive and has offered their own solutions. It appears that the president sold out more of our allies in a vein effort to unite the world against this common threat.

The President has a philosophy that the U.S. cannot work with other countries if they are seen as the big bully so he has spent the first 9 months of his administration showing and telling the world we are just another nation seeking the same peaceful solutions to the world's problems. The problem is there is a more effective philosophy that says it is a lot easier to negotiate from a position of strength than from a position of weakness. So as the president goes around the world offering unilateral concessions he may be making friends of other countries but he is also weakening the U.S's position and reducing the effectiveness he has in negotiating solutions to these same problems. When the chips are down and it is time for the president to ask for help from these countries, they will do what they think is best for their people at that particular time and it very well may not be on the same page as the president. We have already seen this in recent news reports where leaders are vowing NOT to send any more troops to the war.