Posts Tagged ‘barack obama’


September 6, 2015

Fox News on September 5, 2015, reported that the roughly 300,000 refugees from Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Middle East countries pouring into Europe this year is sparking new questions about the extent to which U.S. foreign policy under then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has contributed to the crisis. Excerpts below:

Critics of Obama administration policy while Clinton was the country’s top diplomat argue in large part that she and President Obama failed to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after December 2011, creating a void for the Islamic State to form and embark on a reign of terror that has killed and displace tens of thousands in the Middle East just over the past few years.

“That premature withdrawal was the fatal error, creating the void that ISIS moved in to fill and that Iran has exploited to the full as well,” former Florida Republican Gov. Jeb Bush, who is competing with the Democrat Clinton to become president in 2016, said in early August.

“Where was the secretary of state in all of this? In all her record-setting travels, she stopped by Iraq exactly once,” he said. “Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the president and Secretary Clinton … took office?”

Nowhere is the problem worse than in Syria, where a four-year civil war has displaced an estimated 7.6 million people and forced an additional 4 million into such neighboring countries and Turkey, Hungry, Lebanon, Jordan and now Western Europe.

Critics of U.S. foreign policy say Obama has allowed Assad to stay in power by in part not providing enough U.S. military assistance to rebel forces. And they argue Obama announced in August 2012 that Syria would cross a “red line” by using or moving around chemical weapons. However, they say, the president did nothing after evidenced showed in April 2013 that such weapons were used on the Syrian people.

Clinton was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013. And she has also been criticized about her role leading up to the Sept. 11, 2012, terror attacks in Benghazi, Libya, in which U.S. Ambassador Chris Steven and three other Americans were killed.

Critics argue that Clinton’s testimony before Congress and other evidence shows that she and others in the administration failed to provide adequate security at the U.S. outpost in Benghazi and that they underestimated the terror threat in the region.

Critics also argue that Obama has underestimated ISIS,…

“This spreading anarchy derives, in substantial part, from Barack Obama’s deliberate policy of ‘leading from behind’ by reducing U.S. attention to and involvement in the region,” John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and a Fox News contributor, recently said.

Yacoub El Hillo, the United Nations’ top humanitarian official, said in March that the impending crisis was “price of political failure,” according to The New York Times.

The United States has already taken about 1,500 Syrian refuges, and the Obama administration said earlier this week that the country will try to do more next year, by perhaps taking in thousands more.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Comment: This article is focusing on an important problem with US foreign policy 2009 – 2015. During these years the United States has retreated from its responsibility as hegemon. There has been a lack of understanding of the geostrategic and geopolitical problems of the Middle East. It would have been important for America to have negotiated treaties with Iraq and Afghanistan to leave a good sized military force to help guarantee stability after the US retreat from thos countries. Syria and Libya policy has been a disaster and no doubt both Obama and Hillary Clinton are partly to blame for the European refugee crisis in 2015. The crisis is also destabilizing Jordan and Lebanon. The Iran deal will further destabilize the whole Middle East region.


January 13, 2014

Wall Street Journal on January 7, 2014, published an excerpt from U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates memoirs, “Duty”. Excerpts from the excerpt below:

All too often during my 4½ years as secretary of defense, when I found myself sitting yet again at that witness table at yet another congressional hearing, I was tempted to stand up, slam the briefing book shut and quit on the spot. The exit lines were on the tip of my tongue: I may be the secretary of defense, but I am also an American citizen, and there is no son of a bitch in the world who can talk to me like that. I quit. Find somebody else. It was, I am confident, a fantasy widely shared throughout the executive branch.

Much of my frustration came from the exceptional offense I took at the consistently adversarial, even inquisition-like treatment of executive-branch officials by too many members of Congress across the political spectrum—creating a kangaroo-court environment in hearings, especially when television cameras were present. But my frustration also came from the excruciating difficulty of serving as a wartime defense secretary in today’s Washington.

Throughout my tenure at the Pentagon, under both President George W. Bush and President Barack Obama, I was, in personal terms, treated better by the White House, Congress and the press for longer than almost anyone I could remember in a senior U.S. government job. So why did I feel I was constantly at war with everybody? Why was I so often so angry? Why did I so dislike being back in government and in Washington?

I was brought in to help salvage the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—both going badly when I replaced Donald Rumsfeld in December 2006. When I was sworn in, my goals for both wars were relatively modest, but they seemed nearly unattainable. In Iraq, I hoped we could stabilize the country so that when U.S. forces departed, the war wouldn’t be viewed as a strategic defeat for the U.S. or a failure with global consequences; in Afghanistan, I sought an Afghan government and army strong enough to prevent the Taliban from returning to power and al Qaeda from returning to use the country again as a launch pad for terror. Fortunately, I believe my minimalist goals were achieved in Iraq and remain within reach in Afghanistan.

For his part, President Obama simply wanted to end the [what he called] war in Iraq and limit the U.S. role in the “good” war in Afghanistan. His fundamental problem in Afghanistan was that his political and philosophical preferences for winding down the U.S. role conflicted with his own pro-war public rhetoric (especially during the 2008 campaign), the nearly unanimous recommendations of his senior civilian and military advisers at the Departments of State and Defense, and the realities on the ground.

The continuing fight over Afghanistan strategy in the Obama administration led to a helpful, steady narrowing of our objectives and ambitions. Still, I witnessed a good deal of wishful thinking in the Obama administration about how much improvement we might see with enough dialogue with Pakistan and enough civilian assistance to the Afghan government and people. When real improvements in those areas failed to materialize, too many people—especially in the White House—concluded that the president’s entire strategy, including the military component, was a failure and became eager to reverse course.
But if I had learned one useful lesson from Iraq, it was that progress depended on security for much of the population. This was why I could not sign onto Vice President Biden’s preferred strategy of reducing our presence in Afghanistan to rely on counterterrorist strikes from afar: “Whac-A-Mole” hits on Taliban leaders weren’t a long-term strategy. That is why I continue to believe that the troop increase that Obama boldly approved in late 2009 was the right decision—providing sufficient forces to break the stalemate on the ground, rooting the Taliban out of their strongholds while training a much larger and more capable Afghan army.

It is difficult to imagine two more different men than George W. Bush and Barack Obama. Clearly, I had fewer issues with Bush. Partly that is because I worked for him in the last two years of his presidency, when, with the exception of the Iraq surge, nearly all the big national security decisions had been made. He had made his historical bed and would have to lie in it. I don’t recall Bush ever discussing domestic politics—apart from congressional opposition—as a consideration in decisions he made during my time with him (although, in fairness, his sharp-elbowed political gurus were nearly all gone by the time I arrived). By early 2007, Vice President Dick Cheney was the hawkish outlier on the team, with Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and me in broad agreement.

With Obama, however, I joined a new, inexperienced president determined to change course—and equally determined from day one to win re-election. Domestic political considerations would therefore be a factor, though I believe never a decisive one, in virtually every major national security problem we tackled. The White House staff—including Chiefs of Staff Rahm Emanuel and then Bill Daley as well as such core political advisers as Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs —would have a role in national security decision making that I had not previously experienced (but which, I’m sure, had precedents).

I never confronted Obama directly over what I (as well as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, then-CIA Director Leon Panetta and others) saw as his determination that the White House tightly control every aspect of national security policy and even operations. His White House was by far the most centralized and controlling in national security of any I had seen since Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger ruled the roost.

I had no problem with the White House driving policy; the bureaucracies at the State and Defense Departments rarely come up with big new ideas, so almost any meaningful change must be driven by the president and his National Security Staff (NSS), led during my tenure under Obama by Gen. James Jones, Thomas Donilon and Denis McDonough. But I believe the major reason the protracted, frustrating Afghanistan policy review held in the fall of 2009 created so much ill will was due to the fact it was forced on an otherwise controlling White House by the theater commander’s unexpected request for a large escalation of American involvement. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s request surprised the White House (and me) and provoked a debate that the White House didn’t want, especially when it became public. I think Obama and his advisers were incensed that the Department of Defense—specifically the uniformed military—had taken control of the policy process from them and threatened to run away with it.

Most of my conflicts with the Obama administration during the first two years weren’t over policy initiatives from the White House but rather the NSS’s micromanagement and operational meddling, which I routinely resisted. For an NSS staff member to call a four-star combatant commander or field commander would have been unthinkable when I worked at the White House—and probably cause for dismissal. It became routine under Obama. I directed commanders to refer such calls to my office. The controlling nature of the Obama White House, and its determination to take credit for every good thing that happened while giving none to the career folks in the trenches who had actually done the work, offended Secretary Clinton as much as it did me.

The relationship between senior military leaders and their civilian commander in chief is often tense, and that was certainly my experience under both Bush and Obama. Bush was willing to disagree with his senior military advisers, but he never (to my knowledge) questioned their motives or mistrusted them personally. Obama was respectful of senior officers and always heard them out, but he often disagreed with them and was deeply suspicious of their actions and recommendations. Bush seemed to enjoy the company of the senior military; I think Obama considered time spent with generals and admirals an obligation.

I also bristled at what’s become of congressional hearings, where rude, insulting, belittling, bullying and all too often highly personal attacks on witnesses by members of Congress violated nearly every norm of civil behavior. Members postured and acted as judge, jury and executioner. It was as though most members were in a permanent state of outrage or suffered from some sort of mental duress that warranted confinement or at least treatment for anger management.

I continue to worry about the incessant scorched-earth battling between Congress and the president (which I saw under both Bush and Obama) but even more about the weakening of the moderate center in Congress. Today, moderation is equated with lacking principles and compromise with “selling out.” Our political system has rarely been so polarized and unable to execute even the basic functions of government.

I found all of this dysfunction particularly troubling because of the enormity of the duties I shouldered. Until becoming secretary of defense, my exposure to war and those who fought it had come from antiseptic offices at the White House and CIA. Serving as secretary of defense made the abstract real, the antiseptic bloody and horrible. I saw up close the cost in lives ruined and lives lost.

Today, too many ideologues call for U.S. force as the first option rather than a last resort. On the left, we hear about the “responsibility to protect” civilians to justify military intervention in Libya, Syria, Sudan and elsewhere. On the right, the failure to strike Syria or Iran is deemed an abdication of U.S. leadership. And so the rest of the world sees the U.S. as a militaristic country quick to launch planes, cruise missiles and drones deep into sovereign countries or ungoverned spaces. There are limits to what even the strongest and greatest nation on Earth can do—and not every outrage, act of aggression, oppression or crisis should elicit a U.S. military response.

This is particularly worth remembering as technology changes the face of war. A button is pushed in Nevada, and seconds later a pickup truck explodes in Mosul. A bomb destroys the targeted house on the right and leaves the one on the left intact. For too many people—including defense “experts,” members of Congress, executive branch officials and ordinary citizens—war has become a kind of videogame or action movie: bloodless, painless and odorless. But my years at the Pentagon left me even more skeptical of systems analysis, computer models, game theories or doctrines that suggest that war is anything other than tragic, inefficient and uncertain.

The people who understand this best are our men and women in uniform. I will always have a special place in my heart for all who served on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan—most in their 20s, some in their teens. While I was sitting in a hotel restaurant before my confirmation hearings, the mother of two soldiers then in Iraq came up to me and, weeping, said, “For God’s sake, bring them back alive.” I never forgot that—not for one moment.

On each visit to the war zones, as I would go to joint security stations in Baghdad or forward operating bases and combat outposts in Afghanistan, I knew I wasn’t being exposed to the true grim reality of our troops’ lives. And I could only contrast their selfless service and sacrifice with so many self-serving elected and nonelected officials back home.

I came to believe that no one who had actually been in combat could walk away without scars, without some measure of post-traumatic stress. And while those I visited in the hospitals put on a brave front, in my mind’s eye, I could see them lying awake, alone, in the hours before dawn, confronting their pain, broken dreams and shattered lives. I would wake in the night, think back to a wounded soldier or Marine I had seen at Landstuhl, Bethesda or Walter Reed, and in my imagination, I would put myself in his hospital room, and I would hold him to my chest to comfort him. At home, in the night, I silently wept for him. So when a young soldier in Afghanistan asked me once what kept me awake at night, I answered honestly: He did.

—Dr. Gates was the 22nd secretary of defense. This essay is adapted from his latest book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” published by Knopf.


September 25, 2013

Washington Times on September 24, 2013, reported that addressing the United Nations, President Obama shot back at his Russian counterpart and stated, in no uncertain terms, that America will continue to be a global leader. Excerpts below:

“The danger for the world is that the United States … may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill. I believe that would be a mistake,” Mr. Obama said. “I believe America must remain engaged for our own security. I believe the world is better for it. Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.”

His comments were a direct response to the recent New York Times op-ed article by Russian President Vladimir Putin, who blasted “American exceptionalism” and added that nations must be considered equals.


September 2, 2013

Heritage Foundation’s Luke Coffey on August 28, 2013, recommended priorities for President Barack Obama when he visits Sweden on September 4 en route to the G20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. The timing of this visit is important… Excerpts from Issue Brief # 4029:

…like his meeting at the White House with the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in August, the President’s visit is an opportunity to demonstrate America’s commitment to transatlantic relations.

The U.S. and the Nordic and Baltic countries share many of the same values and challenges. President Obama should use this opportunity to build closer American ties with Sweden. Three issues should dominate the visit: regional security, negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and Arctic policy.

The Current Situation

Although previous U.S. Vice Presidents have visited Sweden, no sitting U.S. President has made a bilateral visit. In 2001, George W. Bush became the first and only serving U.S. President to visit Sweden, but his visit was for the U.S.–European Union (EU) summit. Consequently, President Obama’s upcoming trip will be the first-ever bilateral visit to Sweden by a sitting U.S. President.

The political situation in Sweden remains fragile for the ruling party. The center-right Alliance for Sweden coalition, headed by the Moderate Party, lost its absolute majority in September 2010. Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt leads a minority government. He and President Obama face many of the same domestic challenges, including high unemployment and sluggish economies. Recent riots in Sweden’s immigrant communities have also brought the immigration debate to the political forefront.

Regional Security: Sweden, the U.S., and NATO

In terms of security, Sweden still sees itself primarily as a “soft power.” Even so, it has contributed to NATO-led military operations in Afghanistan and recently over Libya, albeit on a minor level in both cases. In Afghanistan, Sweden has approximately 260 troops deployed around Mazar-i-Sharif in the north—a relatively peaceful part of Afghanistan. During the recent air operation in Libya, Sweden was one of seven countries that flew air missions, although Swedish aircraft did not drop any bombs or strike any targets.

Sweden has maintained a neutral status since the 19th century, but there is increasing debate inside the country on whether to join NATO. Recent bellicose Russian behavior and Sweden’s declining military capability have prompted some to see the possible benefits of NATO membership.

For example, in March 2013, two Russian bombers and four fighter jets took off from St. Petersburg and carried out a mock strike on targets in the Stockholm region. The Swedish air force did not react, as it was on low alert during the Easter break. Instead, NATO scrambled two Danish jets from a base in Lithuania to intercept the Russian planes.

Like the rest of Europe, Sweden’s defense spending has decreased, leading to a decline in military capability and readiness. According to General Sverker Göranson, supreme commander of the Swedish armed forces, the Swedish armed forces could defend a small part of Swedish territory for approximately one week against a limited attack. For these and other reasons, NATO membership is becoming more appealing to Swedes.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

According to the White House, TTIP will be discussed during the visit. The 28 EU member states have surrendered their ability to negotiate trade deals to the supranational EU Commission. Therefore, Obama and Reinfeldt will not agree to or announce anything substantial in the area.

In February 2013, President Obama called for a free trade agreement between the U.S. and the EU during his annual State of the Union address.

Tariffs between the U.S. and the EU are already low, so TTIP will be more about regulatory processes and harmonizing of standards.

Time to Get Serious About the Arctic

Sweden considers itself a regional leader in the Arctic. With Sweden having just finished its two-year presidency of the Arctic Council, the Arctic will likely feature during the visit. Swedish officials have arranged a dinner for President Obama and the leaders of the Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland) in Stockholm. Since all of the Nordic countries and the U.S. are members of the Arctic Council, this will be a good opportunity to discuss issues of mutual interest in the Arctic.

The U.S. should take the Arctic region more seriously. Some estimates claim that up to 13 percent of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and almost one-third of the world’s undiscovered natural gas reserves are located in the Arctic. As ice continues to dissipate during the summer months, new shipping lanes have opened, offering additional trade opportunities. The economic potential of the Arctic is enormous.

More actors than ever before are operating in the region, presenting both challenges and opportunities for the U.S. and its Nordic partners. The region needs more than communiqués passed every two years at the Arctic Council’s summit. The region needs action and leadership. It is time for the U.S. to take a leadership role in the Arctic, work more closely with like-minded allies, and promote actionable policies in the region.

Advance Cooperation

President Obama’s visit to Sweden offers a good opportunity to improve Swedish–American relations. Specifically, the President should take this opportunity to promote:

• Regional security cooperation. The collective defense of NATO’s area of responsibility in northern Europe cannot be accomplished without access to Sweden’s airspace. The U.S. needs to find areas of U.S.–Swedish and NATO–Swedish cooperation.

• Transatlantic free trade. President Obama needs to promote economic freedom in Europe and support genuine free trade.

• Cooperation in the Arctic. The Arctic is an area ripe for cooperation between the U.S. and its Nordic partners. The President should use this visit to promote cooperation in the Arctic that is focused on national sovereignty, economic freedom, and sensible environmental policies.

A Close Partnership

Washington should reinvigorate partnerships with America’s key friends and allies in Europe, such as Sweden. Combined with President Obama’s meeting with the three Baltic leaders at the White House in August, his visit to Sweden offers an opportunity to demonstrate America’s commitment to transatlantic relations.

Luke Coffey is Margaret Thatcher Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.