The challenge that President Obama had faced so successfully with
adoring foreign leaders came to naught in his recent meeting with
Prime Minister Netanyahu of Israel. The charming pedantry of
Barack Obama, late of Harvard Law and Columbia University, had no
impact on “Bibi” Netanyahu with his two degrees from MIT and
experience as a captain in an elite commando unit of the Israeli
Defense Force.
The American president argued forcefully, but the Israeli PM made
it quite clear that his country was not going to cease all new
settlement construction nor acquiesce to U.S. veto power with
respect to an Israeli preemptive attack on Iran’s nuclear weapon
development. It was a “welcome to the NFL” moment for the new
American quarterback.
Obama was still reeling from Bibi’s private pounding when their
press conference began. The American leader rambled on with
strained grace, not once looking at his guest. Netanyahu, for his
part, sat looking directly at Obama with the palms of his hands
on his knees in a ready position, as if he were about to enter
one of those caged fighting bouts. This had been something much
more than a “frank” meeting.
The past few weeks have contained a sharp dose of reality therapy
for a person who had become used to gliding through complicated
issues like a traveling preacher expounding on the evils of sin.
While exhorting the public to accept sacrifice, Pastor Obama laid
out pat answers to all questions only to have to change his
positions as he and his staff actually studied the problem.
President Obama repeatedly has supported the concept that
military risk can be avoided if the United States only would
designate diplomacy and negotiation as the principal instruments
of its international power. Unfortunately, world reality dictates
that the military and diplomatic aspects of national power
projection go hand-in-hand and cannot, nor should not, be
separated.
Just as the Obama Administration has had to face the realities of
dealing with captured terrorists as something other than common
criminals, the White House finds itself having to recognize that
sending Americans off to fight for other people’s freedom is at
the core of that term Mr. Obama uses so repeatedly — American
values. At the same time the United States has found that the
altruism of fighting for others is buttressed by the strategic
practicality of keeping aggression away from our own shores.
Apparently Mr. Obama wants to restrict this strictly defensive
proposition while at the same time being protective of the “human
rights” of those who attack us. Clearly his philosophy is
confusing to the very Americanized Mr. Netanyahu. Certainly his
ambitions must be confusing to the far less worldly Kim Jong-il.
Faced with an American president who professes he has not a
belligerent bone in his political body, the North Korean leader
can believe only that this odd American would never react
militarily to a cleverly obfuscated nuclear weapon development
policy. After all, this Obama appears to be willing to accept
Iranian protestations of pure nuclear energy motives. So off goes
another underground nuclear explosion north of the
38th parallel, tests of several tactical range missiles, and
the unilateral rescinding of the 1953 armistice accord.
It appears many nations, pro and anti-U.S., enjoy the prospect
that once again an American administration is in office that is
fearful of physical contest and aspires to peace no matter the
cost. To gain their own advantage, some even count on it.
One thing is obvious: Barack Obama must have never understood
much about the American history he read at Columbia and Harvard.
This nation was carved out of a wilderness, geographically,
economically, and politically. Slaves were exploited then freed
at the price of hundreds of thousands of lives; territories were
bloodily wrenched from their original inhabitants who fought to
retain what had been theirs. This has never been a kind and
gentle nation, even when our people were.
Recessions and depressions were overcome by hard work,
speculative investment, economic expansion, and wars. Incompetent
leaders were removed from office. This is hardly a nation of
losers. Winning at all costs is the true national goal: it lacks
the sophistication of our European cousins, but it’s also what
has guaranteed our freedom and strength. Are these not the true
American values?
The preamble to our Constitution guides us well enough as to our
national objectives: “… in order to form a more perfect union,
establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”
Is that clear enough, Mr. President?
