Posted on 10/15/2012 2:07:27 PM PDT by John Semmens
Obama national security advisers Michele Flournoy and Colin Kahl sought to lampoon Govern Mitt Romney’s pitch for a foreign policy founded on a “peace through strength” approach as “old hat.”
“This lame attempt to revive a policy championed by Ronald Reagan is so out-of-date it’s laughable,” Flournoy chortled. “Time has moved on and the world has changed since these ideas were fashionable. It makes no sense for us to go backward—what—more than 30 years. Let’s get real.”
Flournoy called “the attempt to divide nations into ‘friend-or-foe’ categories as a basis for guiding our international relationships is simplistic. As President Obama has shown over the last four years, a more nuanced view is more successful. In his world view there are no foes. There are only differing degrees of friendship.”
“Just because there are disagreements between countries doesn’t mean they can’t still be friends,” Flournoy continued. “President Obama hasn’t shied from making the first move toward building bridges toward improved relations. His aggressive move at the outset of his term to admit and apologize for our country’s transgressions opened up new possibilities for progress around the world.”
As proof of the superiority of Obama’s foreign policy, Flournoy reminded that “Reagan never won a Nobel Peace Prize. President Obama won one in his first year on the job.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...
http://constitutionclub.org/2012/10/14/semi-news-a-satire-of-recent-news-39/
I’m more of a fan of “Peace through Stark Terror,” myself.
They feel that “Peace through limp d*cks” is far superior.
Intellect is not a friend of liberals.
Nor is math, for that matter.
Peace through nuclear annihilation
2 + 2 = 4 may be old hat, but it solves problems.
“Old hat” is no disqualifier.
simplistic
Wow. They’re resurrecting the old “simplistic” argument from the Reagan years. Haven’t heard this in a long time.
It didn’t work then, ain’t gonna work now.
What they never understood, is that simplistic means pretty much what it says. A simple, no frills, un-nuanced solution to a basic problem.
This is satire. As if we need to make up or exaggerate anything about the evil POS in the White House today.
This is way too close to reality to be considered satire...
Peace through “Demonstration Nuclear Strikes” anyway.
Flournoy called “the attempt to divide nations into ‘friend-or-foe’ categories as a basis for guiding our international relationships is simplistic.
Well how is Obama’s kissing the muslims ass working for us?
But why mess around with the truth at all. It just confuses people, especially in this case. Obama is about as bad as it gets without stretching or exaggerating. And there will always be folks who take these things seriously.
Nuclear annihilation is for amateurs and neophytes.
Much more devastating, and ultimately more effective, is to reduce your opponent’s capabilities through an all-out cyber-attack and disruption of all internal communications, so they cannot muster the capabilities they had once possessed. We stood no chance in North Korea in November 1950, at the Yalu River, because Chinese could pour across, like army ants on the march, faster than we could possibly disrupt them. The fact that it was also the most bitterly cold winter of the northern Korean peninsula that year, also did not work in our favor.
The Chinese came so rapidly, that even with only a minimum of effective weaponry, the UN forces saw their lines of communication shattered. Remember, that was a time when a field radio had only limited range, and there was little or no assist from aerial reconnaissance, because of the weather. The unit on the other side of the hill could be wiped out, and there was no way to get assistance to them, without being wiped out yourself.
For the UN forces, it was a devastating rout. Since then, the military has consistently tried to maintain upgraded communications, and also to improve their intelligence on enemy movements in anticipation.
The point I am making here is that in confrontation, your side’s internal communication is of paramount importance. The US military establishment is far ahead of most of the rest of the world in “hardening” their lines of communication, to resist such things as a cyber attack or an EMP burst, and in that, currently we maintain a superiority that perhaps Iran or any of the other Islamic terrorist nations do not yet have.
“STUXNET” was a master stroke in crippling, for a short while, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear development program. Only, the blabbermouth double agents in the Current Regime made this subtle chess move public knowledge, thus robbing us of a real and effective advantage.
The war goes on, in little snipes and pings delivered at unexpected quarters, and the element of surprise more geared to superior technology, than in massive movements of cannon fodder for both sides.
Nice post. I put the Obama administration leak right up there with giving missle technology to the Chinese.
Si vis pacem para bellum - “If you wish for peace, prepare for war” Book 3 of Latin author Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus’s tract De Re Militari (4th- or 5th-century)
It is not new and has been a succesful strategy for centuries.
There’s a lot of Wilsonian nonsense on both sides. Leftists are caught up in seeing the world through the eyes of Barney the dinosaur and conservatives need to realize that the Cold War is over and return to the non-intervention traditions of George Washington.
Drat you, John. You’re TOO good at this satire.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.