The Pax Americana is Dead

Thomas Friedman, the respected New York Times columnist, tried to do a beleaguered President Barack Obama a favor by publishing a summary of an extended interview between the two men, which was grandly entitled “Obama on the World.” Friedman tried to present the President in a positive light, by calling his weak responses “feisty.” Yet there is no denying that Obama’s rudderless foreign policy has been a disaster. The international order has rapidly deteriorated since Obama entered the Oval Office. The current situation is so perilous that so long as Obama remains President, the phrase “presidential leadership” will continue to be an oxymoron.

The President suffers from two fundamental flaws. The first is that he is unwilling to make decisions. He much prefers to play the role of a disinterested observer who comments on a set of adverse events that he regards himself as powerless to shape, of which Assad’s carnage in Syria is the prime example. The second is that he fundamentally misunderstands the use of force in international affairs. He handicaps himself fatally by imposing unwise limitations on the use of American force, such as his repeated declarations that he will not send ground troops back into Iraq.

Can such a problem be fixed, when a POTUS acts contrary to the best interest of the nation internationally?

Very difficult, for a couple of reasons. First, the Constitution gives control of foreign policy and the military to the President. Second, while congress may object to this or that policy, supporters of the president, usually within his own party, will back him and claim that his critics are the ones damaging the national interest by playing politics when the country should be unified. This tired stratagem works time and time again.

So, as you say, impeachment remains the only option. But short of some remarkable scandal showing conclusively that, say, the president gave military secrets to the enemy during a crisis, the president's supporters in congress would almost always be in a position to ward off an impeachment threat.

The only other way is through public humiliation and ridicule.

And a forceful challenge, articulate and direct, from leadership in the opposition party.

Unfortunately the GOP has no credible and respected National Security voice.

Cruz, Paul and McCain are not credible, for different reasons.

It doesn't matter how "right" any of them may or may not be. What matters is "Gravitas", like Cheney and Rumsfeld.

If history teaches anything, it's that the USA can shift from Dove to Hawk VERY rapidly.

I believe the country is ready for that, but ONLY if they "trust" the Hawk and think he knows what he's doing.

But we also have to ensure it's somebody that will carefully weigh what is in US Strategic Interests.

Iraq is.

I contend Ukraine, Georgia and Afghanistan are not.

I don’t think he has any idea what he’s doing, apart from the vague platitudes he sometimes utters.

This goes to the very heart of Obama mode of speaking

Go back to his campaign speeches. What you hear (and what I first heard) are platitudes like the word "hope." It seems innocuous enough, but you have to understand the entire picture of his campaign speaking.

Obama knows how to imprint a message like a mesmerizing hypnotist. In fact, he is so good that most people are either fooled into thinking that he means what he says or others think he is just being vague.

Problem is he is not vague. He uses words like "hope" to relay a message within a certain context. And he uses this mode of speaking to completely grab those who are "itching" to hear his words.

He begins by speaking about what everyone can agree on, like "our mothers and fathers suffered greatly during WWII." So, all heads nod in agreement. Then he adds a few more things like that so all are nodding in agreement. When he feels he has gotten everyone agreeing with his "platitudes" he plants the message he really wants them to have.

Read over any of his campaign speeches. Do what I did. Print one out and take a highlighter and mark every time he says something that gets people's heads nodding. I did this with a few of his speeches. His 2012 DNC Convention acceptance speech is probably the best example. He clips his speaking to make a cadence or tempo. He makes statements that force people to agree with him. Then, he makes one statement which is really his important message. It takes him about 45 minutes to establish this form of hypnotism. His followers are mesmerized. But, if you ask them what did Obama just say, the only thing they can tell you is, "He is the man of hope and change!" And other people who didn't get into the tempo are left wondering what the hell is he talking about.

This is the reason why he did so badly during the first few debates with Romney. He couldn't get his rhythm going. He couldn't establish people nodding in agreement. It was really funny watching his frustration. It looked like there was a disconnect that he could not fix. Especially watch that one debate where all his media pals were in shock at his verbal stumbling. Ah, it was priceless to behold.

So, it is my studied opinion that Obama is a high-tech huckster who has been hired to take down this country.

God will have the last word.

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.