Obama’s Yalta Syndrome

Commentary ^ | 21 Jan 15 | Seth Mandel

[elhombrelibre]

President Obama may have been hoping to get some momentum back last night with a stridently partisan campaign-style speech. But it appears the media are losing patience with this game, finally. Both NBC News and MSNBC’s commentators were incredulous over Obama’s interpretation of world affairs. And the New York Times’s chief White House correspondent Peter Baker dropped a dreaded phrase into his analysis of Obama’s conception of his foreign policy: “What he did not mention was that….”

[pepsionice]

Basically, the 2016 election will end up as the biggest overall loss for Democrats in years....going all the way down into county and city-level winners. The damage done? Enough that it’d take a decade. Who watches CNN or reads the Washington Post anymore? They don’t figure into the public’s idea of news anymore.

[ballplayer]

He just opens the top desk drawer and gets the old speech out and regurgitates it

[nathanbedford]

The last six years of the Obama administration have demonstrated why he was right about the Iraq war but for all the wrong reasons. I admit I was wrong about the Iraq war (I supported it) but contend my error or made was for all the right reasons.

The wrong reasons which motivated Obama are simply he does not want American foreign policy to prosper, he does not want American power extended, in fact, he wants it eclipsed, reduced and ultimately eliminated. He opposed the Iraq war not because he foresaw all the problems which erupted during the occupation after the initial crushing victory but because he opposed the extension of American power.

America, after all, is the greatest bulwark against the encroach of statism, communism, Islam, one world government.

So, the analogy to Yalta seems to me to be inapposite because Obama does not believe he can manage the Iranians as Roosevelt wrongly believed he could manage Stalin, Obama simply wants to refrain from extending American power and in fact welcomes a counterforce which would emerge with a nuclear Iran. He does not want to manage the Iranians he wants to enable them. And he wants to enable them because he believes their view of the world is superior to the traditional American Weltanschauung.

Is Obama motivated because he is a closet Muslim? Is he motivated because he is a communist? Is he simply motivated because the enemy of my enemy is my friend? Is he simply making common cause against an enemy? Who can tell. Whatever the man is, he is profoundly dangerous to the security of America.

[John O]

Th eiraq war was the reight thing to do. The problem is that we never finished it. We crushed tehri initial capability but refused to fix the problem there.

Japan’s problem during WWII was not just their military, it was their culture. We stayed in control of Japan long enough to change their culture. And we actively worked to change that culture.

We did not do that in Iraq. We never set out to crush radical islam because we were too afraid to crush islam. And more and more of us can now see (as Ann Coulter and the rest of us saw at once) that all islam is radical islam.

We needed to conquer them, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We left the job only 1/2 done and now we will have to conquer them again.

Only when islam ceases to exist in a country is that country ready to stand on it’s own. (Even if that takes killing 75% or more of the country’s population. You can’t cure a cancer by asking it to be nice, you have to kill every last cancer cell find and then strengthening the body to fight kill any you missed)

[Pollster1]

I admit I was wrong about the Iraq war (I supported it) but contend my error or made was for all the right reasons.

I would like to argue that you were right, but I cannot make that case. Given what happened with the "Arab Spring", it seems likely that any Iraqi government other than a long-term strongman like Saddam would have been destabilized and overthrown those for whom Obama feels sympathy, as happened with Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and the other Arab unrest. Saddam's removal made instability inevitable once Obama took power, and there was no better strategy, better tactics, better set of objectives, or other improvement that could have led to a less negative outcome than the status quo ante.

I'd like to say that once we have a president who supports America we can go back in Iraq and fix the mess we made, but that is not realistic. Another war in Iraq would have even less support than our recent war, and the opposition would be more motivated to hold out and wait for a new president who would walk away from Iraq. We can't fix the mess we made, and it's going to be both a negative precedent for the world and a major, unsolvable regional problem for a long time.

[nathanbedford]

Yamamoto is supposed to have said in the wake of Pearl Harbor words to the effect, "I fear we have awakened a sleeping giant." In other words, Japan commenced the war beyond its resources and history tells us that Japan paid a fearful price.

We commenced a war in Iraq that was not beyond our matériel resources but which was beyond the resources which we as a democracy were willing to spend to gain victory. Even if we assume, as we should, that Obama threw away the fruits of our military domination in Iraq, it is probable that Iraq would have descended into some sort of civil war absent an American occupation force for generations. To quote Hillary Clinton, what difference did it make?

If Japan failed to use the right tool to gain the natural resources it thought were indispensable for its national survival, so America fought the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time. Even if we had achieved stable Iraq, so what? The war against Islam is not to be won in a two-dimensional geographic model like World War II. Islam is waging an asymmetrical war against the United States and Western values and United States and the West must respond not with 20th century ideas of conquering and holding territory, but with a whole new strategy. The Japanese did not lose World War II because they lacked resolve, they were willing to sacrifice the whole nation in their cause but their problem was that their objective was simply beyond their capacity. In another way, our objective in Iraq was simply beyond our capacity because that capacity is defined by our democracy. As a democracy we simply were not willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve an Iraq that looked like postwar Japan or Germany. In that sense, we misjudged and we committed a cardinal sin of risking national security. It does no good to say we lost because we lacked resolve, in a democracy popular support of the war is as fundamental as munitions or foot soldiers-wishing does not change reality.

If I were an Islamist ambitious to impose sharia on the world, I would hope that the United States would involve itself endlessly in wars of occupation in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and wait until the greatest nation on earth implodes in frustration and bankruptcy. Osama bin Laden is no doubt roasting in one of the hottest corners of hell but I have no doubt he feels a degree of satisfaction that his attack on 911 resulted in entangling America in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama was right for all the wrong reasons when he initially opposed the war in Iraq and he was probably wrong for all the wrong reasons when he withdrew our forces after we had achieved a measure of military success. But the game was never worth the candle, we are weaker, we are poorer, the enemy is stronger, Iraq is worse off, Iran is better off, and we still had no strategy to wage a 21st-century asymmetrical war against this enemy.

[nathanbedford]

I agree with your comments but I would like to make the following distinction: I did not initially support the Iraq war to make Iraq a safe haven for Jeffersonian democracy, I bought the argument that Iraq was seeking the bomb and if in possession of that bomb it constituted a real and existential threat to the security of the United States. I still have not abandon that thinking today when it applies to Iran.

Therefore, I believe that it is in the interest of the United States to prevent rogue fanatic Islamic states from getting the atomic bomb which they might use, might pass off to terrorists to smuggle across our Mexican border or explode in one of our harbors, which would certainly change the balance of power and turn the oil patch on its head with profound economic and strategic implications for the United States.

To repeat, I did not support that intervention to further George Bush's yearning to create a model democracy for the rest of the Arab and Muslim world to emulate.

[Valentine Michael Smith]

Best post I’ve seen in weeks. I totally agree with you. Do you have any books out?

[John O]

I feel we are speaking past one another. Perhaps by responding in more detail to your comments I can make my point more clearly.

We commenced a war in Iraq that was not beyond our matériel resources but which was beyond the resources which we as a democracy were willing to spend to gain victory.

I agree. We lacked resolve to do what needed to be done. We had, and have the capability, we just lack the willpower.

Even if we assume, as we should, that Obama threw away the fruits of our military domination in Iraq, it is probable that Iraq would have descended into some sort of civil war absent an American occupation force for generations.

Not generations. Generation. Islam can be destroyed in one generation (2 at most).

Even if we had achieved stable Iraq, so what? The war against Islam is not to be won in a two-dimensional geographic model like World War II.

Iraq should not have been just about Iraq but about establishing a beachhead in the previously moslem world. Creating as it were another Israel.

Islam is waging an asymmetrical war against the United States and Western values and United States and the West must respond not with 20th century ideas of conquering and holding territory, but with a whole new strategy.

This is correct. And that new strategy was clearly and concisely layed out by Ann Coulter, Conquer them, kill their leaders, convert them to Christianity. Iraq was never, or should have never, been just about holding territory. It should have been about eradicating islam.

The Japanese did not lose World War II because they lacked resolve, they were willing to sacrifice the whole nation in their cause but their problem was that their objective was simply beyond their capacity.

But we won WWII because we were willing if need be to sacrifice the entire country and we had the resolve to do so if need be and we had the capability to achieve the goal of destroying them. We still have the capability to destroy our enemies, we simply lack the resolve to do so.

In another way, our objective in Iraq was simply beyond our capacity because that capacity is defined by our democracy. As a democracy we simply were not willing to pay the price in blood and treasure to achieve an Iraq that looked like postwar Japan or Germany.

I disagree, we have the capability. We lack the resolve to use that capability, because a portion of our population refuses to recognize the enemy. (liberalism is a mental disease)

In that sense, we misjudged and we committed a cardinal sin of risking national security.

I see no risk to national security in killing our enemies. In fact getting Iraq's WMD program stopped was a great good. It would have been a greater risk to let it continue.

It does no good to say we lost because we lacked resolve,

Except for the fact that it is true that we lost because we lack resolve.

in a democracy popular support of the war is as fundamental as munitions or foot soldiers-wishing does not change reality.

This is true. And this is what may doom us to die as a country. If our people will not recognize the enemy we may as well be buying our prayer rugs now because the end is inevitable (assuming the Lord does not return first)

But the game was never worth the candle, we are weaker, we are poorer, the enemy is stronger, Iraq is worse off, Iran is better off, and we still had no strategy to wage a 21st-century asymmetrical war against this enemy.

This is only because our leadership betrayed us. Right from the start they refused to recognize the enemy. Iraq as a nation was never the enemy. The Islamic radicals within Iraq (being sheltered by the nominally sectarian Hussein) were the first enemy.

After 9/11, President Bush should have declared that we were attacked by islam (because we were) and acted accordingly. If he had we would have no fear of assymetrical warfare at this point because most of the war would already have been won.

There would be no, or precious few, moslems in the United States. They would have been deported, converted or executed by now. Mecca would still be a glowing ash heap and the moslem psyche would be irrepairably crushed. (we would have proved that their all powerful allah couldn't even protect his most sacred shrine. the moslems respect nothing more than strength and proving their god was weak would have destroyed them).

After 9/11 any further attacks on us or the west by moslems should have been dealt with in overwhelming fashion. Attack one of our restaurants, we nuke your capital. Islam would cease to exist shortly.

Why was this not done? Lack of resolve.

I think part of the problem is far too many people in America (I hesitate to call any democrat or liberal an American) have bought into the "limited warfare" fallacy. War is only won when the enemy is totally defeated and has lost all will or capacity to resist. The USA has won every war that it set out to fight when it executed real war against it's enemies. It has eventually lost every war when it practiced "limited war". Again, lack of resolve.

[nathanbedford]

Perhaps you could ping me when you consider that the American people have acquired the resolve to throw nukes around in exchange for a restaurant bombing on which occasion I will happily concede your point.

[armydawg505]

I’m proud to be a Georgian and Southerner. We have turned completely away from the destructive, self suicide policies of the Obama Democrats and radicals that run this country. From North Carolina to Texas, not a single state has either state house chamber, Governor’s office, US Senate seat controlled by Democrats. Republicans have failed us in the past but so far have not shown any of the horrible radicalism so loved by the Democrats.

[elhombrelibre]

Points well made.

[Pollster1]

What do you think is the correct strategy for dealing with a rogue state with a significant radical Muslim population and a nuclear weapons program (a description that covers Iraq before George W. Bush toppled Saddam and also Iran today)? Would toppling the government and then leaving with the message “behave or we’ll come back and topple the next government” have been a better strategy than a long-term occupation? It seems like many national leaders, even in Islamic countries, are interested enough in the trappings of power to avoid risks that would surely end their rule. Is there a third option that would be superior?

[nathanbedford]

Would toppling the government and then leaving with the message “behave or we’ll come back and topple the next government” have been a better strategy than a long-term occupation?

This is a very good question and one to which, I confess, I have no easy answer. Let's start by defining our parameters. We were attacked on 9/11 by 19 fanatics wielding box cutters who managed to kill about 3000 people, caused billions in losses and expenditures, utterly distorted American political landscape, precipitated two wars, resulting in the isolation of America from many of its allies in Europe and elsewhere.

It seems to me that 19 men with box cutters is an entirely different proposition than a regime, like Iran (and what we falsely believed Iraq to be about) on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons and effective delivery systems. Incidentally, on the same day that we learn that Iran has received intercontinental ballistic missiles (presumably from Russia) we learn that Shiite coup in Yemen was successful and now the Saudis (who are Sunnis) are in the position of Germany in 1914 bracketed by Shiite enemies. All this in the wake of the announcement of a Russian/Iranian treaty. Obviously, the landscape and very likely the balance of power in the Gulf is in the process of radical change, and it is very unlikely to be a change favorable to the national security interests of the United States.

When we are dealing with the nuclear issue on the cusp of spinning out of control as is the situation today in Iran, I'm afraid we have no choice but to resort to war if necessary to interdict their getting the bomb. But this only reintroduces your question, what would be our war aim? In the case of Iran we could choose to delay their acquiring the bomb or we could choose to wage war to change the regime. Obviously, we should choose to topple the regime and that raises the next question, which you also pose, with what should it be replaced?

At this point I think we could take a look at the history of the British in India and seek to play off one tribe against another, one sect of Islam against another, secularists against traditional religionists, etc. This menu of candidates for support suggests that we become very Machiavellian. The same menu of choices, most of them bad however, presented itself in Syria. Our presence on the ground should be limited and our exposure should be equally limited. That means no wholesale occupation, no nationbuilding, no grandiloquent pronouncements. It does mean a subterranean but sinister presence.

The overall goal of this Machiavellian approach is to make clear to those in power that they should be far more afraid of the United States that they are those who advocate either terror or Islamicist jihad. In other words, we make it clear that we will support insurgents against the new regime if it trespasses against our interests and we will make clear further that we have an array of options ranging from boots on the ground through air power, sanctions, coups, arming insurgents, cyber warfare, intelligence, and the list goes on. A carrot and stick approach so long as our counterparty respects us.

I've no way of knowing if this would work and I actually find it terribly difficult to believe that any American administration would attempt it for domestic political considerations. We need only look at how the left undermined the Iraq war with its relentless drumbeat about Abu Ghraib to understand how such a policy would be attacked.

We have all the handicaps of the democracy and, even worse, a democracy invariably confounded by a leftist elite in academia and media dedicated to frustrating any such policy that I have described. Moreover, the policy I described can only hope to succeed if it is credible and credibility (to steal from chairman Mao) comes from the barrel of a gun. We must be willing to inflict casualties without regard to fastidiousness over collateral damage. We must take the attitude that we took in World War II that Germans and Japanese dying in their tens of thousands in bombing raids were paying the price for their folly in putting those regimes in place. We had the equivalent of Pearl Harbor on 9/11 but we have seen how the left has succeeded in preventing a national consensus similar the to that which existed after Pearl Harbor which would allow for credibility to come from the barrel of a gun. Unfortunately, today political correctness triumphs and the elites do not disparage Mohammedism but extol it.

I think it is probable that we require a very grievous mass casualty terrorist attack on the homeland in order to align domestic opinion to wage serious war against militant Islam. Meanwhile, I think we will see whatever war we wage to be done as covertly as possible with drones and intelligence in the hope that we are not exposed in a manner which gives The New York Times another Abu Ghraib cause celeb with which to undermine America.

If we elect a true conservative in the White House with all the best intentions who is possessed of a true understanding of the threat, he will nevertheless find himself hobbled by domestic realities. Perhaps the best we can hope for is a president who conserves our resources, gets our budget and our debt under control, restores our military and prudently predicts the future of warfare, not with aircraft carriers, but with computers, drones, robots, lasers, and satellites. He will have to fight domestically to put money where it should go and keep it away from Congress critters, Republicans as well as Democrats I am ashamed to say, who will sacrifice American security for pork. Our conservative president must revivify the American economy by making trade fair and by fostering manufacturing at least in the technology space and he will, of course, find it necessary to utterly reform our tax system is the economy is to prosper.

In other words, before we can pursue a coherent policy which might actually lead to "victory" we must get our own house in order.

[Pollster1]

Good answer. I hope advisers to our next president are already thinking in the directions you mentioned. We are in for some exceptionally ugly times, both domestically and internationally, and I cannot think of many leaders in history who were up to the challenge we face today.

Even with a mass-casualty attack far larger than 9-11, I find it hard to imagine that today’s democrats could stay motivated for more than a few months (or republicans for more than a couple of years). Even with a leader of Reagan’s stature, I find it hard to imagine that the republican leadership would be willing to sustain the necessary level of effort in the face of liberal opposition. Short of a sequence of mass-casualty attacks that together change our demographics by permanently removing urban voters, I find it hard to imagine that we would cut our frivolous spending or sustain a serious military effort.

There are many areas where we need serious work, including the ones you mention. Sadly, I suspect the list of major problems will be even longer in two years, the earliest date when we would have any chance of nudging our country in the right direction.

[nathanbedford]

There is one avenue of approach open to us in the next two years and I say that fully conscious that the current Rino Republican establishment in Congress will do virtually nothing to move the country along the lines we are talking about. That is, we can pursue the relief vouchsafed to us by Article V of the United States Constitution.

This has some small chance of success because the locus of effort is not in Washington but in 99 state legislatures which are substantially more conservative than the federal Congress and more likely to pursue genuine reform.

Two codicils: 1) it must be acknowledged that politicians in statehouses are no more noble and no less venal than elected politicians in Washington it is however submitted that they are beholden to a different set of self interests which align better with the interests of The Tea Party; 2) any meaningful reform to come out of this Article V movement probably cannot occur absent some sort of black Swan. Just as it is unlikely that we can muster the resolve to effectively counter aggressive Islam, it is unlikely that we can muster the integrity to actually reform our system absence some sort of economic, social, political, or security shock.

[John O]

Even with a mass-casualty attack far larger than 9-11, I find it hard to imagine that today’s democrats could stay motivated for more than a few months (or republicans for more than a couple of years).

Which is why it is imperative that our response to any such attack be brutal, instantaneous and totally devastating.

On 9/11 we were attacked by islam. On 9/12 mecca should have been a glowing ash heap.

Nuke now and let the liberals whine about it later. But before the liberals regain their panty-knottedness our enemies will be properly chastened (or destroyed)

[John O]

From your posts 15 and 17 we see that we do agree. Our problem is lack of resolve, not lack of capability.

The problem of islam is easily handled if one has the resolve to do so. We currently do not.