Friday, 18 September 2009

Welcome back, Carter

There have been rumours that Mr Barack Hussein Obama's real name is Barry Soetoro or Barry Dunham. Neither is true. His real name is Jimmy "Chamberlain" Carter. By cancelling the European arm of the missile defence system he's finally come out of the closet and sent Champagne corks popping from Moscow to Tehran.

I didn't expect great things of Mr Obama in the field of defence or foreign relations. In fact, I wasn't surprised when the only real cuts he made to the federal budget were in defence or that his foreign policy consisted largely of insulting allies and grovelling to tyrants. I was even pleasantly surprised when he realised that cutting and running in the face of a a victory in Iraq and possible defeat in Afghanistan would have meant political suicide. Nor was I caught out when he shafted the Czechs and the Poles over missile defence. What I am astonished at is the sheer boneheadedness of managing to combine abject appeasement of Mr Putin by giving him Eastern Europe on a plate with guaranteeing that the Mad Mullahs of Tehran will have nuclear-tipped ICBMs pointed at London and Washington in a few years by sticking on a pair of rose-coloured glasses and saying that, in effect, Brezhnev would never lie to him. More to the point: What did he get in return for this insane giveaway? Not a sausage. Hoping that Russia will "cooperate" against Iran? That Iran will go misty eyed at this gesture of good faith? That's on a par with handing over the keys to your Porche to a guy you met in the pub so he can drive to an ATM for the money to buy it and wondering why you never see him or you car again.

I'm sorry, but I've been through this before. Back in the 1970s, one James Earl Carter took up residency in the White House and spent four years scolding his people, telling them that they'd have to make do with less, that they'd have to adjust to no longer being the world's most powerful nation, and sent an ambassador to the UN who not only went native, but went over to the other side. It had never been unusual to see the United States condemned from the floor of the General Assembly, but it was certainly novel to see it being done by the American's own man. Meanwhile, Mr Carter dutifully and with high moral posturing gutted the American military inventory and resided over a foreign policy that looked like General Effingham's retreat from Kabul. Then, to Mr Carters astonishment ("Brezhnev lied to me!"), Iran fell to a load of nuts whose idea of gay rights was shoving a wall on top of them and the Soviets responded to the dove of peace by overrunning Afghanistan. Considering that the original Battlestar Galactica was airing then, it's amazing that Western Europe wasn't wiped out by the Cylons.

Now here we are thirty years later and a new series of Galactica isn't the only repeat on the schedule. And just like last time, Mr Obama's way of handling real threats from evil, ambitious men is to indulge in wishful thinking that the Iranians aren't really building a bomb and don't really want to destroy us, that Putin isn't acting like an ex-KGB boss who sees himself as a 21st century Peter the Great, that Jihadists can be wished away because they're so inconvenient, and that allies can be taken for granted because they all think "Gosh, isn't The One so dreamy!".

Needless to say, just as Mr Carter got a rude awakening, so will Mr Obama. And God help the rest of us when he does, because I really have no desire to see half of Iran turned into glass after a failed nuclear strike against Tel Aviv nor to watch a United States standing by helplessly with an aging, diminished nuclear arsenal because Mr Obama thinks the Bomb is "icky" while the Middle East plunges into the biggest arms race since iron was discovered.

To quote Bettie Davis, "Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be a bumpy night"

13 comments:

Neil Russell said...

It's a shame that the one bit of education these "diplomats" never receive is the understanding that schoolyard bullies, criminals, and international tyrants have one thing in common; by their very nature they are cowards and simply standing up to them is the easiest way to keep the peace.
It only took the hint of "Reagan" to get back the Iranian hostages, send "Big Mo" in Libya scurrying, and shut down the entire Soviet Union. And on the home front, by simply reducing the top marginal tax rates the economy bounced back from the Carter oblivion and kept the country going until just a couple of years ago when the threat of increased taxes drove us right back to the late 1970s.
(just wait until interest rates start that uptick again)
What's most distressing is that the same angry speeches directed at Americans that oppose government health care, if turned just once or twice towards our international enemies, would result in a much more polite world.
Apparently it's only proper to "go Soviet" on our own people and the rest of the world need never fear the rolling tanks of "Imperialist America"
At least Obama can't give away the Panama Canal again.

The more things change...

Rick Darby said...

By downgrading deterrence and relying on goodwill and negotiations with people who don't understand what goodwill means, the Failed Messiah is drastically increasing the likelihood that we will ultimately have to use what remains of our nuclear weapons capability.

Then again, if we survive four years of Obamanosis, we may be inoculated against his sort for another 30 years.

OT: I like your writing but the white type against a funereal black background is jolly hard on the retina thingys.

Wunderbear said...

@Rick: White text is supposedly better for your eyes. Obviously on paper black text on white paper is pretty standard and has worked for generations, but on a PC when you read black-on-white you are essentially staring at a high-frequency lightbulb.

@Dave:

I thought we could trust Russia now. Or have I yet to learn that every other country apart from "us" (us referring to the country you're currently a citizen of) cannot be trusted? I was born after the end of the Cold War, and I don't really feel it's necessary that people bring it back for my benefit.

Also, I thought that the plan was to replace the static missile shield with a set of sea-based missile-defenses?

Ah, well. What do I know, eh? Frankly, I think we should give up hope of ever having world peace and just give every person on earth a nuclear weapon. At least it would be funny, rather than this endless cycle of drudgery, paranoia and anger.

Wunderbear said...

Seriously, though (although I do still seriously support my "total nuclear proliferation" idea). I don't think it's necessary to think of Russia as an enemy. (Iran, yeah okay probably)

The important thing, however, is that they reciprocate in some way. We've made a concession, now they make a concession.

Robert said...

Do these diplomats realize that humans are just animals? They claim they accept the theory of evolution yet they reject its implications. They make policies based on the discredited "blank slate" yet they dishonestly deny that they believe in the "blank slate". They're Lysenko Creationists.

Wunderbear said...

Humans are just animals? It's a bit of a pessimistic view to take... I think we've progressed beyond picking each other's hair for insects or defecating where we stand.

Isn't it possible that we can strive to be more?

Ivan said...

Wunderbear : NO

Wunderbear said...

...Woah. Touchy subject? Why not? Why So Serious?

(Heh: vericode was comisms)

Ivan said...

Maybe I shouldn't have used capital letters.
The thing is, most people are more stupid than you and consider one's nationality a key factor in determining one's personality traits.
Foreigners make a great common enemy which serves to consolidate one's own nation and make everyone wothin it friends.
I think it's because deep down, people are insecure and feel much safer if they belong to a huge collective. They also seem to be addicted to confrontation, so they divide into nations.

And, remembering how you once said that you like to play as the soviet side in a strategic game, I can't help but tell you something that I think sounds funny:
Youre a German. Deal with it.

Wunderbear said...

Oh, I see. You weren't violently opposed, you were only stating fact. I'd probably agree with what you said there (except for the "more stupid than I" bit; I can be very dumb at times).

Also... I'm a German? Wut? I don't understand. (Yes, I think I may have been talking about World in Conflict at the time, but that's because Hind Ds and Shilkas are awesome vehicles. Nothing to do with communist sympathies at all).

Ivan said...

Youre not a German! For some reason beside your nickname I thought you were.
I was joking. I just thought it would sound funny to suggest someone not to take the role of his country's old enemy in a game. Happened to me once.

Wunderbear said...

Ah, okay then. I see what you meant. But in regards to the game thing, I'm not really getting the patriotic vibe. I prefer the soviet side because their units are cool; the politics don't come into it at any point. I'm not really an uber-patriot.

(besides, it's US vs Russia. Stuff being a yank, they're overplayed nowadays)

Ivan said...

I most often tend to take the side that is defending itself, for example Finland in Finland vs. Russia. Or Russia in 1941. The fact that my side has more problems gives me a sort of mental edge.
Do you have IL-2 Sturmovik ?