Choosing the Next Commander-in-Chief—————————–
A commentary
By J. F. Kelly, Jr.
The feckless foreign policies of President Barack Obama have resulted in a sharp decline in America’s influence, prestige and respect throughout much of the world. Faith in America’s leadership and reliability as an ally is markedly less today than it was eight years ago. Mr. Obama’s final trip to Asia provided more symptoms of the decline.
It began with a rocky reception in China and a silly but symbolic flap over which stairway to use in descending from Air Force One. The most powerful leader in the world was forced to use a service stairway, making a less than grand entrance. An angry and profane outburst from the Philippines president, Rodrigo Duterte, caused Mr. Obama to cancel a meeting to discuss, among other things, aggressive Chinese actions in the economic zone of our former colony. The summit of ten leaders of the Southeastern Asia Nations declined to join in a U.S.-led criticism of China’s refusal to accept an international court ruling rejecting China’s claims of sovereignty and island-building in the South China Sea, handing Beijing a diplomatic victory. China will now feel more empowered to continue colonizing and militarizing that huge, vital body of water though which over half of the world’s seaborne commerce passes.
Duterte’s tirade, for which he later apologized, was no doubt at least partly a result of constant hectoring by Obama’s state department over civil rights violations in the conduct of Duterte’s efforts to defeat domestic Islamic terrorists. Duterte said that the U.S. had no standing to make such criticisms given this country’s early treatment of Filipinos under our colonial rule. That he would risk a closer alliance with the U.S. while China is seeking to militarize the nearby Scarborough Shoals is especially concerning. He now seems more inclined to enter into direct negotiations with Beijing and to offer concessions in return for Chinese investment and economic aid.
Nr. Obama’s long-sought Trans-Pacific Partnership, which China opposes, faces heavy opposition in Congress and is opposed by both U.S. presidential contenders. Its failure would be another major victory for Beijing, a severe blow to what’s left of Obama’s foreign policy agenda and a deep disappointment to Japan, America’s principal partner in Obama’s pivot to the Pacific, as well as to other East Asia allies concerned about growing Chinese dominance in the region and beyond.
China continues to rebuff U.S. pleas to deter its ally, North Korea, from conducting nuclear and ballistic missile tests and threatening its neighbors and the United States. Beloved Leader Kim Jong Un saluted Mr. Obama’s Far East visit by conducting another nuclear test. After eight years, it should be apparent, even to Mr. Obama, that diplomacy isn’t working on him.
But diplomacy is all that Mr. Obama has to offer anymore, even in response to provocations. Iran is already in violation of details of the nuclear agreement. It also continues to be the largest state sponsor of international terrorism, undoubtedly using funds freed up by the nuclear agreement and other U.S.-provided funds to help finance it. Its leaders still chant “Death to Americans” and vow the destruction of Israel. Its vessels harass U.S. warships in international waters on a now-regular basis. We respond by blowing whistles at them, taking evasive action and issuing strong protests.
While America’s prestige and ability to influence events declines, China’s and Russia’s increases. America is valued now more as a market for exports than as an ally. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama treats the war on terrorism as a police action and frets about such trivia as closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, insisting that it is a “recruitment tool that clouds and sours our relations with other countries”, as if the cloudy and sour relationship didn’t go much, much deeper. Teddy Roosevelt’s policy of speaking softly and carrying a big stick has much merit. Mr. Obama has perfected the first part of it, but if he’s carrying a big stick, he’s keeping it well-hidden. Diplomacy, to be effective, must be backed by military power and the willingness to use it in defense of a nation’s vital interests must be credible. After numerous threats, ultimatums and lines in the sand ignored, his credibility is now dubious at best.
His successor will soon be tested. The two who would succeed him auditioned for the job in a recent so-called Commander-in-Chief Forum on TV. The results were less than reassuring. Donald Trump opened by revealing that his secret plan to defeat Islamic State quickly turns out to be a plan to convene his generals and ask for their plan. These are presumably mostly the same generals who he believes have “been reduced to rubble.” Or maybe he means different generals. I can just picture it now. “Good morning, gentlemen. You’re all fired. Have your reliefs provide me with a plan to defeat ISIS quickly. Meanwhile, I have a wall to build. ” This is what you get when you nominate a TV reality show host who hasn’t a clue as to how government works or, for that matter, much of anything else besides making great deals and firing people.
Mrs. Clinton was no better. She continued the pathetic rationalization of her use of a private server to conduct official State Department business and her repeated lying about it. She struggled to answer a question from a vet as to why she shouldn’t be held to the same security standards as service members who have been punished for lessor breaches of security. She vowed never to send troops to Syria, although thousands are already there, and in violation of the policy of never letting your adversaries know what’s off the table in terms of options.
I don’t know what will happen after this election, but one thing, at least, is clear to me. Neither of these two is qualified to be commander-in- chief of the armed forces of the United States.
September 13, 2016
Commentaries by J. F. Kelly, Jr. 