I’m not a big fan of fringe blowhards on either side but I have to say it would be a “get your popcorn” moment to see a liberal torture Sean Hannity.

The Obama Doctrine is beginning to crystallize in his first 100 days. The fact that both ultra-liberals and conservatives are criticizing him in the fashion they are should give one confidence in the manner in which President Obama is carrying out his foreign policy.

Those on the far left expected Obama to fold up the American military endeavor in Iraq once he became the leader of the free world like one would address and seal an envelope. Obama is a pragmatist and the notion of leaving the fledgling state to their own devices would simply be reckless. In Afghanistan, Obama always stated his focus would be to go after those responsible for 9/11 and his policy in Central Asia has lived up to his promise. Drones continue to strike key figures among those who would do our soldiers harm; most of them hitting targets within the lawless region of Pakistan. President Obama has also increased the forces in Afghanistan.

Obama also doesn’t appear to be the feckless Commander in Chief the right makes him out to be. There is so much banter on the right wing airwaves about Obama disparaging the good ole USA in his recent speeches as if the statements were said in isolation. Each time Obama discussed an American shortcoming he also addressed where the other party has fallen short. So much has been said on the right about President Obama’s dealings with Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez. Chavez is a whack job. If you haven’t had a chance to watch the Frontline episode about Chavez you can view it HERE. It is a great insight into the nature of the tin-pot leader. Chavez was mugging for his country’s cameras when he presented Obama with a book in Spanish entitled, “Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent”. It was  undiplomatic grandstanding on Chavez’s part. When reporters asked President Obama after the Summit of the Americas was over about his friendly interaction with Chavez and the fact the Venezuelan president handed him a book which highlighted European and US malfeasance in the region, Obama replied:

“Venezuela is a country whose defense budget is probably 1/600th of the United States’. They own Citgo. It’s unlikely that as a consequence of me shaking hands or having a polite conversation with Mr. Chavez that we are endangering the strategic interests of the United States. I don’t think anybody can find any evidence that that would do so. Even within this imaginative crowd, I think you would be hard-pressed to paint a scenario in which U.S. interests would be damaged as a consequence of us having a more constructive relationship with Venezuela.”

To understand the impact Obama’s new expression of tolerance had on the meeting, don’t go to the Carl Roves, Dick Cheneys and Rush Limbaughs of the world. Go to Latin America. How did Obama resonate with the countries with whom he interacted? In Brazil, their President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, praised Obama and called on the countries of Latin America to be more self reliant and end the habit of needing someone to rescue them. 

At times our policies in the region have been atrocious. It seems sometimes as if the flag waving, always love America crowd so prevalent on the right simply refuses to accept history as it was. Have any of these folks studied how the US gained access to Panama through backing an unlawful revolution against the Columbians? Do they have any knowledge of the CIA led overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala which in turn led to a campaign of ethnic cleansing in that nation? How about the US involvement with dictators in South America? One so easily forgets the US annexation of one half of Mexico in the 1840s. Why is it so hard for these people to understand the Monroe Doctrine has led to a blank check for the US to carry out an agenda in the region that has left many Latinos thinking not so kind thoughts of the US? Does anyone think that a kind appearance and handshakes will do harm to American interests in the Latin America? Americans should be proud of the fact we have such a well-spoken man in the White House who is carrying out the office with such good will.

President Obama is also shrewd. After allowing travel by Cuban-Americans to their familial homeland and allowing the sending of remittances there as well, Obama then told the Cuban leadership the ball is now in their court. It is time for you to take a step forward; to free political prisoners and move toward more civil rights. This led the Cuban President Raul Castro to state:

“We’ve told the North American government, in private and in public, that we are prepared, wherever they want, to discuss everything — human rights, freedom of the press, political prisoners — everything, everything, everything that they want to discuss.”

Of course these are just words but if Cuba wants the US to move forward with improved relations it is their turn to act.

For the past eight years the only tool they used in their toolbox was a hammer. It is so refreshing to see the new administration utilize their full complement of tools.

Conservatives sure lack originality. All the great artists and designers are all liberals and it really showed yesterday. Let us first address the milieu of the protest name: Tea Party. That is no conservative sounding event. Without the Boston in front of it, it sounds, well, kind of dainty. Don’t you think? And having the tea bag as the symbol not only opens you up to a wide swath of criticism, from both a locker room humor perspective and from a visual perspective. The real radical patriots of the 18th century were dressed up like savage Indians and tossed entire crates of bundled tea into Boston Harbor. But we must remember, these original protesters were radical liberals not goofy Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity wannabes with a poor attempt at shouting slogans in unison. Let’s face it, conservatives just don’t know how to protest.

And what were they protesting anyway? Their acronym T.E.A. stands for Taxed Enough Already which seems a little out of place since they all got a tax break under Obama; unless of course they make over $250K. And most of the crowd didn’t look like they fit into that category. So they are blaming Obama. The guy that is trying desperately to right the ship that those before him have forced under water. It seems to me the protesters are just bitter from having lost the election. If they wanted to protest, why don’t they go down to Wall Street and go after the real perpetrators of this disaster. Let’s do this right. Get the left behind you. Let’s go dismantle the corporate offices of AIG, CITI Group, Bear-Sterns, and JPMorgan, et. al. They are the modern day equivalent to what the British Crown did to America. Let’s wheel in barrel fulls of tea and wash out their headquarters. Liberals know how to protest. In the tens of thousands we could surround the companies and demand the government find those responsible for bringing the world economy to the brink of collapse and try them in court.  But instead you have a bunch of  people who realize their party is a waste of space, no longer represents them and the only thing worse is the new guy in the White House who has them staring reality in the face that change has come to America. Well, over sixty percent of America is with the President. I think I will go have a cup of tea sans the bag.

Somalia is no place for President Obama to begin his foreign policy. Given that he inherited wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Obama will take ownership of any decisions he makes on the pirate menace in the waters of the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. Unless he gets a significant commitment from a bevy of interested nations, Obama should stay away from committing forces to Somalia. With no true government in the impoverished nation, there is not much reward to military action. The pirates are part of a warlord culture whereby those doing the actual pirating are simply pawns in the business of seizing ships. Though the 90s incursion by US forces was botched due to a lack of heavy weapons, the real lesson was a political one. The warlords of Somalia are like gang leaders. You kill one and another simply takes their place. Unless we are willing to take and hold ground in Somalia we should not commit forces there. And it would be foolish to contemplate such a pointless military endeavor. That was a lesson we should have learned from the Battle of Mogadishu.

For the most part the notion we should do something about Somali pirates is media driven. Just like Bush Sr. got sucked into the humanitarian crisis in Somalia in the early 90s by images of starving people in the Horn of Africa. The threat posed by a rag tag group of undernourished Somalis is not a threat to US security. That doesn’t mean we should do nothing. If insurance risk is keeping the tankers from being armed then do what was done in the World Wars: work out a convoy system. Ships could sail intermittently with destroyers or gunboats as protectors. The companies whose ships are being protected could pay for the maintenance and cost of the protection.

The United States has already bitten off more than is feasible to chew in our military incursions in the the Middle East. Somalia is a nation where military action will never result in long term dividends. Therefore Obama should either use his international clout to form a large coalition to help stabilize Somalia without a significant US presence or create a defensive strategy to combat pirating in the region with minimal US assets.

Recently there was an uproar among Christian conservatives over Obama’s statement stressing the point that the United States is not a Christian nation.

The argument that is created by the statement is in itself antithetical to American governance. Should a Jew living in the United States be obliged to think he lives in a Christian nation? What makes the United States a Christian nation?

Looking back on the history of this nation, one cannot overlook the Puritans. Better known as the Pilgrims they came here searching to not only find a place where they can escape religious persecution but also a place where their strict form of Christianity would not be challenged. Their oppressive form of worship was so offensive to non-Puritans, many fled the Plymouth colony and established splinter colonies. In the pre-Revolutionary days there were but three religions that held any sway: Protestant Christianity, Roman Catholicism and a smattering of Jews. (Islam was found only in a few groups of slaves brought over from Africa in bondage).

It is true, Christianity was an influential element of the history of this country. But those who drew up the foundations of this nation were not using the Bible as a blueprint for law. In fact, the founding architects of the United States were using principles that were running perpendicular to religious concepts. The Enlightenment was in full bloom when America declared Her independence (1776) and when the Constitution was written (1787). Thomas Jefferson, an avowed Deist penned the Declaration of Independence and James Madison, the chief mind behind the Constitution spoke about religion:

Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

Does that mean there were others influential to the establishment of this great nation that were devout men of the Christian faith? Surely. But to say this nation is a Christian nation simply because the primary religion historically has been Christianity misses the mark. If you believe America is a Christian nation do you also believe it is a White nation? After all, the founders were all White. Most Americans, conservative and liberal, would be uncomfortable with this question. To a Jew or a Muslim or a Buddhist the statement America is a Christian nation has exactly the same sting. Identifying the US with a religion  runs contrary to the tenants that makes this nation so great. To do otherwise foments exclusiveness.  Therefore, President Obama was correct. America is not a Christian nation. It doesn’t belong to Christians, it belongs to the citizens and we will be a better nation the sooner we all see it is a such.

President Obama’s speech content was interesting to watch this past week. Many have said it was simply a pleasure to watch a statesman who can effectively deliver a speech. But there was something much different than style between the former President and the present one. In fact there was an element to Obama’s speeches that was not only bold but if poorly executed could easily have been seen as patronizing. Fortunately for us Obama is a superb speaker with a knowledge of the world to go with it.  In France he told his audience:

But in Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious. Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what’s bad.

In Ankara today Obama pointed out a festering wound that has been denied by the Turkish government:

Human endeavor is by its nature imperfect. History is often tragic, but unresolved, it can be a heavy weight. Each country must work through its past. And reckoning with the past can help us seize a better future. I know there’s strong views in this chamber about the terrible events of 1915. And while there’s been a good deal of commentary about my views, it’s really about how the Turkish and Armenian people deal with the past. And the best way forward for the Turkish and Armenian people is a process that works through the past in a way that is honest, open and constructive.

In 1915 during the Great War the Ottoman Empire carried out the century’s first genocide against their Christian Armenian population. Though statistics are hard to come by, as many as one million people were systematically slaughtered. The event was simply an extension of a war that would not be resolved until 1945. When Adolf Hitler prepared to wreak vengeance on the Polish nation in 1939 he said:

My decision to attack Poland was arrived at last spring. Originally, I feared that the political constellation would compel me to strike simultaneously at England, Russia, France, and Poland. Even this risk would have had to be taken.

Ever since the autumn of 1938, and because I realized that Japan would not join us unconditionally and that Mussolini is threatened by that nit-wit of a king and the treasonable scoundrel of a crown prince, I decided to go with Stalin.

In the last analysis, there are only three great statesmen in the world, Stalin, I, and Mussolini. Mussolini is the weakest, for he has been unable to break the power of either the crown or the church. Stalin and I are the only ones who envisage the future and nothing but the future. Accordingly, I shall in a few weeks stretch out my hand to Stalin at the common German-Russian frontier and undertake the redistribution of the world with him.

Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter — with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It’s a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me.

I have issued the command — and I’ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad — that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formations in readiness — for the present only in the East — with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?

The fact that President Obama brought up the genocide issue before the Turkish Parliament today showed political fortitude. But his style both in Ankara today and in the town hall he had in Strasbourg last week showed amazing skill. He at first made it known that we have had our historical flaws as well. In Strasbourg he spoke of American arrogance when dealing with international affairs. In Ankara he spoke of the flaws of the American journey after 1783, especially in relation to slavery and civil rights. Prior to speaking about Armenian genocide Obama noted:

Another issue that confronts all democracies as they move to the future is how we deal with the past. The United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history. Facing the Washington Monument that I spoke of is a memorial of Abraham Lincoln, the man who freed those who were enslaved even after Washington led our revolution. Our country still struggles with the legacies of slavery and segregation, the past treatment of Native Americans.

There are many of those on the right who choose to denigrate Obama. They claim that he is all too eager to chastise America; some would say a subtle version of the Dixie Chicks incident a few years back. But those critical of Obama’s statements simply need to intellectually mature. As Obama begins to break down the multitude of barriers that had been erected these last eight years and as he begins to lay the groundwork for new foundations, a little humility seems to go a long way.

Poll: Obama Approval Hits New High – 66%

Obama, the pragmatist, wins NATO kudos but few troops for Afghan mission

Europeans are very subtle by nature. The farther north you go in Europe the more subtle they get. President Obama spoke in Strasbourg today. Though in France, it is as much German as it is French in temperament (if not in nationality). This was the second leg of Obama’s first overseas trip but you would never know he was a novice. With 19 other leaders, none garnered as much attention and admiration as the new US President has. What an amazing opportunity at an amazing time, and he has not disappointed. If you haven’t watched the full town hall speech President Obama gave in Strasbourg then you have missed one of those moments that don’t come around very often. It was a natural fit. Europe is a bastion of liberalism and Obama is a leftist. But no ordinary politician could have given the speech he did today. Within 20 minutes he was able to sweep away the transgressions of the eight year nightmare that was George Bush. Without giving up an inch of American principle, Obama was able to reach out to those in attendance and all those sitting in front of their television screens and embrace a bygone era when Europe and the US held the shield together in the shadow of a communist menace and at the same time forge an understanding of the present and future in a frank and direct fashion. Explaining to a liberal audience the importance of maintaining a presence in Afghanistan. For 20 minutes he spoke and there was not one audible jeer. It was as if you could see the sludge being washed away before your very eyes. It seems in this climate of rational thought all things are possible. Perhaps I’m wrong. After all, it is just President Obama’s first overseas trip.

Watch the full speech HERE

Germans look to Obama rather than Merkel in crisis

_____________________________________________

And what is left for the Conservatives to rally behind? Why, Glenn Beck of course. He made that ideological based leap from CNN to Fox and he has rocketed up to the second most watched pundit on cable news. I’m not sure if I should be amused or scared at this fact because Beck is a bit…how do you say it?…unbalanced (a true equalizer on the “Fair and Balanced” network). When the Conservatives receive their news from a steady diet of Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Hannity and Beck you can understand how their party, message and identity is deep in the weeds.