The Obama Doctrine

President Obama gave the graduation address at West Point yesterday and once again tried to enunciate the Obama Doctrine. And today on “Morning Joe" (MSNBC), Joe Scarborough asked his assembled lefties to say what this Doctrine actually was. None did a very good job defining it. But by carefully reading our fearless leader’s commencement address text, I think I might be able to codify this Doctrine. Here goes my elevator capsule:

America will never again send our armed forces into battle except under extreme duress and actual threat to our homeland. We will deal with any and all other foreign aggression which does not meet these criteria with “soft power” which is defined as moral suasion, diplomacy, and, if necessary, sanctions … but will never include the implicit or explicit threat to use our military might or atomic weapons. As a consequence the United States will allow our armed forces and armaments to depreciate to a level appropriate to this new foreign-policy stance.

Read the subtle and circuitous route through Obama’s commencement address at West Point (including that which lies between the lines) and see if you don’t concur with my above assessment … see: The New York Times' Transcript  In this speech, Obama does decry our slipping back into our pre-WW2 isolationism.  However, if my statement of the Obama Doctrine is accurate, that is exactly what we are doing ... and I've said this before, see: The World Map. I could be wrong, but I really don’t believe that this is the zeitgeist that now pervades America … despite our foreign policy mistakes under George W. Bush.

I honestly don't think that the American people are ready to step back and concede the rest of the world to the Dark Side.

Afterward: And apparently the New York Times editorial board somewhat agrees with my slant ... see: NY Times Editorial.

War Drums

One must pause to consider seriously what might transpire if Russia decides to go beyond even the Ukraine and invade a member of NATO … such as the Czech Republic, Poland, or perhaps Estonia.  The United States and the rest of the European NATO members (see: NATO Membership) are obliged by Article 5 of the NATO Alliance Treaty to respond in kind … see: NATO Article 5.  The question is would they or we? 

The combined standing European troops of the NATO countries number some five million … and including the United States, over six million.  This would be pitted against a well-trained, well equipped and brutal Russian Army of some 1.5 million.  Of course there is a major difference … these European NATO troops are composed of numerous social and gender experiments ill-equipped and ill-trained to shed blood for any cause let alone a serious tangle with the Russian bear … particularly if such a tussle is over a former SSR.

We have seen the reluctance of even the Ukrainian troops to respond to the recent Russian belligerency in the Crimea. Therefore I am just a bit dubious as to how these same Ukrainian troops might react to a full-scale Russian invasion of Western Ukraine.  And this zeitgeist may well be duplicated in other Eastern European countries which in fact are NATO members ... but which are not that far removed in time from the subservience they were forced to experience under the Soviet Union’s domination.  I hope I am wrong if such a situation transpires, but somehow I would not stake a lot of credence in the stalwartiness of such forces opposing such a Russian invasion.

Of course, I also do not have a lot of faith that President Barack “Another Red Line” Obama would also not go wobbly in such a situation. Let us not forget that, during the height of the Cold War, America’s major deterrent was atomic weaponry which we forswore to use to counteract a much more massive Soviet army if they were to invade Western Europe.  I am reasonably certain that this “mutually assured destruction” option is no longer an arrow in Obama’s quiver. If it were, I think he might have brought it up by now.

The consequences of a Russian invasion of one or more NATO members which were former SSRs and an inconsequential NATO response would not only begin to reassemble the Soviet Union …  it would also effectively kill NATO. This would be a disastrous legacy for Obama … not that I think he would take such a failing too much to heart.

This then is a dangerous game of chicken that Russian President Putin seems to be contemplating. But, if he is using his Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton/John Kerry interactions over the last five years as his measure of the resoluteness of the United States, I am afraid we may be in for some very bad times.

Rhymes with Duck

I’ve never watched an episode of Duck Dynasty … but I’ve a pretty good idea about why it is so popular (the #1 cable show of all time).  It, like Sarah Palin, appeals to vast Middle America, fly-over country, the family-values backbone of an otherwise increasingly squishy anything-goes Gomorrah.  And this show also espouses Christian values (gasp!) … something that makes cable executives cringe.  If it weren’t for the astronomic ratings and the sponsors’ fat checkbooks, Duck Dynasty would never have made it out of season one.

Now Phil Robertson, the patriarch of this clan has pissed off the Arts and Entertainment (A and E) Channel execs with his frank comments just published in GQ Magazine … for the straight skinny see: Hollywood Reporter Story.  Now, I can see why our increasingly (in)tolerant zeitgeist cannot cotton such hetero speak out of a born-again Christian and so Phil has been put in the network’s penalty box. But a gay male couple, also on A and E (Storage Wars, New York), has stated just the opposite … in equally graphic terms … and remains in good standing at this network … see: TMZ Story/ ... not surprising to me in the least.

I don’t know the terms of the Robertsons’ contract with A and E, but I think that, if at all legally possible, their true Christian witnessing would require the Robertson tribe to quit A and E en mass and suggest, in a benign and loving Christian way of course, that the executives of this network participate in some contortionistic auto-erotic behavior.

Afterwards: Here is the response from the Robertson family: Robertson Statement. However it contains no family suggestion for the A and E execs.  Drat.