January, 2010
U.S. International Policy: Point the Finger, Pass the Blame
Chelsea Poulin
It seems to me that quite a sizable amount of President Obama's campaign was aimed at pointing out the “mistakes” and “downfalls” that he and his party found in the platform of his predecessor. And by the law of association, these negative views and outcomes were also pinned on the Republican Party. Whether damning President Bush for making the difficult decision to invade Iraq, or promising to fix the economy (after making it clear it was neo-conservatism that had caused the crash), the focus of Obama and the Left has certainly been to sway the public opinion by means of the blame game. Nonetheless, we are several months into President Obama's term and it is high time to evaluate how our President has dealt with these issues. Has Obama been able to right the “wrongs” of Bush as quickly as he was able to point them out to voters? And more importantly, how is President Obama representing our country overseas and leading our nation. The only fair way to evaluate the new president is to avoid the blame game and rather compare not the promises, but the policies, of these two men.
The biggest differences that I can find between the two presidents relates directly to their individual styles of foreign policy. It can be clearly seen from our presidents' separate actions that Bush acted in defense of the nation, whereas Obama is simply prosecuting it.
For one, President Obama, like many other liberals, chided President Bush for his War on Terror, and more specifically the War in Iraq. Bush acted as our country's commander in chief and made the executive decision to invade Iraq from a defensive standpoint, whether you believe there were weapons of mass destruction or not. Now this is purely speculation, but I believe that if President Obama were put in Bush's situation in 2001, instead of attempting to protect our country he would have apologized to the world, proclaiming that the U.S. obviously provoked it.
Bush was so openly criticized for what some say was a rash and flawed invasion. But where are these naysayers now that Obama is rushing in to a health care “plan” without much thought to any other opinions, or the possibly disastrous outcomes. At least Bush was looking out for our country, not his own agenda. In fact, upon entering office, President Bush actually took a non-Wilsonian, non-interventionalist approach to foreign policy. It was only after our country was attacked that he changed his view.
So I guess I am asking the obvious question: if President Obama can damn the efforts of the Bush administration, especially his foreign policy, and flaunt his own idealistic promises so easily, then why is he finding it so difficult to come through his plans. From the few bailouts he has instated (unsuccessfully by the way) to the “brilliant” Cash for Clunkers program, which has successfully depleted funds and littered fields with cars, it seems that Obama just can't follow through. With our country in its current state, why is President Obama not only wasting his time by apologizing to other countries, but also making the U.S. appear weak? What President Obama needs to remember is that he is a citizen of the United States first, our elected leader second, and a “citizen of the world” last. Who is he to apologize for us, the United States of America! Sorry we saved your economy, your soldiers' lives, and the world after WWII, Europe. We are sorry we made the world “safe for democracy” throughout the Cold War lasting nearly fifty years. And we are terribly sorry for electing to office, President Obama. All he has done is make the national debt soar to an obscene amount, make our country look weak and separated, and call the opposition an “unruly mob” full of senior citizens nervous that his health care bill will literally kill them! Obama needs to remember who elected him to the position he now enjoys, and more importantly, what country he represents.