Quick, someone tell Obama that “The Green Zone” is not an environmental pilot project and watch how quickly he runs out of Baghdad. Better yet, tell him we want him to stay over there, not come back over here to torture us with his Bush III cheap rationalizations and fictions.
Big Media though, continues to help stooge/tool Obama and wants him back in D.C., probably to save a few dollars on on travel costs. The latest bit of help Obama spin from Big Media is: Obama’s European Vacation is a “get acquainted” visit, not a get anything at all done trip, ergo a massive success.
Big Media will not admit the evidence points to Obama as a “Sucker” in the eyes of world leaders. No, Big Media will try to make a buck selling the idea that Obama knows what he is doing and it will be better luck next time. But even that spin has limits as the New York Times praises Obama but now finds “change” not to be such a valuable commodity as it was during the elections:
But with the notable exception of his approach to nuclear disarmament and countering proliferation — where radical shifts appear to be under way — what Mr. Obama described in public veered more toward a restoration of the old order than a vast strategic realignment. “There will be a moment for that,” one of Mr. Obama’s senior advisers said in London, Mr. Obama’s first stop. “This trip was more about reattaching all the cars on the train, and convincing them other leaders that we’re no longer headed for derailment.”
For Big Media: It’s the status quo stupid! Big Media likes the Third Bush Term.
Obama will get the trains to run on the old timetables and Big Media will celebrate. Big Media also applauds the new Obama distraction (the “vast strategic realignment”): Global Zero.
“Global Zero”, as six “security experts” wrote on April 1, is a plan to set the world on a course towards the total elimination of all nuclear weapons – global zero. We checked, this is not an April Fools Day joke.
Getting rid of nuclear weapons is a lovely idea. Ronald Reagan wanted to get rid of nuclear weapons too, but reality got in the way. Getting rid of nuclear weapons is a lovely idea. But… well we never thought we would ridicule the idea of getting rid of nuclear weapons, so we will let Anne Applebaum at Slate, do the honors:
Believe me, it is no fun to be the one who rains on the parade, and if nothing else, President Barack Obama’s trip to Europe this past week was quite a parade. Or maybe “sold-out concert tour” is the better metaphor. [snip]
Still, someone has to say it: Some things went well on this trip, and some things went badly. But the centerpiece of the visit, Obama’s keynote foreign-policy speech in Prague—leaked in advance, billed as a major statement—was, to put it bluntly, peculiar. He used it to call for “a world without nuclear weapons” and a new series of arms-control negotiations with Russia. This was not wrong, necessarily, and not evil. But it was strange.
Applebaum is right, it was strange. We don’t want anyone to get the impression that we dislike Obama so much we prefer to kiss a nuclear bomb than have to watch his kisser or listen to him drone on about arugula or “hope” or emit “inspirational” platitudes that weigh on our eyelids. But it was strange. Applebaum explains:
Clearly, the “no nukes” policy is one close to the president’s heart. The Prague speech even carried echoes of that most famous of all Obama speeches, the one he made after losing the New Hampshire primary. [snip]
This is all very nice—but as the central plank in an American president’s foreign policy, a call for universal nuclear disarmament seems rather beside the point. Apparently, the president’s intention is to lead by example: If the United States cuts its own nuclear arsenal and bans testing, others will allegedly follow.
Forgive me for joining the chorus of cynics, but there is no evidence that U.S. nuclear arms reductions have ever inspired others to do the same. All the world’s more recent nuclear powers—Israel, India, Pakistan—acquired their weapons well after such talks began more than 40 years ago.
Appelbaum is kind. She does not mention Obama’s denial, I’m not naive. She does however think, as we wrote, that the North Koreans chose to launch their missile in order to slap Obama right in the kisser. In addition Appelbaum agrees with us that all the world leaders’ backslaps and applause won’t get Obama a darn thing to restrain North Korea. And the Russians are slapping Obama around and making him like it and think it’s his idea:
As for the North Koreans, they chose the very day of the Prague speech to launch (unsuccessfully) an experimental missile. In its wake, neither China nor Russia wanted to condemn the launch, since to do so might set a precedent uncomfortable for them. “Every state has the right to the peaceful use of outer space,” said a Russian U.N. envoy. His government does want arms-reduction talks, it is true, but only because the Russian nuclear arsenal is rapidly deteriorating. By agreeing to start them, we’ve unnecessarily handed over a bargaining chip.
More to the point, nuclear weapons, while terrifying in the abstract, are not an immediate strategic threat to Europe or the United States—even from Iran. Biological weapons are potentially more lethal. Chemical weapons are far cheaper to produce. Within the United States, ordinary bombs and rogue airplanes have already caused plenty of damage.
Conventional weapons, meanwhile, have not gone out of fashion. The most recent use of military force in Europe—the Russian-Georgian conflict of last August—involved tanks and infantry, not nukes. Even if Russia sold its remaining nuclear weapons for scrap metal, Russia’s military would still pose a potential threat to its neighbors, just as a China without nukes could still invade Taiwan.
As we said, getting rid of nuclear weapons is a lovely idea – Anne Applebaum thinks so too. But…
Ridding the world of nuclear weapons would be very nice, in other words, but on its own, it won’t alter the international balance of power, stop al-Qaida, or prevent large authoritarian states from invading their smaller neighbors. However unsuccessful it has been so far, the promotion of democracy around the world is, ultimately, the only way to achieve these goals. Besides, however much the French loved Michelle’s flowery dress, I’m not sure they have much interest in giving up their force de frappe. Ditto the British. And since they don’t pose a threat, to us or anyone else, it’s not clear to me why we should waste diplomatic capital trying to make them do so.
Anne Applebaum finally gets to the point and agrees with us once again: It’s another Obama distraction from the mess Obama is making of the American economy – sound and fury signifying NOTHING.
It could be, of course, that the Prague speech represented a holding pattern: Obama will talk about “no nukes” until he finds a more satisfying idea on which to hang his foreign policy. And if it didn’t, all that goodwill, so much in evidence last week, might well go to waste.
It’s just talk. Silly talk from a silly man.
Obama’s policies are toxic assets. Obama is The Global Zero.