Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Obama's "Huh"?? Foreign Policy on Georgia

While it's not all that well-known, Obama's foreign policy position on Georgia would have been (if implemented) a friggin' disaster.

For Barack Obama, the problem is foreign policy incoherence. Obama has become a willing pawn of foreign policy experts -- to the point that he's embraced Georgia's entry into NATO without understanding the full implications of that strategy. As we now see, embracing Georgia in NATO means a willingness to defend that country in a war against Russia. Yet Obama's response has been all over the map, matching consensus global opinion. At first, he blamed both Georgia and Russia, then called for Russia to withdraw, now he's demanding an immediate cease fire. Events are in the saddle and Obama is going along for the ride...

Yah, The O-and-Savior's response(s) certainly point to a very light resume.

What do you suppose he would have done as C-in-C if Georgia WERE a NATO member?


Anonymous said...

If you would have taken a minute to research this post, you would have found that both McCain and Obama were co-sponsors S. Res. 523, the summary of which is "A resolution expressing the strong support of the Senate for the declaration of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization at the Bucharest Summit that Ukraine and Georgia will become members of the alliance."

But instead, you chose not to research (if you can call a 30-sec google "research"), and completely ignore McCain's equally wrong stance. Which is, actually, spelled out in the second half of the statment written by Conley.

Did you just get to the criticism of Obama, quote that, then post it here? Because your post severly misrepresents the original article.

Grim said...

If Obama were C-in-C, and Georgia were in NATO? Obviously the situation would call for us to pull the troops of out Iraq to address the crisis. Of course, to avoid the danger of escalation, they would be moved not to Georgia, but to a 'quick response' position, like Okinawa or Germany.

On the other hand, if Georgia weren't in NATO, the situation would only call for us to pull the troops out of Iraq to serve as peacekeepers. To avoid the danger of a misunderstanding, though, we would position them as a 'quick response' force, perhaps from somewhere over the horizon, like Germany or Okinawa.

Duh. :)

Dad29 said...


The reason I pointed out Obama's position was to highlight the less-than-brilliant "statement" he made over the weekend on the topic.

I already know about McCain's position--which is equally bad, as you point out.

I'm getting around to McCain. It'll take a while; but if you read this blog regularly, you will note that I am NOT a fan of McPain in any way, shape, or form.

Dad29 said...

So the thing to do is to get a vendors' license near the bases on Okinawa and Germany, eh?

Yah. THAT would be interesting to watch, eh?

Anonymous said...

Of course, here's the whole problem with this analysis:

Russia would never have attacked Georgia if it was part of NATO. And so, both McCain and Obama are correct.

Dan said...

"Russia would never have attacked Georgia if it was part of NATO. And so, both McCain and Obama are correct."
Yeah, right. Keep dreaming.

Dad29 said...

Anony, you don't KNOW whether The Bear would or would not have...

And, by the way, why don't you tell me the Overriding National Interest that the US has in Georgia?