Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
November 25, 2009
WAR: Passage To Asia

Christopher Badeaux at the New Ledger looks at Obama's trip to Asia and what it says about the goals, if any, of his foreign policy.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 12:19 PM | War 2007-12 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

The summary statement is "This inability to separate substance and appearance – oddly appropriate for a President who has never shown much of an ability to do so since he began putting the finishing touch on his resume in 2004 – is nowhere better on display than in his dealings with China."

Kinda sums up O-Bama. Let's hope for change!

Posted by: Lee at November 25, 2009 12:49 PM

I don't think anyone except Barak Obama knows exactly what he has in mind re: foreign policy, because he doesn't really have one. This China trip is probably more of his goodwill tour/foreign policy reset. To what end remains to be seen. The uncertainty, of course, leaves Republicans free reign to assume the worst, which as Crank and Badeaux have done. (By the way, what expertise, if any, does Badeaux have with foreign policy? He is lawyer, given his other posts, but why would I read him for foreign affairs?)

Regardless of Obama's ultimate motives, and as I've said before, we shouldn't be held hostage by our own allies' own agendas, as Stephen Walt notes at Foreign Policy:

"The New York Times reports today that Indian officials are miffed because the Obama administration has been paying a bit more attention to China of late. As a realist and an advocate of offshore balancing, I think this is wonderful. Security in Asia matters to us, but it matters a lot more to India for the obvious reason that India is in Asia and the United States is not. Security cooperation with the United States is a valuable asset -- despite the missteps of the past decade, it is still the world's largest economy and strongest military power -- so Asian countries like India ought to be willing to do a lot for us in order to get our attention and our help. They are more likely to help if they understand that the United States has many options and that they can't take its assistance for granted. If India thinks that we’re tilting slightly toward Beijing, maybe they will do more for us in order to persuade us to lean back their way.

Bear in mind that India also wants the Obama administration to squander more blood and treasure in Afghanistan (HT Juan Cole). I understand why India wants Washington to do the heavy lifting there, but what is India willing to do for us? For example, if our real strategic concern is not Afghanistan but rather the long-term stability of nuclear-armed Pakistan, is India willing to do anything to reduce tensions with Pakistan and thus make that task a bit easier? And no, I'm not saying that the rivalry between India and Pakistan is all India’s fault, or that the United States should treat India with indifference. I'm just reminding you that diplomacy is not just about reassuring others that they can count on us no matter what, and that the United States should take advantage of our favorable geopolitical position and play "play hard to get" more often. '"

Posted by: MVH at November 25, 2009 4:30 PM

It's not that hard to figure out. Like all Ds and Rs, his foreign policy is about moving the Treasury into the hands of defense contractors.

Posted by: Berto at December 1, 2009 2:23 PM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg