Reality of foreign policy

January 30, 2009

I ran across an interesting article by SIR CHRISTOPHER MEYER (Ambassador to Washington, 1997-2003) about nationalism and ethnic tribalism in today's world. Ethnic tribalism is a good term - especially in regards to the tribes of savages in the Arab world. How it must be faced head on and not with kumbaya barryism.

That is the brilliance of Madame Secretary Clinton - she has no such illusions, is well-educated in the history of warring factions, particularly as regards India/Pakistan/Afghanistan and Israel, and she is reality-based, result-oriented and experience-driven. In other words - her foreign policy experience is more than the "having tea with ambassadors" that the mindless chanters fell for. Add to that her awareness that women will be the ones to bring peace and prosperity to their oppressed lands not the human detonators and hate-filled evildoers.

And contrary to her homeland - in which she was First Lady of Arkansas for 10 years, First Lady of the United States for 8 years, Senator from New York for 8 years, presidential candidate and now Secretary of State - she is well-beloved and respected around the world - as is her husband. It's insane to read that sentence and realize that barry supporters actually said out loud that barry had more political experience. And she is presently more well known and more respected than barry around the world and only time will tell if that changes.

If the American press continues to treat her so inhumanely while she is trying to repair our standing in the world by implementing "barry's" policy, it will show once and for all they are out to destroy her as a woman - a useless cause. Is there a tougher woman, let alone politician, out there? It will prove they have no regard for barry's "judgment". And it will prove their castration anxiety is more important than their futures, their children's futures, our nation's future since it rests on her success.

Does anyone still believe barry has any idea or enough knowledge or experience to actually dictate foreign policy? He picked Biden just to get elected and look what has already happened. It seems he 's just another crazy old uncle who says things barry doesn't agree with. How fortunate it was that wardrobegate was more fascinating than his prediction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

President barry can't even get a stimulus package passed when he has an unheard of approval rating. Perhaps had he spent a little more time in the senate instead of campaigning, or refrained from trashing a true American hero by throwing around "POW Card" and accusations of racism, or actually reached across the aisle instead of proposing it, or had enough respect not to personally attack our former president - a Republican - he might have generated a little more good will. An experienced proven politician would have known that.

Madame Secretary entered the race fully-footed in reality, having visited at least 50 more countries and 2 continents more than barry. But the cult of personality chose an untested politician, a man with no past, a man who did not have the economy in his top three issues as of April 1st 2008,a man who has never made a stand on anything - to be president and commander in chief during an unprecedented time of crisis.

What has he done other than give mini-speeches and answer softly lobs?

He just admitted the reality of the presidency having descended on him. It dawned on him when he went to get his daily press adulation and realized they actually have some idea of how to do their job.And who was it who knew the realities of the presidency going in having lived side by side with it for eight years? Historians are going to wonder what was in the nation's water supply.

Anyway. Here's an excerpt from MEYER's article in the UK Times (highlight added):

Globalisation and interdependence were supposed to have swept aside these ancient feuds and rivalries. Theories of the postmodern state now abound. Tony Blair preached how national interest would be trumped by the spread of "global values". This is self-evident rubbish. For here is the paradox of the modern world. Money, people, culture, business and electronic information cross porous frontiers in ever-increasing volume. But as national boundaries dissolve in cyberspace, so everywhere the sense of nationhood and national interest strengthens.

...It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is.