Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Obama Says Foreign Leaders Scared by Trump & Cruz: Let's Hope It's True

Well, well, well.

The One, The Healer of The Planet, is reportedly getting communications from "world leaders" expressing concern about foreign policy statements made by Republican candidates Ted Cruz and, most notably, Donald Trump. In addition, of course, "renowned analysts" from around the world, including Iran, are chiming in to tell us what is best for us, and it's not to elect Trump or Cruz--see, for example, here and here, but there are many other media accounts you can find.

Wow! Who woulda thunk it? The world progressive elite doesn't like the Republican candidates. I never saw it coming!

Before, however, we get too worked up over this really, really important development, and despair that all will be lost if we elect a Republican to the White House, let's develop a little context.

Way, way back on October 25, 2013, I wrote a little piece called "The Obama Foreign Policy Death Spiral." In that ancient piece, I stated the guiding principle of the Obama team's foreign policy, to wit, "care about foreign policy only when the consequences of their foreign policy ineptitude threaten to become domestic issues."

Well, guess what? That ineptitude, or deliberate undermining, indeed, has had grave consequences for the United States and for the West, and now has become a domestic issue. So, naturally, Obama now "cares" about foreign policy and the opinions of other leaders. I have written a lot about this; a quick search of the archives will pull up all sort of Diplomadian observations on the state of American and Western foreign policy since the Obama reign began. Suffice it to say that everywhere one looks in the world, the interests of the West are in retreat and under assault, including on the streets of our own cities by those to whom we have given asylum. The United States, in the time of the Obama misadministration, has abandoned its role as leader of the Free World and as one of the few voices of common sense on foreign and economic policies.

In a piece on October 31, 2012, titled "Magreb Madness: We Will Pay More for Obama's Libyan Lies," I noted that Obama had violated the Diplomad's Number One Rule of Foreign Policy, "Never pay attention to Europeans. Except at times the British, the rest of Europe hasn't a clue about how the world works." I would add that that's been true for at least the past 250-300 years. The whole mad Libyan adventure was executed by Obama and Clinton at the behest of the EU upset with Qaddafi because he wasn't giving them the oil concessions they wanted. Period. So stated in that 2012 post,
We went to war where we had no major interests; against a regime that posed no danger to us; and with a policy that neither defined our objectives nor gave thought to what would happen if we "succeeded." All that Obama and Clinton could do was hark back to the 1980s, and cite Qaddafi's past misdeeds. Obama seemed channeling Ronald Reagan. It proved absurd and completely counterproductive to our interests of today. Our policy was driven by what I have called the liberal foreign policy mindset, to wit, "send America's youth off to war but only if there is no U.S. interest to be protected or furthered."
Oh, sweet irony. As predicted, that Libyan adventure went belly-up; Obama had to evade responsibility. So whom did he blame? One guess. The Europeans! Can I call 'em or what?
[T]he President told author Jeffrey Goldberg that British Prime Minister David Cameron became "distracted by a range of other things" after the operation. Cameron, along with former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, took the brunt of Obama's criticism. Although Obama thinks the intervention went as well as it could, he views Libya today as a "mess." [Privately] he refers to the troubled state as a "sh*t show."
Bam! Take that Europe! Obama says it's all your fault! Who would have thought that Obama reads the Diplomad!

So who are these "foreign leaders" calling Obama and expressing fears about the impending end of his presidency and the possible assumption by either Trump or Cruz? We don't really know. Let's put it this way, the whole story might prove as reliable as Rolling Stone's UVA fake rape story. In other words, Obama might have made it up. You know, a lie. He's been known to do that.

Perhaps, of course, he has been called by somebody. I am sure the President of Mexico might worry about a border wall. Perhaps the Chinese and the Russians fret that somebody might come into the White House and challenge their increasingly imperialistic behavior. It's also possible that the geniuses behind the Libyan debacle and the even greater one we see in Europe, especially Angela "Call me Fatima" Merkel, might be calling afraid that somebody is going to call them on their destruction of the ancient heartland of Western Civilization. The incompetents at the head of the EU and NATO, or the anti-American bosses of the UN and the OAS might call afraid that the era of the American coma draws to an end. Perhaps the Saudis, already upset that their role in 9/11 will come to light, are calling terrified that somebody who has got the measure of Islam will become president. The Ayatollahs? Little Kim of starving NORK-land?

One can only hope it's true.

39 comments:

  1. "So who are these "foreign leaders" calling Obama and expressing fears about the impending end of his presidency and the possible assumption by either Trump or Cruz?

    We don't really know."

    True. But we 50 or so readers of yours Diplomad Sir might, take a guess? T'wouldn't hurt (in any *really meaningful sense*) t'wouldn't it?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3362449/Donald-Trump-divisive-stupid-wrong-shouldn-t-ban-Britain-says-David-Cameron.html

    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-germany-idUSMTZSAPEC36LTD4ZC

    http://www.ibtimes.com/media-pretends-donald-trump-president-after-brussels-attacks-2341072

    ***

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe this Chinese finance minister?

      http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/china-finance-minister-trump-trade-proposal-irrational

      Delete
    2. Heh heh heh ...

      May be.

      ***

      Delete
  2. I suppose it might go over better (here on Diplomad's) were I to go with my regular modus operandi The Ol' Hansel & Gretel but I fear the Obama Crows stealing the odd breadcrumb.

    Where the bolded T section begins there's an "embedded link" that leads to a book excerpt featuring a citation from former Reagan SecNav John Lehman.

    http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/twenty-eight-pages

    ***

    ReplyDelete
  3. Somebody should tell those excitable world "leaders" not to worry about Trump; he's not actually running for president, he's just starring in a "reality" show.

    And even if Trump somehow got himself nominated and then blundered into winning the general election (contrary to his intentions), he'd turn out, once in office, to be on the side of the world "leaders" now in the process of destroying the West. Moreover, it's hard to see how even Trump could make a worse mess of the world than has the jug-eared celebrity-pseudo-intellectual currently occupying the White House.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd lay nearly even odds that immediately upon inauguration, Trump resigns with a simple "I did it."

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. I would not bet against that happening if he's elected. What will be darkly funny, in that situation, is to see the reaction of the erstwhile conservatives and Alt-Right pundits, who have been promoting him as the Messiah-Savior of Western Civilization, finding out that they've been had. I'm thinking of people like Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Phyllis Schlafly, Sean Hannity, Steve Sailer, John Derbyshire. Well, maybe Trump will give them jobs doing P.R. for some tacky project of his. But I doubt it. The man is not know for his magnanimity.

      Delete
    3. "What will be darkly funny, in that situation, is to see the reaction of the erstwhile conservatives and Alt-Right pundits, who have been promoting him as the Messiah-Savior of Western Civilization, finding out that they've been had."

      Gee Ian F, I dunno if that'd be any darkier funnier than say,

      "It gets tedious to continue pointing this out, but Qaddafi was every bit as much a “homicidal dictator,” to borrow Max Boot’s phrase, when a Republican administration decided to embrace him and regard him as a key ally against terrorism."

      "Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Condoleezza Rice supported propping Qaddafi up with U.S. aid, including aid to his military."

      Or perhaps:

      "The relationship has been moving in a good direction for a number of years now, and I think tonight does mark a new phase,” said Condoleezza Rice. President Bush’s secretary of state was taking time out from inventing the 70 percent of Palestinians who just want to live side-by-side in peace with the Zionist entity in order to reinvent Moammar Qaddafi."

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/270902/re-republicans-and-libya-andrew-c-mccarthy

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/261063/libyas-makeover-andrew-c-mccarthy

      Your thoughts Ian F?

      ***

      Delete
    4. Not sure what your point is, Anonymous. My point was that Trump is not interested in being president, as far as I can tell, and that the supposedly sophisticated "anti-establishment" pundits pushing him will be severely disappointed in the unlikely event of his election - that is, if they have any integrity at all, which I suspect most of them don't. I didn't say anything about overthrowing Qaddafi. FWIW, doing so was obviously a huge mistake (and I thought so before we intervened), but I don't see what that has to do with Trump. My recollection - correct me if I'm wrong - is that Trump supported overthrowing Qaddafi at the time it was being debated, just as he supported the Iraq invasion before we went in (which he now lies about).

      If Trump looks like a president to you, suit yourself. To me, he looks like a two-bit con artist who got as far as he did (however far that might be - no one really knows) because he started out with the couple hundred million dollar fortune left him by his father and the questionably provident banks of 70s, 80s and 90s were willing to finance his tasteless and often financially dubious schemes, which have led to four bankruptcy filings. Since a president cannot get his way by threatening to declare bankruptcy, I question whether Trump would be an effective president.

      Delete
    5. "Not sure what your point is, Anonymous."

      @7:49 PM

      "[I]s to see the reaction of the erstwhile conservatives and Alt-Right pundits, who have been promoting him as the Messiah-Savior of Western Civilization[.]"

      ...

      "If Trump looks like a president to you ..."

      Inference is alot like Assumption perhaps?

      ***

      Delete
    6. If I wrongly assumed that you are a Trump supporter, I certainly do apologize for that!

      Delete
  4. Our enemies, adversaries, and moochers are afraid of Trump's election? First good reason I've seen to vote for him.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >Steve Sailer,<

    I read his blog daily. I don't recall Steve Sailor saying much about Trump.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey D.

      "Fairly (as in 'not comprehensively') square search" of Sailer's posts re Trump - such as this seem to be the norm.

      http://www.unz.com/isteve/is-trump-scots-irish/

      "Hardly the sort of slot" I think Ian F. would have Steve fit?

      ***

      Delete
  6. "Can I call 'em or what?"

    You can call 'em, cap'. That's one of the the main reasons we loyal readers are here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. ""care about foreign policy ..."

    Of course you meant to say: pretend to care about foreign policy.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let me repeat what I've said here before, to the consternation of some of you:

    Electing Trump has very little to do with choosing an "effective" leader. It is step one in cleaning out the entrenched cabal, both Demo and Repub, which has messed up this country for some decades now.
    Once they have been shown the door, we can expect that some leaders of integrity will rise to the top of the heap. Yes, we'll have to put up with some stupidity in the meantime, but the end in this case does justify the means.

    On the other hand, electing another Clinton, or another senator, will simply extend the malaise of America both at home and abroad.

    Let the foreign un-named leaders fret. It's about time.

    Graham

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. The path we are on is one that leads to worse things than Trump can dream up.

      Delete
  9. What's your basis for expecting "leaders of integrity to rise to the top of the heap" after Trump has routed "the entrenched cabal" for you? And who are these "leaders of integrity" who will supposedly step up afterward? Where are they now?

    And more fundamentally, what makes you think Trump will be electable in the event he is nominated? I see no evidence that he could win a general election. It seems to me that he's just ensuring Hillary's election.

    I've read the rationalization you give for supporting Trump many times. The connection between nominating this con artist, or electing him, and the bright post-cabal future to which supporting him is supposed to lead, is always exceedingly vague. As far as I can tell, Trump is just another member of the "cabal," masquerading as an insurgent.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.redstate.com/diary/2ndvote/2015/05/21/follow-money-export-import-bank/

      ***

      Delete
  10. ..."cleaning out the entrenched cabal, Demo and Repub... Once they have been shown the door...leaders of integrity will rise to the top of the heap...the end in this case does justify the means."

    >HOT--STRAIGHT--AND--NORMAL>
    ;) Mr. Graham!

    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"


    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Trump is just another member of the "cabal," masquerading as an insurgent."~~~"To me, he looks like a two-bit con artist ." - I.F.Shield

    "Two-bit" you say, ha! Such obviously biased commentary mr shield reveals a troll for simpatico toadies. Please know that hereabouts most commenters are freethinkers and also checked-out by the Skipper on the pragmatic and political use of the Crystal Ball as an analytic tool! It sure beats the K-rap out of the "No Trump" opines every time! On Watch~~~

    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's only one reason for voting for the preposterous Trump: the vile Mrs Clinton.

    Electing Trump would at best be kicking the can down the road: the Establishment will be back pretty quickly. Or it might simply defeat him while he's in office. Still, nothing ventured nothing gained.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh cmon' dearie, I expect you could come up with at least two reasons, even on the foggiest night in Londinistan! :)

      OW

      Delete
  14. i would not underestimate trump or the anger that propels his ascent. cruz is unelectable in november. who is kasich? old uncle bernie is a bolshevik. clinton is a successful crook and a failed leader/manager. my huge worry is that if cruz is nominated the reps will put a bullet into america because he cannot carry the nation.

    ReplyDelete
  15. IMHO, all your points are in the middle ring jt!
    Moreover, I share your worry that a green Ted Cruz may get a premature nod from the GOP elites long before the nationwide electorate is ready to accept or elect him! The Texacanadian still has some growing to do, and he's in a great place to do it, the belly of the beast! Who knows he and the Donald may become staunch political allies yet?
    On Watch~~~
    "Let's Roll"

    ReplyDelete
  16. We let Taiwan and a number of other allies know that the US embrace could well be the kiss of death. Hence, we have both the Blue side of Taiwanese politics and South Korea pretty well convinced that their safety rests on making the best deal with Communist China that they can.

    The fate of Qaddafi tells our enemies that burying the hatchet with us (as in Qaddafi's giving up his own nuclear weapons program) is also a dangerous course of action--we may throw up an O and a Shrillary Shroooooooo in our convoluted domestic politics who will have to prove how tough they are by knocking off a has-been dictator.

    Neither being our friend nor making up with us pays, it seems.

    I'm just surprised that there aren't a few more who are frightened of the O. Then again, maybe the Western European countries count on the O wanting a nice vacation ground for his wife and daughters.

    Dip, what of your take on the classified info that points to possible official Sa'udi involvement in 9/11?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have long thought that members of the Saudi family were involved in some capacity or knew about it ahead of time. Always suspected them. Not the government of Saudi, per se, but certain royals.

      Delete
    2. My view here in South Korea is that the Park government is eager to remain in the good graces of the American government. They are pretty close on installing THAAD in the South and there was just a much larger than normal joint military exercise.

      While they definitely want to work with China, their trade surplus with China is shrinking (-15% over last year) and China is doing little to rein in North Korea with another nuclear test expected shortly.

      Too bad South Korea and Japan can't find ways to get along better but I guess the bad blood goes back a very long way.

      Trump positioning the US for after his inauguration for some hard bargaining.

      Delete
    3. http://observer.com/2016/04/uncovering-the-hidden-truths-of-911/

      ***

      Delete
    4. http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/material-support-an-indispensable-counterterrorism-tool-turns-20/

      ***

      Delete
    5. Without serious smoking gun evidence of saudi *government* complicity in 9/11, I have to imagine trotting out half-speculation would be very dangerous for the region. I have to imagine that Iran would take *any* opportunity to become the holders of mecca/medina. Certainly shia islam is a small minority globally, but they have a very strong presence in the middle east (and rising unfortunately with Obama's backing).

      The failure of arab sunnis to contain the conflicts in yemen, syria, iraq, and elsewhere (minority or otherwise) might suggest that they're *already* waning in power/organization and perhaps unfit to hold the trophy cities. I can't see the larger part of the sunni muslims world wide taking part in this contest, but the shias are right at the doorstep.
      Would love to hear more about this, because my knowledge is pretty spotty here.

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    6. Thanks for the feedback.

      Delete
    7. "Would love to hear more about this, because my knowledge is pretty spotty here."

      Well #1482, any sort of CliffNotes summary of what the Sunni *Strategy* [ie Saudi Arabia led] is, is exceedingly difficult to encapsulate into a blog-comment if only because a) “its complicated” and b) its, to us Westerners, almost the textbook definition of schizophrenic.

      To get anywhere near “helping increase” your spotty knowledge #1482, the Yemen situation must be separated out from the Syria/Iraq theater.

      As you may be aware, the “on paper” Saudi Ground Forces [Army but not necessarily SF] is comprised of a sizeable number of native Yemenis (remember Bin Laden’s family roots hail from there) so whether the House of Saud ever considered using its own military – dependability issues – has been judged “unlikely.”

      So a coalition was formed consisting of; the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Benin, Turkey, Chad, Togo, Tunisia, Djibouti, Senegal, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gabon, Guinea, the Palestinians, Comoros, Qatar, Cote d'Ivoire, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Maldives, Mali, Malaysia, Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria and Yemen.

      The African nations contingent is perhaps surprising but there are two things to keep forefront as to “the why” (well maybe three things if one includes expendable). Islamic “Fellowship” and the attractiveness of Saudi cash. The African outlier as far as “the strategy” goes is Egypt – the other African nations [exception Somalia] supply “non-tribally tied” ground troops – Egypt possesses (for the region) a quite capable Navy. Egyptian ship-to-shore artillery bombardments prefigured the amphibious insertions of African ground forces (did I mention “expendable”?) at the Yemeni ports of, notably, Aden and Tai’iz. Both ports areas – also perhaps notably – well to the west of any AQAP controlled areas where “we” [the US] fairly routinely carry out the odd drone strike.

      *Egypt you might also keep in consideration, wound up being the ultimate buyer of the two French Mistral-class aircraft carriers which – pre-Ukraine – were originally contracted to be sold to the Russians. (Of further interest [but not insofar as this discussion of Yemen] Egypt possesses no “Carrier-Qualified” airframes or, for that matter, pilots – but Russia does which may go some distance illuminating last July’s Navy-to-Navy exchanges between the Russians and the Egyptians.)

      The allied GCC coalition nations, most notably the UAE are doing airstrikes against the Houthi (which is odd in itself as, the UAE is also, using Egyptian airbases for refueling, carrying out airstrikes against its fellow Saudi-led “coalition-partner-in-Yemen” Libya).

      For its part Qatar “seems to be” mostly cheerleading at the UN and – taking in any Gitmo detainees the Saudis express any hesitations toward “guesting” - around the “Tampa Watercooler” the working-hypothesis is that, it’d be inconvenient were a Saudi passport holder be hit by a US drone in an AQAP controlled Yemeni province.

      Did I mention “schizophrenic”?

      ...

      The assertions listed in the comment are Triple Apostrophe's own. All are Open Sourced - Any resemblance to anything contained on "Hillary-Server" is purely coincidental.

      ***

      (Incidentally #1482, now that we've got Yemen elucidated, the Saudi Strategy for Syria/Iraq is a Walk-in-the-Park No?)

      Delete
    8. Did not realize the french got those mistrals-for-putin bought by egypt.. that's crazy... is that going to just be a pass-through for the russian navy in some french shenanigans-way to bypass sanctions/PR-problems? or is egypt going to actually use them?

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    9. Me dunno #1482. *More *familiar with the Centcom AOR than the Africom.

      About all I'd be comfortable speculating viz whatever is going on behind the scenes Egypt/Russia is, well that's complicated too.

      I do suppose Egypt could deploy heloes to the Mistrals except to note aircraft carrier purchases for helicopter ops would seem to be an odd fit.

      ***

      Delete
  17. "Our policy was driven by what I have called the liberal foreign policy mindset, to wit, "send America's youth off to war but only if there is no U.S. interest to be protected or furthered."

    Foreign Affairs, no "right wing" source, had a cover story in the Clinton Administration titled, "Foreign Policy as Social Work."

    ReplyDelete
  18. http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/saudi-arabia-is-a-good-ally-get-real/

    (It ought be noted GCC nations of the "Yemeni Coalition" [UAE] performed the first airstrikes against AQAP specific targets 24 April 2016. *That such strikes occurred on the heels so recently of 'the 28 Pages' talks seems fishy ...)

    ***

    ReplyDelete