Unilateral appeasement

No missile shield for Poland and Czech Republic and the Iranian missile threat is downgraded.
Unilateral appeasement, plain and simple, to countries who wish America ill will. Furthermore, an action taken without realizing any simultaneous concessions from Russia on Iran, Georgia, and other Eastern European countries. Yet another example of how Obama coddles tyrants and abandons friends.
Yes, Lenin would be impressed, as I am sure Putin is.
Glenn Reynolds: “It really is like Jimmy Carter all over again. Well, actually that’s looking like a best-case scenario these days…”
Simply appalling.
ADDENDUM:
Jennifer Rubin:

It sounds like a joke, but it’s all too real: you know American foreign policy is unraveling when France is the stern international voice of sanity on Iran and Israel…
Unfortunately, the American president is not so clear. In fact, he is doing his best to be unclear—about what America will settle for and how far we will go with the charade of negotiations. Obama imagines that this buys time, but his procrastination is designed only to delay and delay the moment at which he will be obligated to take decisive action. (“Not yet—we’re still talking!”) And the Iranians happily accept the gift of time to continue developing their nuclear program, hoping to reach the point at which their nuclear program becomes a fait accompli.
Obama imagines that by shrinking from conflict and reducing America’s profile he will somehow endear himself to our adversaries. But all he is doing is ceding American leadership and signaling to our adversaries that they need not fear a robust response, even a rhetorical one, from the U.S.

ADDENDUM #2:
Rubin continues:

Just when you think the Obama administration’s foreign policy cannot get more feckless or timid, the Obama team tops itself…
One hardly knows where to begin. George W. Bush established, as even the Times concedes, “a special relationship” with Eastern Europe. After all, these are countries that emerged from the yoke of Communism and struggled to establish new market-based economies that avoided the errors of their Western socialist neighbors. And these countries again and again demonstrated their pro-American bona fides. The missile shield was intended as a check against Russian aggression and a symbol of their robust relationship with the U.S.
So much for that. Obama is in the business of kowtowing to the world’s bullies. Russia didn’t like the missile shield, so no more missile shield. Do we think we “got something” for this? I’d be shocked if we did, given the obvious willingness of the U.S. to prostrate itself before rivals.
What do our Eastern European friends have to say? They are not pleased…
The administration that promised to restore our standing in the world is on quite a roll. Open hostility toward Israel. Bullying Honduras. Reneging on promises to Eastern Europe. A strange policy indeed that dumps on our friends in the vain effort to incur the goodwill of our enemies. And if one is a “realist,” not a fabulist, it should be apparent that this is a losing proposition. We will lose our friends and gain nothing. Weakness and the betrayal of our allies do not ameliorate tensions with our adversaries. We had a Cold War topped off by the Carter administration to prove that. But Obama’s never been very good at history.

Speaking of not knowing history, Obama announced this decision on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland.
Senator Jon Kyl comments.
More.
ADDENDUM #3:
Even more.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
4 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Dan
Dan
11 years ago

Two questions come to mind:
1)Who elected or appointed the United States world “leader”?
2)What specific threat does Iran pose to the United States as a sovereign country and what would be their motivation for attacking us?

Warrington Faust
Warrington Faust
11 years ago

If the missle thing bothers you, try this one:
“The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet. ”
I suppose there is no violation of “freedom of speech” until there is an attempt at prosecution. Still, I wonder about the “need to know”.

Warrington Faust
Warrington Faust
11 years ago

Two questions come to mind:
1)Who elected or appointed the United States world “leader”?
World events, historical trends, nature abhors a vacuum. Someone has to be the umpire. Would you prefer Venezuela?
2)What specific threat does Iran pose to the United States as a sovereign country and what would be their motivation for attacking us?
Well, they are working on nuclear weapons. What would be their motivation? Well, striking “the great Satan”? Removing an ally of their enemies? Why do you assume that their motivation would be understandable to us?

OldTimeLefty
11 years ago

Warrington You say that we cannot assume Iran’s motivation to be understandable to us and then go on to tell us what their motivation is. How do you know, or are you really an Iranian spy here illegally under an assumed name? I gather that you cheered Gates’ decisions when he was part of the previous administration. You now choose to ignore or spurn him now that he is part of the current administration. When did he become stupid, addled or misguided? World events and historical trends are moving the United States from cock of the walk to the role of equal among equals, and this nation has to learn to live with these changing circumstances. We have been chief umpire since Truman dismantled the British Imperial Preference System and moved the world monetary capital from London to New York. The Chinese and the Indians are, busy moving it to Asia while they’re getting measured for chest protector and mask. Nothing lasts forever. Empires rise, flex their muscles and then shrink. Some disappear entirely. Here’s Percy Bysshe Shelley on the subject: Ozymandias I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand, Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear: `My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings: Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!’ Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare, The lone and level sands stretch far away”. While I have nothing against Venezuela, it’s… Read more »

Show your support for Anchor Rising with a 25-cent-per-day subscription.