Beacon Street Journal

How woefully ignorant is the Democratic front-runner on matters of national security, international relations and the intractable conflicts that have plagued the Middle East for decades? The recent foreign policy statements of the former community organizer have demonstrated such incorrigibly poor judgment and appalling naivete that three prominent Democrats have seen fit to distance themselves from Obama’s ludicrous position, which he somehow views as virtuous, of meeting unconditionally with the nations enemies. Senator Joe Biden tells us that Obama, “gave the wrong answer” in last July’s YouTube debate, but he assures us that Obama has, “learned a hell of a lot.” 

Has he? Obama recently told David Brooks that the U.S. needs a foreign policy, “that looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Where have we heard that phrase before? It is one of the guiding principles of liberal social and domestic policy. Obama as a die-hard unrepentant liberal feels that all we need to achieve peace in the Middle East is to apply the same principles to the sphere of foreign relations. This is wishful thinking on a grand scale. But, strangely, it is not inconsistent with the Democratic Party’s inexorable lurch to the left, which has left an indelible mark on its foreign policy prescriptions.

As a party that has increasingly become wedded to the ideals and principles of utopian socialism, the war in Iraq as well as the war against terror are viewed as monumental distractions from their ability to tend to more pressing domestic matters such as universal health care and raising the minimum wage.

Former French President Charles DeGaulle once remarked that great nations have great interests. There is nothing in this Realpolitik pronouncement that would give comfort to today’s Democratic Party. Indeed, the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy seems to be that it is more important that nations like, rather than respect us. Remember John Kerry’s statement at Davos last year that his country had become an “International Pariah?” This often heard declaration of woe from many Democrats is due to the fact that many in the Democratic Party demonstrate an appalling ignorance of history — especially military history.

For most Democrats, history began and ended with the Vietnam war. Many party leaders cut their teeth during the Vietnam protest era and have carried this anti-war, anti-American posture consistently throughout their political careers. Every foreign policy issue is disproportionately colored by the Vietnam conflict. The historical irony is that it is the Democratic Party which is stuck in a quagmire, not the American Military. Imbued with this mentality, no exercise of American power, especially military power, can ever be legitimate or justified unless the entire International Community approves —an impossible standard to attain.

The cheerleaders of the Democratic Party in the mainstream media give credence to these fallibilities that define and shape their warped and spurious world-view. We all remember how journalists were quick to invoke the brutal Afghan winter as a precursor to certain American military disaster. And, when U. S. troops were poised to take Baghdad, many of these self-same military historians whose stern prior admonitions were proven ludicrous were quick to liken the upcoming fight for Baghdad with WWII’s epic battle for Stalingrad (did they ever bother to factor in the lack of sub-zero temperatures as perhaps an advantage for the home team?).

By their words and deeds, far too many in the Democratic Party have demonstrated that that they are ashamed and feel guilty about the superpower status of the United States and must atone to the “International Community” for this geopolitical reality. They have a reflexive “blame America first” mentality that finds its disproportionate expression in endless rebukes about the evils of Guantanamo Bay and secret prisons, violations of terrorists civil rights, but gives scant attention to the heinous acts of barbarism practiced by our adversaries on the battlefield.

Since the Democrats constantly draw the wrong lessons from history, having the world’s most powerful military is of scant use in the international arena if there is no commensurate willingness to utilize it when appropriate in conjunction with diplomacy to further the foreign policy interests of the nation and to bring stability to conflict-ridden areas of the world. When the Democrats review history, all too often it is Vietnam, not Munich 1939, that colors their thinking.

For the Democrats, diplomacy is a code word for endless discussion and negotiation without the threat of military deployment to advance or protect our interests. However much they believe in its utility, it has become an empty vessel. Though the Democrats, most notably Obama, are too oblivious to acknowledge it, Diplomacy without a credible military component is nothing more than appeasement.