Apparently, the President has decided to focus (when not in pseudo-campaign mode) on domestic issues. As a result, he -- not unlike President Clinton -- has let the "experts" handle foreign policy.
For starters, it looks like the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) selected Chas Freeman to be the chief of the National Intelligence Council (NIC). Mr. Freeman has since declined the job.
Nonetheless, the NIC produces the authoritative National Intelligence Estimates which guides U.S. foreign policy. It seemed that Mr. Freeman had some explaining to do with regard to his "outlier" views on key issues. No doubt, Admiral (Ret'd.) Blair will take some well-deserved grief for the selection.
However, shouldn't the national security advisor been part of the selection process? If he was ignored (or not part of the input) doesn't it suggest that his views are, well, unimportant? If he did have input, what does it say about his judgment? From my soda-straw perspective, it looks like lose-lose.
Moreover, who put the idea in the President's head about "moderate" Taliban? After seven plus years, those Taliban who wanted to come over -- probably have. Those who joined after their ejection into the mountainous hinterlands are likely to be hard core. (All bets are off should Obama go to the mountains -- with his teleprompter -- and talk to the Taliban.)
Then (I can go on but three examples should suffice) what was the anticipated end state when dealing with the Russians regarding Iran? The actual result had us looking as if we let the Poles and the Czechs twist in the wind with no Russian change in policy. Moreover, it has downgraded the critical missile defense system to a bargaining chip. Who was dumb enough to think that the Russians were going to take a bite on that offer?
General (Ret'd.) James Jones hasn't been getting much press as the president's national security advisor. However, given these recent debacles , maybe he should.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment