Keeping up the “gee, I like the cut of Barack Obama’s jib” mantra that is sweeping the Hole, here is a piece from One Free Korea’s Joshua Stanton at The New Ledger defending team Obama’s decision to have bilaterial talks with Pyongyang:
I‘ve let much of the sturm and drang over the Obama Administration’s announcement of a bilateral meeting with the North Koreans pass while I tried to acquire a sense of what this really means, and whether it necessarily suggests that Obama’s surprisingly-not-bad North Korea policy is going to revert to something weaker, something ironically like the policy George W. Bush ultimately delegated to Christopher Hill, now our ambassador in a sleepy backwater called Baghdad, and which failed so completely to achieve American interests.
Objectively, there’s no denying that thus far, the Obama policy toward North Korea has defied all expectations and proven much tougher than Bush’s.
Read on to find out in more detail why Obama’s current NK policy does not suck.
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Um, some of us Obamacon defense hawks could have told you this two years ago. Once the usual suspects wipe the froth from their mouths and take a break from their usual apoplexy about all things Obama, the emergence of a very sophisticated and nuanced Obama foreign policy comes readily into view.
There’s nothing “surprisingly not bad” about it.
DLB
Once you take the “profit for the rich is all” pill, it’s impossible to stop the froth. You’ll die if you even have a hint of a central thought.
The law of averages says that not all of Obama’s policies and ideas are bound to suck. It’s probably not mathematically possible.
On the other hand… How does one explain Obama’s decision to abandon missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic on the 70th anniversary of Stalin’s invasion of Poland? Where’s the so-called “Smart Diplomacy” we keep hearing about?
Since you dismiss the possibility of malevolence, it must be asked: Is Obama stupid or naïve?
Brendon,
The missile ‘defense’ program was clearly positioning for successful first strike capability against Russia, effectively trying to end MAD. The whole Iran thing was an excuse, transparent, and the Russians saw through it. Giving up on that aggressive strategy was the right thing to do.
One could say the same of you if he were inclined to be generous.
Actually, the reason Obama’s policy does not suck is because is it very different than what he was proposing during the campaign, such as “reaching out” to Pyongyang through unilateral engagement.
In fact, Obama has so far been more aggressive towards North Korea than Bush was in his second term. The fact that he insists that any bilateral talks with NK be done in the context of the six party talks shows that he has accepted the wisdom of using that process, something Bush forgot in 2006.
RE: DLBarch – “some of us Obamacon defense hawks could have told you this two years ago.” That doesn’t hold water because the original Obama policy toward North Korea, even as late as early January 2009, was going to be a continuation of the policy of the last 3 years of the Bush administration (US negotiators and USG officials told me this directly in private conversations). The Obama administration adoption of a firm policy, which in my view was a commendable and proper decision, was only taken in response to North Korean provocations.
B.Carr: “On the other hand… How does one explain Obama’s decision to abandon missile defense for Poland and the Czech Republic on the 70th anniversary of Stalin’s invasion of Poland? Where’s the so-called “Smart Diplomacy” we keep hearing about?”
Would it have been smarter to drop such an idiotic policy the day before or the day after the invasion?
Embedded premise. How do you know that it is idiotic? Carr wrote,”Since you dismiss the possibility of malevolence, it must be asked: Is Obama stupid or naïve?”
Aside from malevolence, stupidity or naivite (none of which appear to apply to this President) have you exhaustively researched and systematically eliminated all the other possibilities? I believe Pres. Obama outlined his rationale quite forthrightly in his statement. Have you read and evaluated it?
For Brendon.
http://rokdrop.com/2009/09/18/obama-did-not-scrap-the-european-missile-defense-shield/
Carr. what would you call someone who defames someone based on nothing more than a willingness to believe the worst about him? Would you call that a bias?
As Acropolis 7 mentions with the link I think this was a great move.
Why should US spend a bunch of money to field a system that isn’t proven to work against a ICBM threat from Iran that doesn’t exist?
The SM-3, THAAD, and PATRIOT systems can shoot down any current threat from Iran and it is more cost effective and flexible because these systems are deployable and do not require fixed locations.
“In fact, Obama has so far been more aggressive towards North Korea than Bush was in his second term.”
“The Obama administration adoption of a firm policy, which in my view was a commendable and proper decision, was only taken in response to North Korean provocations.”
I commend Obama for his policy thus far on North Korea.
And I find it highly ironic that when Bush pursued a similar policy in his first term, the screaming from the left never stopped. Now that the left’s man is in there and doing what Bush did, they cheer on Obama’s efforts. (Sort of like ignoring the death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq now that their hero Obama has arrived and Bush isn’t around to hate and blame for all things bad.)
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }