On November 13, President Obama claimed that ISIS was "contained."
One day later, ISIS painted bloody red lines on Paris streets. The
credibility of American foreign policy took another big hit.
Then
came Saturday's Wall Street Journal report that last week, "an American
B-52 bomber on a routine mission over the South China Sea
unintentionally flew within two nautical miles of an artificial island
[Cuarteron] built by China." This seemed like good news, suggesting that
Obama was challenging -- under cover of an "unintentional" foray --
China's imperial project in the East China and South China Seas. That
would be welcome, because China's project intends to subjugate U.S.
allies, seize lucrative energy reserves, and dominate crucial trade
routes. And Obama seems to realize this. At November's APEC summit, he
offered "shared commitment to the security of the waters of this region
and to freedom of navigation." In October, President Obama sent an
American destroyer within twelve miles of another artificial Chinese
island.
My hopes in the president were misplaced.
First
off, it's telling that the White House hasn't commented on the B-52
report. This is the administration's go-to response for a story they
want to go away (if the administration likes the story, we get leaks and
Hollywood movies).
But the Pentagon's response has been equally
telling. Instead of broadcasting that America will reject China's claims
in the East China and South China Seas, and instead of asserting that
American forces will of course operate in international territory, the
Pentagon groveled before China, offering apologies. The Journal reports
that the B-52 aircrew is being investigated and that the Pentagon is
hinting that "bad weather" led the crew to make a mistake. It's
Scapegoating 101.
Unfortunately, this supplication to China is
also Strategic Incompetence 101. First, as evidenced by this situation,
if the U.S. is unwilling to operate over international waters without
qualification, those waters become Chinese. This yields the strategic
initiative to China. It also contradicts the B-52 deployment in the
first place. Assuming that the B-52s were flown from Guam (the closest
squadron deployment), this must have been a mission focused on China. In
part, that's because B-52s have advanced oceanic-surveillance
capabilities. But with Guam a significant distance away from the South
China Sea -- 2,200 miles -- this mission clearly wasn't for flight
hours.
Regardless, this incident encapsulates President Obama's
foreign-policy absurdity. After all, while China carves its empire,
Obama continues to claim that his China policy is successful. This
success is proven, he says, by China's pledge to try to cap its carbon
emissions by 2030. It's an unbinding, unenforceable pledge from a
socialist kleptocracy.
Nevertheless, the true absurdity of
Obama's delusion is clear only in the light of history. Imagine if
President Truman had allowed Stalin to seize Berlin in 1948 in return
for Stalin's pledge to try to hold free elections in 1964. On the
contrary, consider how President Truman actually dealt with Stalin
during the 1948รข€“1949 Berlin crisis (in which Stalin blockaded Berlin's
western zones). Vastly outgunning U.S. forces in Germany, the Soviets
threatened war. But when the question arose of whether or not the United
States was going to stay in Berlin, Truman declared: "No discussion . .
. we are going to stay -- period." He launched the Berlin airlift and
put his faith in American deterrent power and American values. And he
won the day.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3375122/posts
