Pages Menu
Categories Menu

Posted on Aug 13, 2008 in Barack Obama, Campaign '08, International

Hope vs. Blood and Iron: Putin, Georgia and the Failure of Obamapolitik

Hope vs. Blood and Iron: Putin, Georgia and the Failure of Obamapolitik

Part One:
Obamapolitik and its Prophet

Russia’s invasion of its tiny neighbor, and former vassal, Georgia, has come as a great shock to the free world. Though the warning signs had been building for sometime, many in Europe and America had deluded themselves into believing that much of the globe was not ruled by thugs who could care less about world opinion. Indeed, the fantasists mocked John McCain for his warnings of a resurgent and aggressive Russia as being old fashioned and a product of a by-gone era. Now, McCain has unfortunately been proven correct in his assessment of the former KGB operative and his intentions toward what the Russians call the “near-abroad.”

So what does this all mean for Senator Obama? How can the Chosen One continue to justify foreign policy positions premised on the belief that there is no longer evil in the world? Can Obama’s hope defeat old-fashioned Realist aggression? The results on the ground in the shattered villages of Georgia say no.

To the tyrants of the world Barack Obama must seem like a positively odd phenomenon. Whereas many leaders have attempted to emulate Bismarck’s formula of Realpolitik, or the pragmatic use of diplomacy and force to achieve policy ends, Senator Obama has had great success with what can only be termed as Obamapolitik. Rather than employ the traditional principles of foreign policy, Senator Obama has grounded his positions in what can be charitably described as “wishful thinking.”

The first rule of Obamapolitik is that any international threat to the US should be downplayed. Thanks to Obama’s belief in moral relativism there is no such thing as right and wrong or good and evil. As a result, Obamapolitik holds that the US is not faced with ruthless enemies, but misunderstood people (many of whom are former victims of Western imperialism) who need understanding. As one can see, Obama’s positions on Al-Qaeda (not a real threat), Iran (merely a loud-mouthed nuisance) and Russia (they aren’t bad at all) reflect his constant devaluation of threat.


        Obamapolitik Rule One in Action

Obamapolitik’s second precept is extolling the virtues of Obama’s own personal diplomacy over traditional methods. Simply put, Senator Obama believes that US policy can be devolved completely upon his frail shoulders with regard to dealing with global bad boys like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Obama would have the world believe that his charm and charisma can single-handedly dissuade the despots of the world from engaging in their morally relative schemes.

Finally, Obamapolitik holds that if the first two rules fail, that there is such a thing as aggression and that tyrants are not fooled by Mr. Obama’s charm, the US will resort to multilateral action and diplomacy to end conflicts. Specifically, the US will call on allies in the EU, as well as the UN, to shame the aggressors into ceasing their pernicious activities by means of resolutions, emergency summits similar to that of Munich 1938, and, if all else fails, strongly worded letters. However, it should be made quite clear that no matter the crisis military force will not be used to enforce diplomatic action.

Prior to August 7th, Obamapolitik played well with the American electorate and was wildly popular, as throngs of delirious Germans demonstrated, with Europe. However, once Russian tanks began rolling across the Georgian border it seems the bubble burst.

Obamapolitik in Action: Discredited Before it Began