Writing for
RealClearPolitics, Colin Dueck
contrasts President Obama's West Point foreign policy speech with his actual performance in foreign affairs. See what he concludes:
If you hadn't been paying close attention to the actual consequences and implementation of Obama's foreign policy and defense decisions over the past five years, you might think the speech sounded pretty good. A realistic, balanced, and prudent American internationalism - what's not to like?
The trouble is, Obama has implemented no such policy.
In one case after another internationally, President Obama has issued verbal declarations or rhetorical statements and then simply refused to back them up in a serious way. The pattern has become so striking as to draw widespread notice internationally.
Dueck identifies the results of Obama foreign affairs:
When there is little connection between words and actions, or commitments and capabilities, that is neither moderate nor prudent. It's not a balanced reconciliation of opposing extremes. It's just a mess, and one that really does invite international contempt, humiliation and aggression.
Finally, he indicates what he believes a president
should do:
A better and more genuinely prudent alternative (snip) would be a U.S. President who either backs up their words along with American commitments in a meaningful fashion, or makes no ill-considered declarations they do not intend to keep.
As we wrote yesterday, the speech enunciated a reasonable policy. However, the execution of that policy is as flawed as the rest of the Obama oeuvre.
