I think I have finally figured out Obama's foreign policy. And Clinton's as well. To understand it, all you have to do is to recall two facts true of Democrats. First, that facing talk radio, Fox News, the blue dog victories of 2006, and tea parties, they have realized that their best days are behind them. Second, they tend to think of the Cold War as the embodiment of those best days.

I know it sounds silly, to be nostalgic for the Cold War. Most people claim just the Vietnam War era as the heyday of the left, but I think the entire Cold War era, at least pr-Reagan, was their highpoint. Think about it. From the end of the Second World War until Reagan's election, the left controlled the media, they controlled the culture, they were Hollywood, art, literature, fashion, news, everything. There was no Fox News, no talk radio, nothing. They also controlled congress, and so even when not controlling the White House still set the budget and had a check on any conservative reforms. And they held almost all of the presidencies. Oh, the Republicans got in Eisenhower and Nixon, but Eisenhower was middle of the road enough that he was hardly a threat to the left, and Nixon was such an embarrassment that his term in office can easily be considered a Democrat win. Not to mention that we are talking about a Republican who took us off the gold standard, impose price controls, created the EPA and normalized relations with China, as well as adopting a vacillating, lukewarm, stop and start approach to the war in Vietnam, caving to protesters or congress with regularity. He might as well have been a Democrat.

But then along came Reagan and ruined it all for them. Carter, with his absurd ABM treaties and SALT talks and threats of disarmament kept alive all those Cold War fears, made us worry every moment that we might suffer nuclear annihilation, not to mention creating yet another enemy in the form of emboldened Islamic terrorists funded by the newly powerful OPEC nations. Then Reagan ruined it all by staring down the Soviets, refusing to disarm, even proposing a new defense system and, eventually, managing to bankrupt the evil empire¹. And without the threat of Soviet aggression to make us cower, US foreign policy was quickly changed. No longer did we feel the need to "get along" lest the other nations run to the Soviets and tip the balance of the Cold War against us. We were now free to pursue our interests without the left telling us we needed to worry about the Soviets and the nuclear bogeyman.

Oh, there were still Islamic terrorists, though the Israelis did their best to eliminate that threat with the Osirak attacks and their effective destruction of the PLO following their occupation of southern Lebanon. And, for those who were too young to recall those times, it had a noticeable effect. When I went to Europe in 1984, conventional wisdom was to say you were Canadian, as terrorism was seen as that much of a worry. People may not have been dying left and right, but bombings and abductions happened with some regularity².  However, after the PLO was broken, and Hezbollah largely cowed, the end of the 1980's and the early 1990's were periods of relative calm. There were still terrorists, even in Israel violence continued in a lesser form,but people did not worry about being an American abroad the way they did prior to the destruction of the PLO³.

But the left can't abide a world without a rival. They can't function in a world where the US is on top. They tried to find substitutes. First, arguing the US should subordinate itself tot he UN. Then arguing that Europe was "morally superior", to try to get the US to restrain itself to meet with European approval. They even tried to stir up worries over China, but as China showed little interest in an overt military confrontation⁴, none of those plans worked.

Which is why Clinton eventually decided to try to revive at least one small part of the Cold War. As he did not yet have a character like Putin to revive Russian expansionism, he had to revive the smaller threat, Islamic militants. And so Clinton decided to solve a problem no one was asking him to solve, the "Palestinian question". And, as his ambition was not to truly bring peace to Israel, but to revive the nightmare of Islamic terrorism once more, Clinton decide that the Israelis should not negotiate with the Palestinians then living in Israel, nor with moderates actually looking for a peaceful solution, but instead with the almost defunct PLO, as reviving them would do the most to advance the rebirth of Islamic militancy. (See "The Failure of Negotiation" and "Moral Equivalence".)

And so Islamic terrorism was reborn. Not that it had ever completely died, as we can see in Somalia, in the first World Trade Center attack, and so on. But, though still alive, by the time Clinton took office it was not a significant presence on the world stage. But Oslo made it so once again. As expected, the revived PLO, or their Fatah elite, declared a new intifada, and that was enough to ignite enthusiasm for terror once more. And it has not stopped since. Is it mere coincidence that Hammas, Hezbollah, even al Qaida, all use Palestine as an excuse for their actions? That they use it as a recruiting tool? That those sewing discord all fund Fatah and Hammas? Or maybe Hezbollah? By reopening old wounds, by throwing fuel on the fire, by enacting a whole lot of cliches about making things worse, Clinton managed to revive one of the two evils of the 1970's most fondly recalled by Democrats, Islamic militancy.

But, as we have seen, Islamic militants are not enough to bring back the Cold War. Clinton was followed by Bush, who, quite rightly, realized that Islamic militants are not the Soviet Union of the Cold War. They do not have armies, do not have the bomb, and if we chance them from their hiding places, if we destroy those who fund and shelter them, then they lose the ability to fight and recruit⁵. And Democrats realized it too.

And so we come to my topic, Obama's foreign policy. And, if you think in the terms I have just described it is easy to understand.

First, and most prominently, he is trying his best to revive the Cold War outright. Both by bending to Russia expansionist efforts and in abandoning eastern Europe and our missile defense shield plans, he has set the stage for Russia to take the place once held by the USSR, to become the expansionist nuclear bogeyman who will keep us from getting cocky, who will force us to be "modest" and "good neighbors".

But he cannot be sure that Russia will succeed. Perhaps Putin and his puppets will be unseated by more tolerant or less aggressive Russians. Without a real dictatorship, or one party government, he lacks the assurances that there will be a new Cold War rival. So he has two backup plans.

First, North Korea. Clinton really laid the groundwork here, but Bush almost ruined it with talk of missile defenses. However, Obama has set that right and stopped all talk of a system that could save the west coast from North Korean nukes. And so we have a new nuclear player, and one hostile to us.  the only question is whether Obama thinks of North Korea as a proxy for China or a terrorist state in its won right. Either way, it is yet another fear he can play up to make us stay in our place and not "force our will on the world".

And finally we have Iran. This is a truly inspired move, as Iran is not obviously a pro-militant state. Oh, they fund Hezbollah, but other than that, Iran is nominally opposed to the PLO, Hammas and al Qaida, as it is Shiite, while most of the terrorists are Sunni. Of course the truth is that Iran has formed many alliances of convenience with terrorists (just as the "secular" Saddam did, despite claims he would not -- See "Quote of the Day"). So by giving Iran the green light, Obama is essentially giving them the terrorist the one thing they lack, nuclear backup.

And that is the one thing they need to really take the place once held by the USSR. They are already hostile, have a massive network, and are involved in countless countries. Many non-Islamic and non-terrorist nations turn to Islamic militants for weapons, training, and supplies, just as they once turned to the Soviets and their proxies. But without nukes the terrorists were at a disadvantage. We could just move in, crush their hideouts, destroy the nations sheltering ro funding them, and ruin all the hard work the Democrats put into reviving terrorism.

Until Iran gets the bomb.

Once that happens, to steal a quote "happy days are here again". The Cold War is back and the Democrats can tell us over and over how we just need to get along, how we can't anger other nations lest they go over to the "other side".They can even revive the Cold War trope of moral equivalency, asking if the Islamic terrorists "love their children too". All the nonsense that stretched from the end of World War II until Reagan took office can make a comeback.

See how easy it is to explain foreign policy when you have the  right perspective?

------------------------------------------------

1. To be fair, Reagan did drop the ball on the Islamic militants. Whether it was because his focus was elsewhere, he received bad advice, or he just made a mistake, his handling of Lebanon was a crucial link in the chain that led to 9/11. Carter may have forged the first link, erasing the memory of the Mayaguez with his failed "rescue" of the hostages in Iran, but Reagan did his part of convince the Islamic world we were a paper tiger as well. See "Lebanon and Saint Reagan".

2. I recall my uncle being on a hijacked plane sometime in the 80's (how the memory fades, even for quite significant dates), and being quite worried as he was traveling on a DoD passport. When we found out the hostage takers were defectors from a communist nation rather than the expected Islamic terrorists, we were quite relieved.

3. I don't mean to downplay the role of the first Gulf War in this equation. Despite claims of modern opponents of invading Iraq, the first Gulf War may have been the excuse used by Osama bin Ladin to recruit, but in practical terms the first Gulf War did, for a time, dampen Saddam Hussein's enthusiasm for backing terrorists and briefly reduced the amount of funding and logistical support for terrorism. Likewise, Jodan's disenchantment with the PLO after their attempt on King Hussein also removed another source of support. Without friendly nations, funds, and logistical support, terrorists may be able to recruit, but they find it hard to carry out prolonged or elaborate enterprises. (Something to recall when someone argues liberating Iraq or Afghanistan "doesn't help". The Israeli invasion of Lebanon, even though they left it a wreck and did not "nation build" certainly reduced terrorism for the subsequent decade.)

4. Whether China has designs against the US and what they are is a question for another time. What we can agree upon is that China has shown little interest in an open conflict with the US, even over thorny issues such as Taiwan.

5. Many claim that Moslems are "crazy" and will get recruits even if we kill off their members. But the truth is, most Moslems are not crazy. They will join a militant organization that seems to be winning, but if it seems joining will mean only hardship and death, a lot of Moslems will pass. (See "What About The Crusades?", "Thoughts on Islam and the Current Conflict", "Winning Over Moderates" and "Perceptions of Iraq") How else to explain why the PLO almost vanished following their expulsion from Lebanon? Without a base of support or any funding, being a PLO member was a rough existence. And so, except for a handful of fanatics, they could not find recruits. Yes, fanatics will not be discouraged, but, despite the beliefs of many in the US, fanaticism is as rare among Moslems as among any religious group. There are some, and the number rises as devotion rises, but they are still a clear minority. Why else would so many bombers be easily persuaded youths and women (whose social status makes them more easily intimidated) or else those who are promised support for their family in exchange for "martyrdom".

-----------------------------------------------------

POSTSCRIPT

Why do I call it semi-comic? Because the basic point is a joke. I do not really think Democrats intentionally revived terrorism or are trying to revive Russia as a rival. Nor do I think they want a strong enemy so they can cow us into behaving. In fact, I find it funny to make such suggestions.

On the other hand, I call it "semi-", because there is some truth to it, though I invert the reality. They do not want a strong enemy to intimidate us into behaving, they end up with strong enemies because they are too worried about "world opinion" and "equity". They ask "why can we have nuclear arms and Iran can't?" And even when you point out Iran's expansionist aims, their threats of genocide and such ("Do Liberals Even Read What They Write?"), they, in their fetish for moral equivalence and anti-US rhetoric, point to our own past misdeeds and ask whether they do not make Iran our equal. See? Their fear of world opinion or "injustice" in some absurd, abstract and convoluted sense (See "Protean Terminology", "A Question of Fairness" and "Life Is Not Fair - And Trying To Make It So Makes Things Worse"), make them create dangerous situations.

So, I wrote this to give readers a chuckle, while pointing out, obliquely, a real truth about the source of our current dangers. But then, worrying someone might take me seriously, I wrote this postscript to clarify what I truly think and, more importantly, what I don't.

For a more serious look at some of the questions raised I would recommend "Comparing Bush and Obama -- Foreign Policy", "Foreign Policy" and "Iran Gets What It Wants ".