Rumsfeld makes a very interesting point in Fox interview viz perceived weakness of Obama - I know the reflexive instinct is to ignore Rummy, but this important point often overlooked - namely, it's not just Obama's actions in the foreign policy realm that seem to define a president who doesn't like or doesn't trust or is uncomfortable with or is simply uninterested in the uses of American power that cause concern and send a troubling message to allies and a comforting one to enemies - it's the far left wing view of government and economic policy that he and his ideological fellow travellers espouse and embrace as a true faith that also confirm and give credence to what his foreign policy actions imply - in short, implied in the far left desire to move America towards a European social welfare model is that we will no longer be able to afford a powerful military, which is exactly what has happened in Europe where they stopped spending real money on defense and now their security is absolutely dependent on the US - it's not just Obama's foreign policy that troubles allies and encourages enemies, it's the whole package - because an America managed by lefty ideologues like him will necessarily fall from great power status. I mean, imagine an Elizabeth Warren as president - that would send a clear message to allies and enemies alike that America is no longer in the superpower business so have at it.
Given this the question becomes: is Obama's weak foreign policy a result of him not being well suited at all for the job of chief executive of a superpower with America's responsibilities - or is its muddled, enfeebled incoherence a deliberate attempt to incrementally hollow out, encumber, invalidate American power? As I've said before, you cannot have the kind of society and bureaucratic welfare state that Obama and his ilk are most sympathetic to and have enough money left over to pay for a great military, never mind retain the ability to engender and encourage the cultural characteristics required to breath fire into that military.
Given this the question becomes: is Obama's weak foreign policy a result of him not being well suited at all for the job of chief executive of a superpower with America's responsibilities - or is its muddled, enfeebled incoherence a deliberate attempt to incrementally hollow out, encumber, invalidate American power? As I've said before, you cannot have the kind of society and bureaucratic welfare state that Obama and his ilk are most sympathetic to and have enough money left over to pay for a great military, never mind retain the ability to engender and encourage the cultural characteristics required to breath fire into that military.
