With talk swirling about regarding Obama and weak leadership, and suspicions too that Dear Leader is not just extremely cautious [less flattering meme: dithering, indecisive, unfocused] when it comes to the use of American power, whether in actual terms or simply as an implied threat of real urgency, but rather is quite hostile to traditional conceptions of American power, sharing an opinion held by his liberal academic cohorts that the world would be well served by less America and more… well, more talking it seems - these people apparently are so taken with the absolute splendour of their ideas that they have convinced themselves that the mere expression of these beauties will suffice in changing everything for the better - Obama has certainly spent much of his presidency governing that way and why not since the fervid acolytes who tirelessly promoted his brilliance often talked as if that is exactly what would happen, just elect the eloquent black guy president and everything would change.

But I digress - with such talk constantly swirling about I was struck by an arms control expert, who worked for both Bush and Obama administrations and so apparently not a partisan hack, I was struck by him saying recently that he was convinced Obama understood the acute danger of a nuked up Iran and therefore he had no doubt that if it came to the dire pass Dear Leader would indeed use the military option - he was sure of it. His conviction surprised the hell outta me because I've never believed Obama was serious when he declared all options were on the table - I've always believed he was just saying what he had to say to keep the perception of the negotiations as legitimate viable and to make sure Israel stayed on the sidelines - I've simply never believed that Obama's fall back plan was anything other than containment and that Iran believes this too which is why they may bend but never will break when it comes to nukes.

So this guy's certainty about Obama and the military option is perplexing - yes, I've often said that Obama is one of the best liars I've ever heard, a true master at bullshitting and therefore he could even have some of his own people fooled concerning his true plans - we'll see I guess but I'd be shocked if Obama actually went down the military road - I think he'll settle for any deal that offers the illusion of being viable and if Iran breaks the deal containment will be plan B - there's just simply nothing in Obama's default ideological presuppositions and sympathies nor his actions to date as president that suggests to me that when he says all options are on the table he's doing anything other than lie - ya know, along the lines of 'if you like your health care plan you can keep it' - I mean, what clear thinking person doesn't understand that that was a lie? The guy's good at lying and quite clearly has no qualms about doing so if the agenda requires it.

[having said all this about Obama The Weak, Hagel comes out today and names China as chief shit disturber in Asia-Pacific theatre - and brings up the cyber espionage charges again - can't say as I saw that coming, I mean to directly lay the blame on China - something of course had to be said what with Big Dragon sticking its oil rig in Vietnamese waters etc etc - but wasn't expecting something this 'in your face' - not sure what to make of it - is it possible Hagel went off book here? He's strayed before, but by misadventure, not deliberately - nope, bit puzzled by this - the thing to keep in mind is this sets in motion a chain of events that cannot now be ignored - if Big Dragon decides to turn up the heat Obama can't simply walk away as if this little scolding is enough push back - ya gotta stay the course otherwise you're inviting huge problems - and I'm pretty sure Big Dragon will be testing to see if indeed you're truly willing to stay the course]

With many, both liberal and conservative, agreeing that Obama's West Point speech was varying degrees of awful, boring, false, lacking real substance, utterly misplaced in its pedagogic pretensions, poorly argued, a transparent and rather feeble effort to cast wandering and weak as provisionally pragmatic and well reasoned just so long as, ya know, no one dare question the reasoning - given that response one perforce now wonders: what the hell was Dear Leader thinking? Is he just clinging to the idea that he can still govern by means of pretty speech giving? He squeezes out a few lofty sounding phrases and order is restored? Maybe - and you know, when it comes to spewing rhetoric about inequality and climate change deniers and homophobia and racism and the war on women and all the vague base pleasing populist fodder of that sort, he probably can still get away with the illusion of governing by teleprompter because the media is generally gonna back up those narratives. But foreign policy is just too real and combustible and stubborn and intractable a thing to be easily tamed by false narratives spun by your media allies - there's only so many lies you can tell before the flood of reality starts to push its way through and not even the Grey Lady can save you when that levee starts to crumble.

The image of Obama as weak, misguided, tentative, indecisive, prone to seeking refuge in phony intellectual conceits, pandering, apologetic, not a strong and proud promoter and defender of American interests and power, unfeared as an enemy and untrusted as a friend when it comes to the practice of foreign policy is out there, it's settling in, it's embedded in the weave of his desultory actions - and it ain't going away - and I don't think there's much he can do to fix it. The worrying thing is that that may be because he doesn't see it as in need of fixing, he doesn't see it as a problem, he just doesn't see America or the value of American power in those crudely unenlightened terms - such a viewpoint I'm sure would stand him in very good stead in the Harvard faculty lounge - but in the real world it means you're gonna get your ass kicked.

Youth unemployment is a problem in the US, but an especially bad problem among young black males - I believe I read the other day that the unemployment rate among young black males in Chicago is over 90% - that's insane - and it's not much better anywhere else in the country. What I find interesting is how no one seems to talk about this quite obviously dire situation when discussing immigration reform and amnesty and the flooding of our labor markets with low skill, poorly educated workers - these people are going to be doing the very jobs all those unemployed youth already in America should be doing - why is no one talking about this? How is the way people talk about immigration reform and amnesty not equivalent to us signing off on creating a permanent underclass of unemployed and unemployable youth, especially African-American youth, who are forever dependent on gov't handouts for their survival? This seems utterly crazy to me - and yet you rarely hear people talk about it when discussing immigration reform. I'm not sure why - I'm guessing political correctness - no one wants to touch the subject because they fear conclusions will be reached that will offend some people who very much relish crying grievance over some perceived offense - it's gotta be something like that because this issue has huge problem written all over it and yet it's barely discussed.

This an interesting story, as in disturbing and depressing and galling - let's quickly get to the crux that jars sharply - America essentially bankrolls Europe's security by taking the great cost and great risk associated with true military power on our shoulders, which is what allows Europe to pretend it can afford its various welfare states not to mention its somewhat pacifist, certainly unrealistic, pollyannish strategic outlook - and increasingly the main driver of these costs and risks America bears is China and how its rise potentially threatens a world order that yes, serves well America's interests but also without question Europe's too - and Europe pays us back for this largesse by significantly aiding and abetting that rise of China's military to the point where someone is quoted as saying China's navy would be nothing without tech and hardware from Europe.

Ahhh... this is crazy, right, a model that cannot possibly hold? We bear great cost and risk protecting Europe so that they can sell essential technology to the threat we're protecting them from - this is a madness that is not sustainable, right? I understand America is hardly blameless here and that we've profited greatly from this world order we've borne the risks and costs to defend and that certainly our business practices and foreign policy goals have often clashed - but still, this is nuts, yes? Galling - the progressive dreaminess that is the EU, for however long that dream lasts [which may not be too long given the way things are going], was and is made possible by American power - them arming our [and ultimately their] enemies may just be the the unfortunate yet unavoidable downside of free markets - still, it's bloody galling. I'm mean, look at the Ukraine mess - Europe has left itself very vulnerable to Putin's machinations because of their dependence on Russian gas - part of that dependence is the result of the EU's gleefully pollyannish idealist embrace of green technology which also implies scorning the development of non-green energy sources - and what makes this seemingly quite foolish behavior possible? American power - the EU assumes it can survive weakness since America will be there to save their ass. 

And the earth shuddered with sadness - the NY Times gives a thumbs down to Dear Leader's West Point speech - my, my - is Obama's disingenuous, dissembling, ultimately quite shallow teleprompter act even starting to wear thin for liberals? No - my guess this just a mere flirtation with disavowal - the liberal elite always return to the fold - and when they say bad things about Obama there's always a 'yeah, but...'  thrown in, either in the article itself, or in some missive of love that soon follows.

The West Point audience wasn't so squishy in its dislike of the speech though - the response to it has been politely labeled 'icy' - yeah, I'm sure. Nothing like a military that views its commander in chief as someone they're really not keen on stepping into harms way for - I guess being props in Dear Leader's philosophical whimsy of image preening is not the way to rally the troops. What a shock.

Related to speech, word also comes down that Obama is looking to step up support for the good Syrian rebels - to which my response would be good luck finding the 'good guys' in that mess of shit and regardless how the hell does this make any sense? One of the arguments for early involvement in this war was that that was the only way to keep the conflict from turning into a breeding ground for radicalized Sunni jihadists - I'm not at all sure that would have worked but at least there was some sense to it - but now? Talk about trying to kick shut the jihadist barn door long after the virgins in paradise seekers have thoroughly run amok. I don't get this one, other than it again being an image management calculation. Is this some attempt to put pressure on Iran viz the nuke deal? That seems highly unlikely, and I wouldn't see the strategic sense of it even if it were feasible. Besides, isn't this war essentially over? Doesn't a token effort to fluff up the putative 'good guys' just guarantee more carnage that changes nothing? And how exactly without American boots on the ground do you expect to serve the dubious interests of 'good' insurgents without at the same time serving the interests of the 'bad' insurgents as well?

And then let's consider how all the parties that don't like America and have vested interests in the outcome of this war will look upon this effort - Russia, Iran, Hezbollah and the various al Qaeda affiliates - a halfhearted commitment from Obama could get ya nothing but a hornets nest rattled for no good reason - and could inspire those vested interests to engage in some escalatory behavior designed to make you look weak and foolish, which is exactly what will happen if you're trying to do war by the half measure without a coherent strategic outcome as the goal.

I just don't see how you get a coherent strategic outcome here without a viable proxy, strongly backed, that can serve America's interests against Iran's and Russia's - where in this mess do you see a viable proxy? Even if there are 'good' insurgents one can sort of trust, do you really think AQ etc etc are gonna let them prosper at their expense in the mad scramble for influence that Syria would become should Assad go bye bye and there's no American force on the ground to impose something resembling a peace? I don't think so.

Sorry, this looks like more window dressing to me, image management - that's what Obama's about, either because when it comes to foreign policy he is by nature and ideological predisposition not qualified to lead - or because he has a specific goal here and it has very little to do with serving America's interests, at least not in terms that the average American would understand or agree with.

Obama at West Point - predictions

Polls show half of Americans want a less ambitious, less involved, less demonstrative, less declarative, less unabashedly American foreign policy, in keeping with what Obama is giving them - I wonder how many tomes on war and statecraft and strategy those polled have read - one assumes most if not all of them couldn't spell Thucydides never mind discuss the merits of his famous book - but hell, forget scholarship, I wonder how many of those polled have ever served or know the slightest god damn thing about serving in the military or even have the most basic understanding of how a military functions. Foreign policy cannot be poll driven because it is too complex, too far reaching, too sophisticated in its reasonings and modes and historical contexts and too removed from the humble experiences of the average citizen - it is by and large and necessarily so the sole purview of the chief executive and quite possibly, certainly when you're talking about a superpower, the most important thing that chief executive will do - it is up to him or her to judge the best path forward that serves the vital interests of the country and then explain and justify that path forward to the people regardless of whether or not they wanna hear it or can even comprehend it - it is not his or her job to give the people what they ostensibly want but rather to convince them that he or she deserves their trust - if congress disagrees, the founders gave them the power to do something about it.

So people who try to defend Obama's foreign policy by claiming it comports nicely with what nearly half the country wants are idiots or mere apologists or naive sycophants. If you wanna defend Obama's foreign policy, do so on its own terms and don't you dare quote polls to me.

Which brings us to Obama's upcoming West Point speech which, according to previews, will be promising more small ball dressed up as something bold and engaged but not in a very bold or particularly engaged way - in other words, more leading from behind - in other other words, more beguiling optics, more theatrics, more rhetoric, more empty gestures that sufficiently poll well. Obama, ever image conscious, sees that the perception of him as weak is settling in and so, true to form, he's gonna roll out the teleprompters and give a lofty and no doubt well reviewed speech which the NY Times will hail as substantial maybe even inspiringly so but that will change absolutely nothing in reality - unless of course one thinks the preening of Obama's image a reality worth considering.

[of course the real thing to worry about with this speech will not be that it is just more image management from Obama but rather that it will be deliberately obscure and disingenuous since the actual behind the words point of it will be that a less powerful America is a good thing and not at all inherently problematic and full of perils]  

The spike in violence in eastern Ukraine against Russian sympathizers, with one official in Kiev stating that the insurgents will be 'exterminated', is interesting - in sense that the election of the chocolate tycoon, who has said he wants to work with the EU and Russia to calm things, a gesture which Putin has welcomed, however disingenuously, well, you'd think that'd lead to a tamping down on force against the Russophiles rather than a sharp spike up - which suggests to me that Ukrainian nationalists, in control of the temporary gov't, maybe do not trust Mr Chocolate to stand firm against Putin's intentions, whatever they may be - because this spike in force risks escalating quickly into something that draws Putin in in a much more decisive way - which, again, to me only makes sense if the Ukrainian ultra nationalists are convinced Mr Chocolate intends to conceded something to Putin [one assumes some sort of federation] which is the political solution ol' Vlad has been looking for.

It's very murky - but I'm not seeing anything yet that tells me Putin's gambit has gone awry or twisted beyond his control - I still think he's in the catbird seat here - he knows better than anyone in the West how corrupt and vulnerable a polity Ukraine is and therefore I assume knows where and how to apply pressure. Could all go south on him, sure - and if he starts talking about the 'new gov't' in ways that definitely sound conciliatory that might indeed suggest control has slipped away form him - but I'm not seeing that yet and the spike in violence by the ultra nationalists, to my mind anyways, seems to confirm that.

[or is Mr Chocolate calling the shots here? Some are suggesting that - but he hasn't been sworn in yet - although who knows if that matters in a place like Ukraine - still, even if he is behind the spike it doesn't make sense to me - unless of course they've determined Putin's all bravado here and they're calling his bluff and pushing in all their chips, relatively speaking - but I've said and fully believe Putin cannot let himself look like he's backing down, like he's lost since so much of the point of all this was perceptual - he can try and claim he had nothing to do with the pro-Russia insurgents but no one believes that - then again he does still have Crimea so I guess if things start to turn against him in the East one could view it as a draw and that will be good enough, for now - but I'm not sold on that - there's another play coming seems to me]

NY Times does somewhat flattering article on Jeb Bush, describing him as something of a bookish technocrat, which is how the less whiny and mawkish of the liberal illuminati like to think of themselves - so obviously the Times has decided Jeb is running, is a threat to Hillary and must be smeared into oblivion, made primary toxic - they got Christie with 'bridgegate' since electable straight shooter was Christie's thing and the trumped up scandal seems to have deep sixed that - and now, much as they did with Romney, they're gonna make Jeb unpalatable to the conservative base by stigmatizing his refined qualities as strange and not to be trusted - and thus, again like Romney, even if Bush wins the nomination you hope you've stirred up enough distrust in the base that they just don't bother going out to vote. Having seen Obama exploit liberal media bias in this way you'd like to think conservatives have figured out countermeasures - but then one would like to think a lot of things which just don't turn out to be true.

The interesting wonder is will the Times et al be as unquestioningly in the tank for Hillary as they were for Dear Leader? They see where such blind faith got them with Obama - an utterly awful president - a sane and thoughtful person would take a step back and reevaluate - but these people aren't sane, are they - that ain't how ideological fervor works - blind faith is a virtue, not a flaw - and so I'd imagine most of the liberal elite still cling to their Obama delusions and resist contemplations on maybe having been wrong and misguided - to allow such pernicious thoughts could upend their entire belief system, and we can't have that - I mean, what's truth compared to guarding one's faith against doubt? Look at the Financial Times tearing apart of new liberal favorite Piketty's numbers and arguments - does anyone honestly think Krugman, shameless ideologue that he is, is now gonna take a step back and reevaluate his unquestioning adoration of that socialist dream work? No bloody way. 

Krauthammer reaches conclusion, at least publicly - perhaps he's believed this for awhile now - but reaches same conclusion I came to weeks ago about Putin's grand scheme and fact that if there wasn't an informal 'anti-American' alliance between Russia, China and to a lesser extent Iran before Crimea the logic of such an arrangement would now have been made obvious by how Putin's actions in Ukraine have changed the game - the mutual strategic benefits of such an alliance should be clear.

What's striking about this is how absolutely unclear this has been to so many in the West who make a living by expressing their supposedly enlightened opinions on things - and what's truly frightening is how unclear this all was and possibly still is to Obama and his entire national security staff - when Putin moved into Crimea, Obama and Kerry were utterly flummoxed, it was as if it was entirely beyond their abilities to see the potential of a larger strategy at work here. Cluelessness like that amongst the leadership of the free world should cause any sane person to fret deeply about where all this might be heading.