Washington’s major deployment of BMD across Asia is a major reason likely for the sudden decision to delay the 18th Party Congress until after the US elections to see whether China faced a Presidient Romney or President Obama.
What has materialized in terms of US military deciusions in the few months since Obama first proclaimed his Asia Pivot and Obama Doctrine makes clear why China is increasingly nervous about Obama ‘pivots.’
By Cliff Kincaid Thursday, March 22, 2012
You may not have heard of PSD-10 because it has received no significant coverage from the major media. Yet, President Obama issued “Presidential Study Directive 10” last August 4, 2011, and posted it on the White House website. It amounts to a new and potentially far-reaching exercise of American military power cloaked in humanitarian language and conducted under the auspices of the United Nations and the International Criminal Court.
Under this new “Obama doctrine,” U.S. troops can be deployed to arrest or even terminate individuals wanted by the International Criminal Court, which is based on a treaty that has not been ratified by the U.S. Senate and isn’t even up for Senate consideration.
This “Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities,” another name for PSD-10, declares that “Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.” This is at sharp variance with the traditional role of the U.S. military—self-defense and protection of the homeland. Toward this end, an “Interagency Atrocities Prevention Board” is being formed to develop and implement this new Obama doctrine. However, it is apparent that the doctrine is already going forward.
The Obama Doctrine: Inconsistency
The Obama Doctrine: Inconsistency:
““The Obama Doctrine: Inconsistency”
That’s funny, he seems consistent w/Alinsky’s paperback!
Just Plain Dick
(‘A Constitution changed from Freedom, can never be restored; Liberty, once lost, is lost forever…)”
Posted by Gunny G at Tuesday, June 21, 2011
“Triumph of Incompetence; The Stillborn Messiah” ~ Will Soft-Headed Military Humanitarianism Turn War Into Socialist Puppet Theater?
IV. Triumph of Incompetence; The Stillborn Messiah
Of course, the initial analysis of the Obama Doctrine leaves out many unanswered questions, which must be addressed. But many commentators have simply concluded Barack is incompetent more than anything else. So we must analyze his latest example of foreign policy. Consider the following questions motivated by Obama attacking Libya.
First, Can we possibly allow any president to launch military action without even discussing the option with Congress or asking their permission, which implies a offering a mission statement and goal?
Second, Is the US military really setup for humanitarian projects, which imply by definition, nation-building campaigns?
Third, Who will decide which countries get attacked to liberate the residents?
Fifth, Will we demand tribute from the countries we free so we can afford the exercise?
Sixth, How will we choose the “correct” side to back in any country, or does it even matter?
Seventh, Will we turn our back on every former ally whenever their people revolt against them?
Eighth, Are we prepared to back Muslim radicals in one country while fighting the same radicals in another?
Ninth, Is it even remotely possible that the Obama Doctrine will not eventually blowup in our faces?
Tenth, Will we create a new Roman empire and make the whole world behave according to Western ideals of law, economics, freedoms and government? If not, do we really have a just purpose, after all?
Eleventh, Does Barack really think his off-the-cuff military action will aid America? Does he care? Or will this end up like every other impulsive and willful decision he has made since entering office?
Twelvth, How does Obama think his hairsplitting definitions of the “good war” will resemble anything other than utter confusion, or an unprincipled power grab?
…Yet after 800 words, the eloquent Rhodes offered nothing as compact or pithy as the “Bush doctrine” Obama ran against in 2008, a black-and-white commitment to supporting democratic movements and using unilateral American firepower to back them when necessary.
That difficulty in succinctly describing the intellectual framework for Obama’s approach to U.S. foreign policy and national security issues has long bedeviled anyone trying to impute a concrete agenda from Obama’s soaring pronouncements about supporting democracy and fostering international human rights.
Republicans, especially the neo-conservatives who gave enthusiastic support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, have sought to paint Obama’s nuanced approach as fundamentally weak. “We used to relish leading the free world. Now, it’s almost like leading the free world is an inconvenience,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Fox News Sunday…………………….
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com …