REPLIES TO THE CURRENT QUESTION

Our question last week was:

Some say that President Obama is moving toward the center on national security policy.  Do you agree, and why?

Here are your answers.  The name of a writer is included only if he or she actually placed a name at the end of the message.  Otherwise, we assume the writer wished anonymity and "name withheld" is inserted.

In my response to this question early in the week, I suggested that President Obama would show his cards, a bit, in his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu.  And, as it turns out, he did.

Our national security policy hasn't moved toward the center or toward the left or right.  It has departed into the Twilight Zone.  Oh, to have Rod Serling back to explain it all.  It turns out that our policy will be made up entirely of Hope and Change.  We are going to "hope" that the world is a safer place, and, if that doesn't happen, we'll "change" our deadline for it to happen so that we don't lose "hope."  

Or, as I saw in a recent cartoon somewhere describing our vice president's many gaffes:  "Blather," "wince," "repeat."  I don't think that qualifies as a national security policy either, but it's all that we have.

Don Newell
Vancouver, WA

I think Charles Krauthammer understood the situation correctly: Obama
wishes to do a lot of transformation internally, but does not wish to do much
in foreign policy.

In order to do that he would need to borrow a lot of money, and this implies that
he would have to be nice and forward thinking with the people who have the money,
that is China and the Arab petromonarchies.  Americans have to bear in
mind that the money lending by those countries is an expression of their
interest and appreciation of the work done by the American military. America
is mostly unpaid for the good that it does in foreign policy (the only
exception I know is the Gulf war), and the national debt and low interest
rate is a way to get paid somehow.

One simple example is North Korea:  The countries most concerned by a collapse or attack by North Korea are China, Japan and South Korea, all holding a lot of American federal debt.  Hence, it is only logical that the wish of those countries, i.e. that North
Korea stays as it is, is also the wish of Washington.

With respect to the noisy Middle East, what is striking is the prolongation
of old politics: treason in slow motion in Israel, continuing non-hostility
toward Iran, good enduring relation with Saudi Arabia. The Israel case
provides the clearest example: Carter props up Egypt in negotiation with Israel;
Reagan begins the first known secret meeting with the PLO; Bush Sr. holds the
secret Oslo negotiation; Clinton implements the Oslo accords; Bush Jr.
requires Israel to commit to the two-state solution; Obama pushes further.

So, in my opinion, Obama wishes to continue the old politics. He knows that
he does not have the money and the will power for Iraq-style big foreign
policy projects. But he also knows that he cannot jettison the commitments
of America, especially in Asia. Obama wishes continuity.

But this does not mean he will get it. Politicians at the top are always
surprised by events: Saddam invades Kuwait, Yugoslavia breaks apart, India/Pakistan
go officially nuclear, North Korea go nuclear, Oslo, 9/11, the 2008
economic collapse.

Mathieu Dutour Sikiric,
Zagreb Croatia