The Wall Street Journal’s news division today finally picked up on the mass confusion and insecurity being sowed around the world under President Obama, writing:
The breadth of global instability now unfolding hasn’t been seen since the late 1970s, U.S. security strategists say, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, revolutionary Islamists took power in Iran, and Southeast Asia was reeling in the wake of the U.S. exit from Vietnam.
Well now, who was president then?
Sorry, didn’t mean to scare you like that.
We of course at White House Dossier have been chronicling Obama’s disordering of the world order for some time, but it’s nice to see such information percolating into the mainstream press.
The Journal notices:
In the past month alone, the U.S. has faced twin civil wars in Iraq and Syria, renewed fighting between Israel and the Palestinians, an electoral crisis in Afghanistan and ethnic strife on the edge of Russia, in Ukraine.
Off center stage, but high on the minds of U.S. officials, are growing fears that negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program could collapse this month, and that China is intensifying its territorial claims in East Asia.
The article is written in a balanced manner, with the administration’s viewpoint duly included. But a substantial voice is given to the viewpoint that this is not just events cascading onto Obama, but events he could have better controlled.
Many of his critics say he has overcorrected, further eroding the national-security architecture Washington built in the Mideast and Asia during the Cold War and allowing avenues for terrorist groups such as al Qaeda and competing states to fill the security vacuum . . .
Many Middle East leaders also have said Mr. Obama has been too reluctant to use force, which has emboldened terrorist groups and rogue states. They cite the president’s failure last year to follow through on a threat to strike Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime after it allegedly used chemical weapons on its political opponents . . .
There is a growing skepticism in Asia about whether the U.S. would abide by its commitment to defend Japan, Taiwan and other Asian countries if their territorial disputes with China escalate into conflict, according to Asian diplomats.
Messrs. Obama and Kerry have worked to assure Japan and South Korea that Washington remains wholly committed to its defense treaties. But even some security analysts who are close to the White House say the Obama administration’s perceived hesitancy in responding to international threats is unnerving U.S. allies in the region.
The United States is not the world’s policeman, and it should be very slow to employ it’s armed might and risk the lives of its troops. But when the United States withdraws from the world and when its leader appears indecisive and weak, U.S. national security is imperiled. That’s what we learned in the 1970s, and that’s what we are relearning today.
The bad guys are out there. They are gaining strength. And soon, they will be coming here.