Is Ralph Peters being overly harsh in his assessment of President Obama’s new foreign policy team?
Rice has the weakest credentials of any national security adviser in the history of the office, but she has the president’s ear as his old pal. And she’ll work in the White House: Proximity to POTUS is trumps in DC. Kerry’s desk in Foggy Bottom might as well be a hundred miles from the Oval Office.
However incompetent, Rice may become the most influential national security adviser since Henry Kissinger eclipsed the entire State Department. Which means that Obama’s foreign policy, already disastrous, is now going to get worse.
As for the earnest Ms. Power, she has zero qualifications to serve as our UN ambassador. She’s a left–wing militant who has yet to show the least interest in defending America, rather than merely using our might as her tool. Her cause is human rights abroad, and that’s her only cause. And while respect for human rights should be a major factor in our foreign policy, it can’t be the only factor.
Both Power and Rice consistently advocate using our military to protect the human rights of often-hostile foreign populations. Of course there are, indeed, times when measured intervention is strategically wise and morally imperative — but our military’s fundamental purpose is national defense, not mercy missions to those who spit in our faces.
My reaction to Ms. Power’s nomination as UN ambassador was that she’d fit right in. What I’ve heard of her views more closely resemble those of the typical UN delegate than they do those of the typical American.
I think it’s increasingly clear that the president values loyalty very highly and the primary qualifications that his most recent appointments possess is that they’re loyal and part of his close-knit group of friends and advisors.
When your mission is to “fundamentally transform” the country, loyalty to the mission is the one true requirement.
K.T Mcfarland is on the same page as Ralph Peterson in saying that Rice is entering this new job as the walking wounded, and will be a “disaster” as national security advisor. She became damaged goods from her Benghazi performance, and now has little to none credibility with the WH press, or with the foreign policy community and it’s leaders. Loyalty to the president is her one redeeming asset. And, even that is flawed, as like Ice said on another thread, she is supposed to be strong enough to counsel him, especially when he is considering the wrong policy. How can she possibly do that when she has proven herself to be nothing more than a subservient ‘Stepford Wife?’
Oh, BTW, Obama’s other DC wife, except she is the domineering one, Valerie Jarrett, has made a statement that Eric Holder is staying. So, I guess that clears up any ambivalence that he might resign.
“I think it’s increasingly clear that the president values loyalty very highly and the primary qualifications that his most recent appointments possess is that they’re loyal and part of his close-knit group of friends and advisors.”
Competant executives do largely the opposite. They may have one or two very trusted and intimate advisors, but they also seek diversity of opinion and balance. I’ve seen Obama’s style many times before and its almost always a didster and indicative of a weak leader demanding yes men vs men and women withf valuable counsel.
.
I can’t say I’m very happy about the appointments given their policy views.