Readers look for leadership from the President on Foreign Policy
Well… just being a leader (even a bad leader) would be a step in the right direction.
What we have is a president who is easily manipulated and reactive with no real foreign policy goals or objectives.
A policy, a plan, a vision or even the exhibition of any leadership skills would give us a starting point for discussion and the taking of a position for or against that policy.
You can continue to incorrectly interpret my comments as “pro war”, but you would be wrong. You would also be wrong to interpret my comments as “anti war” or even as “neutral”.
It is impossible to take a position on the president’s policy since it changes daily and will likely change again.
For instance, take the speech last night – its initial objective was to convince the public (and congress) to quickly vote on an approval to strike Syria, but it changed to a speech to tell Congress to delay any vote. This entire turnaround in position was due to an off the cuff comment made by the Secretary of State (which opposed an earlier position taken by the president) and an opportunistic position taken by Putin to keep his man in power.
This is an administration with a “driftwood” foreign policy — aka no foreign policy at all or at best a chaotic, unintelligible foreign policy.
How a casual remark put Syria attack on hold
Wednesday, September 11, 2013 Last updated: Thursday September 12, 2013, 12:32 AM
BY CALVIN WOODWARD
Associated Press
– See more at: https://www.northjersey.com/news/international/How_an_idea_put_a_Syrian_strike_on_hold.html#sthash.Tg6WW1uC.dpuf