It would be a challenge to comb through the past two thousand years and find a commander, civilian or military, who so artfully avoided the predicate to victory as did President Obama in this week’s speech on Afghanistan.  On a tactical level, we might posit General McClellan at Antietam, whose timorous approach to battle effectively squandered the opportunity for a decisive defeat of General Lee. 

Indeed, regardless of flawed or poorly executed strategies, whether it’s Alexander at Granicus, Harold at Hastings, or the eloquence of a Lincoln in acquitting American values in the Civil War, when a commander issues a casus belli, it’s with a steely resolve and inspiring confidence--Mr. Obama’s speech made up in lofty, abstract rhetoric what it lacked in both.

Rhetoric, even in the example of the gifted Mr. Obama, can’t advance an argument for a military escalation that isn’t thorough-going in its strategic justification, and the president simply failed to make his case.  Indeed, his speech recalls President Clinton’s self-serving explanation for his areal approach to Bosnia, which was a study in political calculation. 

Obama has spent a lifetime in opposition to the military, so when commentators write that this was a difficult decision, they don’t mean that his options were limited, but rather that protracting a war is painful for a devout dove.  Strategic diffidence dressed up as a comprehensive plan is disingenuous, which shifts the argument from a military venue—where Obama is out of his element—to a political one, where he’s most comfortable.

Beyond being arbitrary, indicating a withdrawal date of eighteen months in a war that’s been going on for eight years falls somewhere between strategic myopia and an insult to the soldiers and Marines carrying out orders.  Indeed, it’s a ready-made excuse for him to blame his generals when it becomes clear, as surely it will, that victory in an under-resourced war in a tribal country without a civic—much less an economic—infrastructure is well-neigh impossible.

Here are some excerpts from Mr. Obama’s speech, with my comments:

1.  “As we know, these men [those responsible for 9/11] belonged to al Qaeda - a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam…”. 

For anyone who has an even rudimentary understanding of Sharia Law, which not only allows but encourages the murder of “infidels,” the slaughter of 3,000 Americans on 9/11 was not, in fact, a distortion of orthodox Islam.

2.  “We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011.  That we are doing so is a testament to the character of our men and women in uniform.  Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.”

Beyond the inestimable courage of our military, is the issue of political courage, which former President Bush exhibited in bringing the Iraq war to a successful conclusion.  It’s a sign of Mr. Obama’s all-consuming and unreflective disdain for his predecessor that he can’t rise above pettiness by giving credit to Mr. Bush, which provides more evidence, as though more were needed, that his so-called transcendental politics is as partisan and vicious as any Chicago politician.

3. “Commanders in Afghanistan repeatedly asked for support to deal with the reemergence of the Taliban, but these reinforcements did not arrive.”

If we had a media in this country it would demand that the Obama Administration provide proof of this, which simply doesn’t exist.  There is no evidence of requests by field commanders that were denied by either the Pentagon or President Bush.

4.  “And as Commander-in-Chief, I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home.”

Most intelligence estimates are that there are fewer than 200 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan today, and that number has been dwindling over the past several years.  In contrast, Afghanistan is home to the Taliban, so although one can argue that the U.S. has a national interest—note he didn’t say “national security interest—why 30,000 troops, and why 18 months?

5.  “I opposed the war in Iraq precisely because I believe that we must exercise restraint in the use of military force, and always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.”

This is a form of intellectual entrapment.  Who would argue that we shouldn’t “always consider the long-term consequences of our actions.”  I’ll take the bait:  What would have been the long-term consequences In Iraq if Mr. Obama’s formal action in the senate to bring all troops home by March of 2008 had passed?  They range from mere civil chaos to outright civil war, either of which would have likely dashed the chances of the rudimentary kind of democracy that’s slowly evolving in Iraq.

6.  “Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a timeframe for our transition to Afghan responsibility.”

There is no credible reason that the U.S. can’t telegraph that its commitment isn’t open ended without specifying a defined timeframe.  Mr. Obama must tell us what exactly is strategically gained by defining a date?  Will the Karzai “government” suddenly increase its pace of civic and political reform?  There’s simply no evidence it will, but there is evidence of a serious strategic downside:  al-Qaeda and the Taliban now have a horizon for U.S. involvement and can merely run out the clock. 

7.  “The struggle against violent extremism will not be finished quickly, and it extends well beyond Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

Since there is “violent extremism” in every country, including America, what, exactly is he referring to?  Naively and ignorantly believing that euphemisms have a strategic utility leads Obama to provide political cover for barbarians who, in the name of a radical religion, seek the destruction of innocent Americans.

8.  “We have to invest in our homeland security, because we cannot capture or kill every violent extremist abroad.  We have to improve and better coordinate our intelligence, so that we stay one step ahead of shadowy networks.”

I’m glad to see Mr. Obama supports former President Bush’s warrantless electronic surveillance program.  If you disagree with that program or would like more information about it, please see my post at ClearCommentary.com.

9.  “We will have to take away the tools of mass destruction. That is why I have made it a central pillar of my foreign policy to secure loose nuclear materials from terrorists; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to pursue the goal of a world without them.”

That last phrase, of course, means leveraging peaceful, law-abiding nations such as the U.S., to dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal.  Not unlike disarming law-abiding American citizens of firearms, it’s astonishing that Obama and his liberal brethren fail to understand that criminals and the world’s tyrants will never comply with the law, which makes the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons in civilized nations a fools errand.

10.  “And we have forged a new beginning between America and the Muslim World - one that recognizes our mutual interest in breaking a cycle of conflict.”

When did this happen?  In his apology speech in Cairo?  What difference has that made with respect to the mullahs in Iran?  If anything, Iran, Hezebollah, Hamas, and radicals the world-over now know that Obama is weak and are actively exploiting it.

11.  “That is why we must promote our values by living them at home - which is why I have prohibited torture and will close the prison at Guantanamo Bay.”

The “torture” he’s referring to is, of course, water-boarding, which is part of the training regimen for certain Air Force officers and special ops forces.  And, it would be a testament to political candor if Mr. Obama could name one member of Congress who has toured Gitmo and has made the determination that its prisoners are being mistreated.  There isn’t one.

12.  “But I also know that we, as a country, cannot sustain our leadership nor navigate the momentous challenges of our time if we allow ourselves to be split asunder by the same rancor and cynicism and partisanship that has in recent times poisoned our national discourse.”

It’s crucial to remember that when we agree with liberals we’re being bipartisan, but if we have the temerity to disagree it’s a sign of “rancor and cynicism and partisanship.”  We might recall in one of his first televised meetings in the White House when a Republican openly disagreed with a policy, Obama defended his liberal position by saying, “We won.”

17.  “I refuse to accept the notion that we cannot summon that unity again.  I believe with every fiber of my being that we - as Americans - can still come together behind a common purpose.”

Defining that “common purpose” is, of course, a political process, and when Mr. Obama runs as a centrist but then governs as a case-hardened liberal, he may be surprised when very few Americans support his particular definition of “common.”

Since I announced my intent to terminate ClearCommentary.com on November 2^nd, I’ve received many reader responses that have encouraged me to maintain this blog as I begin writing about religion, spirituality, and science.

After considerable discussion and reflection, I’ve decided continue posting at ClearCommentary.com, but with a more limited schedule.  And, as noted below, I’ve launched a new blog that addresses issues of religion, with a focus on certain aspects of modern science, in particular, particle physics.  Today marks my first installment, which I hope you’ll read.

After considering a variety of titles, I have decided on The God Particle.  I’m indebted to my friend and intellectual compatriot, Bill Fodor, for recommending this title, which captures the dual nature of my subject matter. 

It’s difficult to say with any certainty—a theme that itself will be reflected in my new blog—exactly the course of my inquiry, but I believe you’ll find it engaging and rewarding to read.  Therefore, I encourage you to visit my new blog at:

http://thegodparticle.townhall.com

And, please continue to check ClearCommentary for continued political postings.

Regards,

Phil Mella

So seamless is the stupidity undergirding Neal Gabler’s jeremiad in today’s Boston Globe concerning the alleged misnomer ‘American exceptionalism,’ that it’s difficult to know where to begin. 

Not unlike most liberals, Gabler confuses the government and the American people. Indeed, the predicate of his argument is that, in contrast to President Carter’s insistence in a government “as good as the American people,” everything of significance that has been accomplished has been because the government was better than the American people.

In Gabler’s view, it’s as though the ‘government’ is some kind of convenient abstraction rather than the faithful and credible reflection of our Founding Fathers’ vision, regardless of whether it neatly comported with contemporary sentiment or fashion. Therefore, his assertion that FDR took America into WWII against conventional wisdom belies the fact that principled leadership is commonly unpopular, but often, as in the case of both 20^th century world wars, is consistent with Republic’s founding values.

The Gablers of the world seem lost in a kind of post-modernist fog, and for purely political motivations, refuse to consider that Republicans’ defense of American exceptionalism isn’t based on ideology but rather on a close reading of our founding documents, from the Declaration of Independence to the Federalist Papers to the Constitution.

Although missteps are inevitable, they enjoy—or suffer from—a bipartisanship that many, Gabler apparently included, seem to overlook. It has less to do with a candid defense of the ingenious symmetry contemplated by our founders, which members of both parties ought to champion, than an equally candid understanding that although all systems of governance are flawed, America’s is unique in its capacity for beneficence at home and abroad, and has a remarkable instinct for stern introspection and self-correction.

Inextricably intertwined with the liberals’ loathing of all things conservative is their transparently self-serving propensity to conflate it with their willful denial that, on balance, conservative policies are far more aligned with our founding principles than those of liberals. Indeed, whether it’s the individualism enshrined in our founding documents or an unapologetic acquittal of our democratic principles, along with the patriotism implicit in both, you won’t see conservatives getting squeamish when defending them.

Gabler observes that LBJ couldn’t have prosecuted the war in Vietnam without support from the American people, neglecting that the prosecution of a war must be separated from whether or not it’s justified. Despite the fact that it’s viewed as a strategic—and moral—failure, that war can, in fact, be justified. That it was, to put it generously, imperfectly prosecuted is quite another matter.

Finally, Gabler adduces the Greeks as the textbook example of those who understood the perils of hubris. Although hubris is a chestnut indiscriminately trotted out to support a contemporary allegation, an even cursory study of the Peloponnesian War indicates that neither Athens nor Sparta were immune from it. 

Although America, like every nation, has many foibles and makes ill-informed decisions, it betrays a want of intellectual generosity, and, indeed, an unwarranted level of self-criticism, to overlook the ways in which her exceptionalism—which is merely the extension of our Founding Fathers’ vision—has bettered the lives of her citizens, as well as the entire world, at times at a staggering cost.

As recent history demonstrates, cultural entitlement is the precursor to political entitlement. With notably few exceptions and in a shameful, seamless, fashion, politicians faithfully follow this model by perpetuating our economic ills with their excessive responses to otherwise manageable problems.

Liberal commentators, of course, are in the vanguard of this process and like overly attentive herd dogs nip at the heels of their charges, in this case Congressional liberals and the liberal-in-chief, President Obama. For a prime example, we turn to Bob Herbert, whose piece in today’s New York Times is prototypically ingenious in its ability to thoroughly miss the target.

Herbert laments the most recent unemployment numbers and makes the commendable first step of recognizing that those without jobs are suffering. He criticizes Mr. Obama for not pushing for another stimulus package and quotes polls showing that people believe banks and Wall Street benefited from the first stimulus. 

Thanks to the well-entrenched entitlement mentality, underwritten by the modern liberal polity, average Americans now look to the government for resolution of their private problems. Indeed, whether it’s getting a job, paying for health insurance, or finding “affordable” housing, all of which have been rightfully our own problems to solve, the government is now seen as the proper intermediary. 

Herbert’s blinkered narrative continues:

We’re running on a treadmill that is carrying us backward. Something approaching 10 million new jobs would have to be created just to get back to where we were when the recession began in December 2007.  There is nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation on that scale.

Predictably, he recommends a “massive long-term campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure,” forgetful that a significant portion of the $785 billion in the first stimulus package was supposed to go to “shovel-ready” jobs. Some of that did, in fact, trickle down to fund such jobs, but the outcome by no means met expectations. 

But, he’s absolutely correct when he writes that there is “nothing currently in the works to jump-start job creation,” which after nine months of Obama’s tenure and in the context of a Democratic-controlled Congress, is a savage criticism indeed.

What the Herberts of the world astonishingly overlook is the abundance of evidence from recent history: To wit, every time marginal taxes have been reduced, along with corporate and capital gains taxes, not only have federal receipts increased, but employment has increased and, the silent killer known as inflation has been kept in check.

But although reducing taxes creates freedom, it doesn’t feed the entitlement Leviathan, rather, it starves it and thereby inhibits political power, and that is simply unacceptable to the modern liberal.

Amid the apparently endless series of speeches and comments, on issues grand and frivolous, and informed by a nearly limitless confidence in a Midas touch that has thus far been a leaden failure, President Obama’s failure to secure Chicago for the 2016 Olympics is further evidence that his presidency is slated for mediocrity.

If political nuance were a virtue Mr. Obama would be a candidate for sainthood, since his every move on the global stage has been thoroughly scripted to comport with the world’s view that America is an over-valued stock.  Indeed, if results are in short supply, he has succeeded in undermining the American exceptionalism that legions of patriots before him sacrificed to safeguard. 

Whether it’s his Cairo speech, which set the tone for a newly chastised America in the context of college campus PC, his appearance with dictators such as Chavez, or his feckless demands for Iran to allow inspections, this president’s airy rhetoric amply compensates for a lack of substance.

He stunned our allies and brought smiles to our enemies when he capitulated to Russian demands to scrap the missile defense system for the Czech Republic and Poland, which reflected an apparent ignorance that Putin, not Medvedev is the man behind the curtain, if you will.  His much-vaunted posturing for strong sanctions will never see the light of day because Putin and the Chinese are inveterately opposed to them.

That buys Iran more time to complete their nuclear program and puts Obama in the untenable position of having to either confront Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs—he’s more likely to demand that the U.S. begin drilling in ANWR—or stand by as Israel strikes. 

Obama’s previously unwavering support for McChrystal’s troop surge has succumbed to his reprisal of McClellan paralysis compliments of his base, which sends an equivocal message to our allies in-country and strategic comfort to our enemies.

American history is replete with examples of presidents who, quite apart from innate intelligence, lacked the resolve and vision to lead our nation during perilous times.  Some brought too fine a touch to the charge of foreign affairs, letting opportunities pass unexploited, or, obtusely misread the electorate on key domestic issues, squandering precious political capital in the process.  It’s astonishing that Mr. Obama seems on a trajectory to accomplish both.

His lofty and misguided dream of landing the Olympics for Chicago is but the latest example of his adroit ability to misread the political landscape, compromising confidence in his leadership while embarrassing himself.

Although trust is a virtue, in the hands of politicians it has a short shelf life.  It’s not that their intentions are inherently mischievous but rather that as their policy agenda evolves they start to confuse the fervency of their aspirations with credibility in the eyes of the electorate. 

Unlike what President Obama is peddling in Washington, this is a foible that’s clearly bipartisan, although he's raised it to something of an art form.  The politically engineered sense of false urgency that’s informed nearly every Obama initiative renders them suspect from the outset and blurs any positive outcome they might otherwise contain. 

Moreover, using economic suffering as a means to hard-wire liberal programs into a budget, which Obama did in the so-called stimulus package earlier this year makes average Americans distrust him when he tells them that our health insurance system must urgently be reformed.

Not unlike an overly complex battle plan whose seeds of defeat are effectively written into the blue print, political strategies predicated on an arrogant assumption of flawless handicapping are doomed to failure.  It’s akin to the perfect crime or the ability to think ten moves ahead in chess—your passion for victory increases linearly with your inability to control outcomes.

As a politician such as Obama builds the platform for his agenda he promptly loses sight of the foundation as he ambitiously gazes skyward.  Early successes inevitably lead to more expansive plans which are erroneously premised on a projected elasticity in the electorate. 

That’s where Obama is at this moment, perched as he is on the left edge of the political spectrum, with the preponderance of the nation becoming more alarmed with his every pronouncement, most prominently, his favored health insurance reform proposals. 

On the foreign policy front, Iran flouted U.S. and ally demands to allow inspections of its suspected nuclear programs by firing several test missiles which could easily reach Israel and even parts of Europe.  Instead of using the tested Bush policy of refusing direct talks with Iran, Obama is providing its rogue leaders with a kind of moral equivalence by countenancing what every analyst knows will be a sham negotiation.

It may take some time, but history will show that Bush’s foreign policy, maligned by liberals who were convinced their erudite State Department-speak would win the day, was founded on a common sense approach to belligerents.  Indeed, whether it’s the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Great Britain in the late 4th^h century, the Nazis or Iran's fanatical leaders, their goal is the same:  the annihilation of their enemies and regional—or global—supremacy.

Obama may not be intending to appease our enemies, but that is the inevitable outcome of his current strategy.  He may not appreciate that now, but he will one day.

Although trust is a virtue, in the hands of politicians it has a short shelf life.  It’s not that their intentions are inherently mischievous but rather that as their policy agenda evolves they start to confuse the fervency of their aspirations with credibility in the eyes of the electorate. 

Unlike what President Obama is peddling in Washington, this is a foible that’s clearly bipartisan.  The politically engineered sense of false urgency that’s informed nearly every Obama initiative renders them suspect from the outset and blurs any positive outcome they might otherwise contain. 

Moreover, using economic suffering as a means to hard-wire liberal programs into a budget, which Obama did in the so-called stimulus package earlier this year makes average Americans distrust him when he tells them that our health insurance system must urgently be reformed.

Not unlike an overly complex battle plan whose seeds of defeat are effectively written into the blue print, political strategies predicated on an arrogant assumption of flawless handicapping are doomed to failure.  It’s akin to the perfect crime or the ability to think ten moves ahead in chess—your passion for victory increases linearly with your inability to control outcomes.

As a politician such as Obama builds the platform for his agenda he promptly loses sight of the foundation as he ambitiously gazes skyward.  Early successes inevitably lead to more expansive plans which are erroneously premised on a projected elasticity in the electorate. 

That’s where Obama is at this moment, perched as he is on the left edge of the political spectrum, with the preponderance of the nation becoming more alarmed with his every pronouncement, most prominently, his favored health insurance reform proposals. 

On the foreign policy front, Iran flouted U.S. and ally demands to allow inspections of its suspected nuclear programs by firing several test missiles which could easily reach Israel and even parts of Europe.  Instead of using the tested Bush policy of refusing direct talks with Iran, Obama is providing its rogue leaders with a kind of moral equivalence by countenancing what every analyst knows will be a sham negotiation.

It may take some time, but history will show that Bush’s foreign policy, maligned by liberals who were convinced their erudite State Department-speak would win the day, was founded on a common sense approach to belligerents.  Indeed, whether it’s the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Great Britain in the late 4th^h century, the Nazis or Iran's fanatical leaders, their goal is the same:  the annihilation of their enemies and regional—or global—supremacy.

Obama may not be intending to appease our enemies, but that is the inevitable outcome of his current strategy.  He may not appreciate that now, but he will one day.

Although trust is a virtue, in the hands of politicians it has a short shelf life.  It’s not that their intentions are inherently mischievous but rather that as their policy agenda evolves they start to confuse the fervency of their aspirations with credibility in the eyes of the electorate. 

Unlike what President Obama is peddling in Washington, this is a foible that’s clearly bipartisan.  The politically engineered sense of false urgency that’s informed nearly every Obama initiative renders them suspect from the outset and blurs any positive outcome they might otherwise contain. 

Moreover, using economic suffering as a means to hard-wire liberal programs into a budget, which Obama did in the so-called stimulus package earlier this year makes average Americans distrust him when he tells them that our health insurance system must urgently be reformed.

Not unlike an overly complex battle plan whose seeds of defeat are effectively written into the blue print, political strategies predicated on an arrogant assumption of flawless handicapping are doomed to failure.  It’s akin to the perfect crime or the ability to think ten moves ahead in chess—your passion for victory increases linearly with your inability to control outcomes.

As a politician such as Obama builds the platform for his agenda he promptly loses sight of the foundation as he ambitiously gazes skyward.  Early successes inevitably lead to more expansive plans which are erroneously premised on a projected elasticity in the electorate. 

That’s where Obama is at this moment, perched as he is on the left edge of the political spectrum, with the preponderance of the nation becoming more alarmed with his every pronouncement, most prominently, his favored health insurance reform proposals. 

On the foreign policy front, Iran flouted U.S. and ally demands to allow inspections of its suspected nuclear programs by firing several test missiles which could easily reach Israel and even parts of Europe.  Instead of using the tested Bush policy of refusing direct talks with Iran, Obama is providing its rogue leaders with a kind of moral equivalence by countenancing what every analyst knows will be a sham negotiation.

It may take some time, but history will show that Bush’s foreign policy, maligned by liberals who were convinced their erudite State Department-speak would win the day, was founded on a common sense approach to belligerents.  Indeed, whether it’s the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Great Britain in the late 4th^h century, the Nazis or Iran's fanatical leaders, their goal is the same:  the annihilation of their enemies and regional—or global—supremacy.

Obama may not be intending to appease our enemies, but that is the inevitable outcome of his current strategy.  He may not appreciate that now, but he will one day.

Although trust is a virtue, in the hands of politicians it has a short shelf life.  It’s not that their intentions are inherently mischievous but rather that as their policy agenda evolves they start to confuse the fervency of their aspirations with credibility in the eyes of the electorate. 

Unlike what President Obama is peddling in Washington, this is a foible that’s clearly bipartisan.  The politically engineered sense of false urgency that’s informed nearly every Obama initiative renders them suspect from the outset and blurs any positive outcome they might otherwise contain. 

Moreover, using economic suffering as a means to hard-wire liberal programs into a budget, which Obama did in the so-called stimulus package earlier this year makes average Americans distrust him when he tells them that our health insurance system must urgently be reformed.

Not unlike an overly complex battle plan whose seeds of defeat are effectively written into the blue print, political strategies predicated on an arrogant assumption of flawless handicapping are doomed to failure.  It’s akin to the perfect crime or the ability to think ten moves ahead in chess—your passion for victory increases linearly with your inability to control outcomes.

As a politician such as Obama builds the platform for his agenda he promptly loses sight of the foundation as he ambitiously gazes skyward.  Early successes inevitably lead to more expansive plans which are erroneously premised on a projected elasticity in the electorate. 

That’s where Obama is at this moment, perched as he is on the left edge of the political spectrum, with the preponderance of the nation becoming more alarmed with his every pronouncement, most prominently, his favored health insurance reform proposals. 

On the foreign policy front, Iran flouted U.S. and ally demands to allow inspections of its suspected nuclear programs by firing several test missiles which could easily reach Israel and even parts of Europe.  Instead of using the tested Bush policy of refusing direct talks with Iran, Obama is providing its rogue leaders with a kind of moral equivalence by countenancing what every analyst knows will be a sham negotiation.

It may take some time, but history will show that Bush’s foreign policy, maligned by liberals who were convinced their erudite State Department-speak would win the day, was founded on a common sense approach to belligerents.  Indeed, whether it’s the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Great Britain in the late 4th^h century, the Nazis or Iran's fanatical leaders, their goal is the same:  the annihilation of their enemies and regional—or global—supremacy.

Obama may not be intending to appease our enemies, but that is the inevitable outcome of his current strategy.  He may not appreciate that now, but he will one day.

Although trust is a virtue, in the hands of politicians it has a short shelf life.  It’s not that their intentions are inherently mischievous but rather that as their policy agenda evolves they start to confuse the fervency of their aspirations with credibility in the eyes of the electorate. 

Unlike what President Obama is peddling in Washington, this is a foible that’s clearly bipartisan.  The politically engineered sense of false urgency that’s informed nearly every Obama initiative renders them suspect from the outset and blurs any positive outcome they might otherwise contain. 

Moreover, using economic suffering as a means to hard-wire liberal programs into a budget, which Obama did in the so-called stimulus package earlier this year makes average Americans distrust him when he tells them that our health insurance system must urgently be reformed.

Not unlike an overly complex battle plan whose seeds of defeat are effectively written into the blue print, political strategies predicated on an arrogant assumption of flawless handicapping are doomed to failure.  It’s akin to the perfect crime or the ability to think ten moves ahead in chess—your passion for victory increases linearly with your inability to control outcomes.

As a politician such as Obama builds the platform for his agenda he promptly loses sight of the foundation as he ambitiously gazes skyward.  Early successes inevitably lead to more expansive plans which are erroneously premised on a projected elasticity in the electorate. 

That’s where Obama is at this moment, perched as he is on the left edge of the political spectrum, with the preponderance of the nation becoming more alarmed with his every pronouncement, most prominently, his favored health insurance reform proposals. 

On the foreign policy front, Iran flouted U.S. and ally demands to allow inspections of its suspected nuclear programs by firing several test missiles which could easily reach Israel and even parts of Europe.  Instead of using the tested Bush policy of refusing direct talks with Iran, Obama is providing its rogue leaders with a kind of moral equivalence by countenancing what every analyst knows will be a sham negotiation.

It may take some time, but history will show that Bush’s foreign policy, maligned by liberals who were convinced their erudite State Department-speak would win the day, was founded on a common sense approach to belligerents.  Indeed, whether it’s the Visigoths who sacked Rome in 410 AD, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes who invaded Great Britain in the late 4th^h century, the Nazis or Iran's fanatical leaders, their goal is the same:  the annihilation of their enemies and regional—or global—supremacy.

Obama may not be intending to appease our enemies, but that is the inevitable outcome of his current strategy.  He may not appreciate that now, but he will one day.

Beyond broadly outlining their foreign policy goals, all presidents have used their speeches at the United Nations to defend American values and principles.  Paramount among them is our freedom, and its close civic relative, our liberty, which we far too often take for granted.  Yet President Obama’s 5,200 word speech yesterday at the U.N. never mentions the word “liberty,” and never uses the word “freedom” as a cherished value.

If you read the speech several times, the picture that inevitably emerges is one where America anonymously assumes its place among all nations, and where her timeless values of freedom and liberty fall into a passive, silent relief.  In its place, Mr. Obama makes tangentially deprecating references to America’s historical greatness:

No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation.  No world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed.

His transparent presupposition is that regardless of two hundred plus years of supporting evidence, the American values of democracy and the rule of law aren’t, in fact, universal principles worthy of exporting to nations suffering under the iron boot of despots. 

Given the millions of people that the United States has emancipated over the past two centuries, you might have thought our founding democratic principles of individual freedom were our most powerful weapons against tyranny.  However, in Mr. Obama’s world view, you would be wrong:

For the most powerful weapon in our arsenal is the hope of human beings -- the belief that the future belongs to those who would build and not destroy; the confidence that conflicts can end and a new day can begin.

There’s an unavoidable civic blandness in the argument that “hope” is our most powerful weapon, and the collateral notion that the future is somehow predestined to belong to those who “build,” not to mention that conflicts can mysteriously “end and a new day can begin.” 

Despite the fact that the answer clearly lies in American exceptionalism, the president’s reticence to invoke it is both an affront to the millions who gave their lives in freedom’s defense and a despicable deference to belligerents flout it by denying their citizens’ fundamental human rights.

A final assault on American sensibilities is Mr. Obama’s statement that “the  interests of nations and peoples are shared.”  It’s a wholly misguided idea and examples abound of oppositional nations whose disparate interests have led to protracted conflict.  Indeed, the interests of the Soviet satellites versus Russia come instantly to mind, but also China whose hegemonic designs on East Asia are at odds with Japan’s interest.

An emerging pattern of nebulous consequences for rogue nations has developed with respect to Obama’s plans for dealing with the palpable threat of a nuclear-armed Iran and the unpredictable, impenetrable regime of Kim Jong Il.  To wit, our president can never be charged with saber rattling with an empty scabbard:

But if the governments of Iran and North Korea choose to ignore international standards; if they put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability and the security and opportunity of their own people; if they are oblivious to the dangers of escalating nuclear arms races in both East Asia and the Middle East -- then they must be held accountable.

With France and Russia standing to lose the most from a harsh regimen of sanctions, it’s clear that any U.S. led effort to impose them will be for naught.  Of course, Iran’s Ahmadinejad fully understand this, which is why the upcoming talks will signal yet another interminable chapter of Iranian dilatory tactics to ensure its acquisition of a nuclear weapon.

As I argued yesterday, Mr. Obama’s naïve approach to obdurate, renegade regimes seems peculiarly predicated on his solipsistic fantasy that he’s the first leader in history to confront such challenges.  In truth, there’s a lengthy—and growing—list of examples that persuasively demonstrates that the only way to deal with barbaric nations is with the very real threat of military action. 

However, for the exquisitely refined moral compass of the modern liberal, that, of course, is anathema.

Although President Obama is a champion of the fashionable notion that deferential diplomacy is the touchstone of real leadership, history has more than amply demonstrated the naïveté of that approach. 

Leaders of powerful nations who are preoccupied with their standing on the world stage typically use the goal of consensus to justify it. This is little more than diplomatic grandstanding because our true allies will support our broad foreign policy initiatives regardless of U.S. popularity, and those such as China and Russia will exercise their veto in the Security Council despite Obama’s efforts to preen in front of the thugocracy known as the United Nations.

Ever since he announced his candidacy, Obama has emphasized the virtue of a chastised America, that its historical pre-eminence was a myth spun from imperialist and hegemonic dreams, and that his administration would be marked by an apologetic foreign policy. If he hasn’t been faithful to U.S. principles of exceptionalism he has certainly hewed closely to his script of American self-loathing, which has played well among the world’s rogue regimes such as Venezuela and Cuba as well as autocracies such as Russia and China.

Obama’s urbane, cognoscenti parlance, which features a tedious focus on America’s foibles, combined with his fawning gestures of good will towards belligerents, only encourages leaders such as Iran’s Ahmadinejad to conclude that he’s weak. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s decision to abandon the Bush administration’s plan for missile defense in Eastern Europe not only undermines U.S. credibility in the eyes of our allies, it sends the message to our enemies that Russian approval is more important than standing up to Iran.

But, more critically, and as I noted at the outset, this kind of foreign policy has a poor track record of success. It’s clear that the political and strategic weaknesses that evolved over time in the Roman Empire led to its demise. The Byzantine Empire fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 for the same reason. Although the Thirty Years War led to the Peace of Westphalia—whose major influence was to establish the inviolability of state sovereignty—its origins can be traced to leadership fissures in the Holy Roman Empire as well as the continued Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry, itself a study in perceived strategic vulnerabilities.

Those familiar with Napoleon’s exploits recognize this theme as evidenced by the six coalitions it took to defeat him; and, in the 19^th century, from Crimean War to the Franco-Prussian War, real or perceived opportunities for strategic or geopolitical advantage motivated aggressors. The more familiar 20^th century is a veritable encyclopedia of evidence that the tensions that can spark conflagrations are best kept in check by strong, multilateral treaties backed with the credible threat of military action.

The excerpts made public in advance of Mr. Obama’s U.N. speech today provide compelling evidence that his understanding of history is filtered through a post-modern lens, one that obtusely apologies for American exceptionalism while naively believing that deft diplomacy alone can prevail against our enemies.

It’s never worked, and it never will.

However, this apparently benign development is, in fact, cause for concern, for two reasons. First, Mr. Obama has deftly eliminated the phrase “war on terrorism” from his administration’s lexicon, preferring a euphemism to garner the affection of our allies and not offend our enemies, which is a prototypical preoccupation of liberals. That’s why in the president’s 9/11 remarks you didn’t hear anything about the importance of maintaining our vigilance against the threat of the radical Islamists; instead he emphasized his new national service programs.

That provides the segue to the second point, which is the president’s initiative to fundamentally change the tax deductibility of charitable contributions. Indeed, Mr. Obama’s goal is to significantly reduce the deductibility of charitable contributions, which perfectly dovetails with a commensurate expansion of in national service programs.

To those attentive to the liberal agenda, which is to centralize control within strictly controlled bureaucracies, this move is as predictable as it is hostile to the common good. When charitable donations voluntarily made by individuals are reduced and effectively shifted into control by the government, the president and his liberal friends can target pre-selected groups and services based on a calculus of political worthiness.

One of the major differences between modern liberalism and its ancestors in more distant decades is the distrust of individuals and the correlated need to establish government fiefdoms to ensure that programs are properly funded and are supporting the left’s broader agenda. 

That motivation is clearly evident in President Obama’s dream of nationalized health care, where government bureaucrats would define benefit plans and authorize services based on relative merit, which, of course, is code for rationing.

So as this liberal administration shifts the focus from aggressively defending America against future attacks by Islamic terrorists and seeks to centralize the levers of power, we should be keenly aware of the implications. From a reduction in individual freedoms to an increased risk of another attack on our soil to hobbling our economic recovery, the modern liberal agenda is unambiguously hostile to our nation’s economic and national security.