Obama’s Historical Revisions

Barak Obama

One of the things I have appreciated about Barak Obama is his willingness to confront America’s enemies with hospitality. After all, Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) commanded that we should love our enemies. It appears that Obama is convinced that this is the path to take in dealing with those nations and other antagonists that present a threat to national and world security. According to the Obama campaign’s published position on diplomacy, he “is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea’s nuclear programs.”

In his speech following his primary victory in North Carolina, Obama reinforced his view of proactive engagement with America’s enemies by asserting, “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.” When I heard him say this, I was a bit conflicted. On the one hand, I do believe that the United States should continue to offer opportunities for dialogue to our enemies, keeping the lines of communication open. On the other hand, Obama’s mention of Roosevelt and Truman as examples of leaders who talked to our enemies suggested to me that Obama hasn’t learned the lessons of history very well. It is true that Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy talked with America enemies. But to suggest a logic that concludes or assumes the consequences of such dialogue to produce only positive outcomes is without merit or historical validity. Moreover, it suggests a lack a wisdom which is discovered most often from experience, a quality some suggest Obama is seriously lacking. Obama should note that history and wisdom suggests that in some cases, talking to your enemies actually results in negative consequences by giving perceived assurances which embolden our enemies to act in a hostile manner.

I do believe that Obama’s willingness to meet with America’s enemies is in the best tradition of Christian ideals of love for enemies. However, I hope Obama, if elected to the presidency, will be wise enough to see that some of America’s enemies will use his policy of openess as a means of exploitation. The American people should not be so naive to think that talking with our enemies always produces positive results.

In the following section I have sited an article by Jack Kelly in RealClearPolitics entitled, Obama Needs a History Lesson. I think it’s worth reading and thinking about. Enjoy!

In his victory speech after the North Carolina primary, Sen. Barack Obama said something that is all the more remarkable for how little it has been remarked upon.

In defending his stated intent to meet with America’s enemies without preconditions, Sen. Obama said: “I trust the American people to understand that it is not weakness, but wisdom to talk not just to our friends, but to our enemies, like Roosevelt did, and Kennedy did, and Truman did.”

That he made this statement, and that it passed without comment by the journalists covering his speech indicates either breathtaking ignorance of history on the part of both, or deceit.

I assume the Roosevelt to whom Sen. Obama referred is Franklin D. Roosevelt. Our enemies in World War II were Nazi Germany, headed by Adolf Hitler; fascist Italy, headed by Benito Mussolini, and militarist Japan, headed by Hideki Tojo. FDR talked directly with none of them before the outbreak of hostilities, and his policy once war began was unconditional surrender. FDR died before victory was achieved, and was succeeded by Harry Truman. Truman did not modify the policy of unconditional surrender. He ended that war not with negotiation, but with the atomic bomb.
Harry Truman also was president when North Korea invaded South Korea in June, 1950. President Truman’s response was not to call up North Korean dictator Kim Il Sung for a chat. It was to send troops. Perhaps Sen. Obama is thinking of the meeting FDR and Churchill had with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin in Tehran in December, 1943, and the meetings Truman and Roosevelt had with Stalin at Yalta and Potsdam in February and July, 1945. But Stalin was then a U.S. ally, though one of whom we should have been more wary than FDR and Truman were. Few historians think the agreements reached at Yalta and Potsdam, which in effect consigned Eastern Europe to slavery, are diplomatic models we ought to follow. Even fewer Eastern Europeans think so. When Stalin’s designs became unmistakably clear, President Truman’s response wasn’t to seek a summit meeting. He sent military aid to Greece, ordered the Berlin airlift and the Marshall Plan, and sent troops to South Korea.
Sen. Obama is on both sounder and softer ground with regard to John F. Kennedy. The new president held a summit meeting with Soviet leader Nikita Khruschev in Vienna in June, 1961. Elie Abel, who wrote a history of the Cuban missile crisis (The Missiles of October), said the crisis had its genesis in that summit. “There is reason to believe that Khrushchev took Kennedy’s measure in June 1961 and decided this was a young man who would shrink from hard decisions,” Mr. Abel wrote. “There is no evidence to support the belief that Khrushchev ever questioned America’s power. He questioned only the president’s readiness to use it. As he once told Robert Frost, he came to believe that Americans are ‘too liberal to fight.'” That view was supported by New York Times columnist James Reston, who traveled to Vienna with President Kennedy: “Khrushchev had studied the events of the Bay of Pigs,” Mr. Reston wrote. “He would have understood if Kennedy had left Castro alone or destroyed him, but when Kennedy was rash enough to strike at Cuba but not bold enough to finish the job, Khrushchev decided he was dealing with an inexperienced young leader who could be intimidated and blackmailed.”
It’s worth noting that Kennedy then was vastly more experienced than Sen. Obama is now. A combat veteran of World War II, Jack Kennedy served 14 years in Congress before becoming president. Sen. Obama has no military and little work experience, and has been in Congress for less than four years.
The closest historical analogue to Sen. Obama’s expressed desire to meet with no preconditions with anti-American dictators such as Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the trip British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and French premier Eduoard Daladier took to Munich in September of 1938 to negotiate “peace in our time” with Adolf Hitler. That didn’t work out so well.
History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days, noted a poster on the Web log “Hot Air.” The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it’s dangerous. As Sir Winston Churchill said: “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
Advertisements

One Response

  1. […] livinglies wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt One of the things I have appreciated about Barak Obama is his willingness to confront America’s enemies with hospitality. After all, Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) commanded that we should love our enemies. It appears that Obama is convinced that this is the path to take in dealing with those nations and other antagonists that present a threat to national and world security. According to the Obama campaign’s published position on diplomacy, he “is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and […] […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: