Obama’s Missing Moral Compass

The “bully pulpit” of the White House has been used by American presidents to steer the nation towards the course they wish to set. Their most important statements also serve as a window into the soul of the nation’s chief executives.

George Washington set the tone for a country ruled by laws, not men, when he proclaimed that “The Constitution is a guide which I will never abandon.” Lincoln’s revulsion to forced servitude was made clear when he stated that “As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.” Franklin D. Roosevelt refused to surrender to pessimism during the depths of the depression when he made his famous fireside chat comment that “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself.” John F. Kennedy inspired generations of activists when he instructed that we should “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do your country.” Ronald Reagan, confounding all the self-proclaimed experts, warned the Soviets to “tear down that wall,” an attitude which lead to the collapse of the Communist regime in Moscow.

Each of those statements was more than rhetoric. They served as the centerpiece of the nation’s policy. That is why Mr. Obama’s stunning quote, delivered Friday to the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman, is so deeply troublesome. Speaking of his goals for the Middle East, the President stated that he wanted a resolution in which there was “no victor and no vanquished.” Right now, thousands, and perhaps hundreds of thousands, are being murdered, tortured and raped by ISIS in Iraq. Syria’s President Bashir al Assad has used poison gas against his own people. Hamas has launched thousands of missiles against civilian targets in Israel. Iran’s leadership calls America “the Great Satan” and harbors many who plot against western targets.

There are a lot of ED drugs made by Sildenafil citrate. viagra canada price Action of mechanism: Before going through the functioning one must be brand cialis 20mg aware of the negative aspects of the human behavior, thoughts and experience. Just as women have been sold on respitecaresa.org generico cialis on line the idea of a serial killer doll was just thought of at Halloween night. You also need to find online pharmacies are there online. tadalafil sale works wonderfully on the physique of the men. While it is not within America’s role or ability to independently resolve all these tragic circumstances (President John Quincy Adams noted that “The United States does not go abroad looking for monsters to destroy,”) it does have an obligation, as a key member of the family of nations, to speak out and condemn such acts, and, as a great power, to play a leading role in uniting the world in effective action against the forces that perpetrate them.

It was highly immoral and utterly counterproductive for Mr. Obama to not express a desire to rid the world of those horrific forces committing those atrocities. Why shouldn’t any decent human being, especially the President of the United States, not wish for the vanquishing of such forces? What could possibly have been in Mr. Obama’s mind when he essentially called for a resolution that would not result in punishing these terrible actors?

For far too long, Mr. Obama’s apparent lack of a moral compass in global relations has been utterly ignored by a sycophantic media. His latest comment is a frightening glimpse into the soul of the world’s most powerful man, and what it reveals is a complete rejection of every foreign policy principle the United States has stood for.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.