Indecisiveness is the predominant characteristic of how Mr. Obama executes U.S. national-security policy.

The too little, too late presidency
by John R.Bolton

Obama’s temporizing has been his foreign-policy trademark, from Iran and Syria to Libya and Ukraine.

With the supposed cease-fire in eastern Ukraine a mirage, the White House can soon be expected to return to its public pondering of whether to supply Kiev’s military with lethal aid to fend off the Russian-backed insurgency. If President Obama finally does decide to send antitank weapons and other hardware the Ukrainians have pleaded for, it will be only the latest example of the administration’s too-little-too-late temporizing.

Indecisiveness is the predominant characteristic of how Mr. Obama executes U.S. national-security policy. Undoubtedly there are other influences: ideological blinders; mistrust of America’s presence in the world; inadequate interest, knowledge, focus and resolve. But in implementing his policies, good or bad, the president has shown that equivocating is what he does best.

Mr. Obama’s approach is the polar opposite of the “energy in the executive” that Alexander Hamilton advocated in Federalist No. 70, especially in foreign policy. The unitary presidency, not Congress, possesses “decision, activity, secrecy and dispatch” so necessary for high statecraft. This president’s record of dithering is long and depressing.

This article appears in the Wall Street Journal and will be published in full to www.aei.org on Monday, February 23, 2015.

............

Source: www.aei.org

-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-

As Obama Vacillates, ISIS Continues Its Brutal March to Europe’s Doorsteps

Earlier this morning, Erick did an excellent job explaining why Marie Harf and those who support the notion that we can’t win the war against ISIS by killing the bad guys “are damn naïve fools.” 

Her statements are not particularly surprising when you look at the contents of Obama’s laughable AUMF requestfor “war” on the Islamic State. 

I would go as far as saying that the administration is wholeheartedly, in the sense that the word can be used to describe any aspect of Obama’s foreign policy, intent on creating jobs for jihadis and is only asking for the AUMF because he has to look like he’s doing something militarily to fight ISIS. 

After all, any military action we take that entirely rules out the use of boots on the ground cannot in any way be thought of as serious. Unsurprisingly, the latest polling suggests that the American people don’t approve of how the President is handling ISIS.

In any case, while our President dithers about on how to respond to the cancer that is the Islamic State, the terrorists themselves have brought themselves to the doorstep of Europe.

......................

Read more: www.redstate.com