Obama again offends our friends *UPDATED*
Bookworm on Mar 22 2009 at 9:22 pm | Filed under: Barack Obama, Europe, Military
I know nothing about US Admiral James Stavridis. I don’t know whether he attained his high rank because he’s a brilliant military strategist or just another political hack. I don’t know if he believes in a strong America, or believes America’s best defense is to role over and play dead. Indeed, as of this minute, I only know two things about him: (1) He is the person Obama appointed as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe and (2) Obama deeply offended America’s NATO allies by his unilateral decision to appoint Stavridis to the position:
US Admiral James Stavridis is expected to take command of NATO forces soon. Obama’s decision to appoint him has astounded many in Europe, but the nominee brings important experience to the Afghanistan mission.
For Europeans at least, President Barack Obama’s choice for the new NATO commander comes as a surprise.
On Wednesday afternoon, e-mails circulating between Brussels and Berlin suggesting that, within the course of the day, Washington would name General James N. Mattis as the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. The commander is in charge of all US troops in Europe as well as NATO deployments, including the ISAF security force in Afghanistan.
Traditionally, the United States appoints the supreme commander and the Europeans pick the NATO secretary general. The decision to appoint Mattis appeared to be a logical one. He has long carried the title “Supreme Allied Commander Transformation.”
In the end, though, Mattis didn’t get the appointment. Instead, Defense Minister Robert Gates announced that Admiral James Stavridis would be nominated for the highly prestigious position. The US Senate and the NATO Council must approve his nomination, but it appears likely he will get through. Gates said Stavridis was “probably one of the best senior military officers” in the US.
In Brussels, though, many felt bluffed. “America treats this like it’s purely an American matter — and they didn’t even give any hints about the appointment,” one NATO employee said. “The conspiratorial manner of the personnel search was almost reminiscent of the way the pope is selected,” Stefani Weiss, a NATO expert at the Bertelsmann Stiftung foundation in Brussels, told SPIEGEL ONLINE.
If Stavridis is truly the best person for American interests, so be it — America’s security is certainly my priority.
But didn’t the Obama promise us that, once he was President, he would heal all those myriad psychic wounds Bush had allegedly opened in relations between America and its existing allies in the rest of the world? So far, Obama has offended the Brits, offended Israel, offended Brazil, offended Poland and the Czech Republic, and now he’s offending Europe en masse. Remind me again how this is supposed to recalibrate America’s standing in the world?
UPDATE: I just got word from one of my friends who’s in the know that Admiral Stavridis is probably one of the good guys (not to mention being a blogger himself). My friend gave me some links to support this conclusion:
Naval Institute Member & Blogger Adm. James Stavridis, USN Nominated NATO’s Top Commander
Stavridis To EUCOM; Willard to PACOM
Newly nominated NATO Commander, Admiral Jim Stavridis, USN discusses his first command at sea
As I said to my friend in response to this information, I’m glad to hear Stavidris is one of the good guys. That means that Obama probably did put America’s interests first, even if it meant offending the Europeans. Still, it’s clear that he could have handled the matter more tactfully.
UPDATE II: Add France to the list of countires the radiant One was going to charm but, instead, managed to offend.
Related posts:
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “Obama again offends our friends *UPDATED*”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Book asks:
>> Remind me again how this is supposed to recalibrate America’s standing in the world?
OK, Book, I will try.
Obama is the Light-Bringer. Obama heals all divisions by his very presence and his worldly demeanor. He is The One.
If he has made this decision, then it is because it clearly is automatically the best decision that could be made. Dipso facto. I mean, ipso facto.
Dipso facto? LMAO
If Obama is the Light Bringer, then it is clear that we must force more people to stare into the light.
OBAMA
One Big Ass Mistake America.
This is really a strange appointment. The NATO Europe command has traditionally been an Army officer–Europe being a land mass and all. I could understand if he appointed an Air Force Officer to emphasize a shift in strategy. But Navy?
The U.S. Southern Europe and associated NATO command has traditionally been Navy. This area is primarily associated with the Mediterranean and made up primarily of Naval and Air Forces.
Likewise the U.S. Atlantic Command and associated NATO command has traditionally been Navy for fairly obvious reasons.
I am not sure what is going on. Gates made a Naval Officer Commander of Centcom. That didn’t work out very well. Now this. I presume there is some sort of thought behind these shake-ups, but don’t have a clue what it is.
If this was really done without consultation it is an appalling and gratuitous error. Of course you have to take the Europeans at their word on that; and I am not sure that I would do so without verification.
I wouldn’t call Spiegel our friends. They are as pathological as Obama is megalomaniacal. They made great allies, but just like with Stalin and Hitler, all great friendships must end when the factions involved are all fanatics.
OK, since someone, somewhere must have asked for my 2-cents worth, I am not even sure that we gain that much from staying in NATO.
The unmistakable trend has been for the Europeans to shift more and more of the burden of their own defense on our shoulders. Was the way this was handled an amateurish Obama gaffe? Probably, but the Golden Rule is that he who forks-up the gold gets to make the rules, so I can’t get overly upset by this.
Danny, I agree with your premise of not getting too upset with this incident. What is upsetting is the trend. Off the top of my head: we have the missile defense debacle with the Poles and Czechs; we have the Gordon Brown situation; today we are hearing of the letter to Chirac discussing cooperation on policy (did he bother to write to Sarkozy?); add to that a similar letter to the ceremonial President of Italy, bypassing the Premier. I am sure I have overlooked a few other gratuitously dumb moves. Add all of this together and you are left with a sense of dread as to when he will do something truly dangerous.
I agree with you, Oldflyer. I’m just simply resigned to the fact that something terrible is going to happen to us (weakness always invites attack) and that it will occur when we will no longer have the resources to respond properly. I think that the best hope the EUropeans have is to recognize earlier rather than later that they will need to rely upon themselves for their own defense. Right now is as good a time as any, as they don’t face any large and immediate threats, so they have a breathing space (although, History would suggest that they will squander that, too).
What we have in the White House is ignorance combined with arrogance running amok, a very, very dangerous combination.
” ‘In the end, though, Mattis didn’t get the appointment. Instead, Defense Minister Robert Gates announced that Admiral James Stavridis would be nominated for the highly prestigious position.’ ”
The question in my mind is a huge _WHY_?
Same question about all those Treasure vacancies. Is the problem that someone isn’t doing his job, or is the problem that there aren’t any rats willing to come on board what they see is a sinking ship? Was the position offered to Mattis, but he turned it down? Will Stavridis back down when, like Gregg, he finds out that the intention of the CIC is incompatible with his standards? I have absolutely no idea, but one would _assume_ that Gates knows what he’s doing. On the other hand, does he? What are _his_ goals?
I wonder if this is the same General Mattis as the Marine General who said “it’s fun to kill the Taliban, given that these are the people who beat their women into a pulp”.
The Bush Whitehouse at the point publicly backed away and made apologies for Mattis’ comment, but nothing private was done to his professional career.
It is easy enough to check, and so I will.
***
Yep, this is the guy.
Upon becoming a brigadier general, he commanded first the 1st Marine Expeditionary Brigade and then Task Force 58, during Operation Enduring Freedom in southern Afghanistan. As a major general, he commanded the 1st Marine Division during the initial attack and subsequent stability operations in Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
http://www.jfcom.mil/about/mattis.htm
Given Mattis’ temperament, perhaps he openly lobbied Gates on this score. Although it depends. Depends on whether Mattis was willing to overseen the destruction of NATO and their mission in Afghanistan, which is highly likely given the combination of Taliban, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Obamanation factors at work.
The question in my mind is a huge _WHY_?
Ah, but that’s what the Obamanation is here to offer us. Complete and Utter Transformational Transparency!
Sieg Heil!
Of course, when Obama says transparency, he doesn’t mean he will explain things to you. No, what transparency means to him is that it is now his way and it is quite obvious his way is the right way.
When the Dems first started talking about America needing respect and to be loved on the international front, i started getting two twinges as to the reality behind their lies.
1. Democrats don’t give a damn what people weaker than they need or wish. The weak are nothing but cannon fodder to the Dems.
2. The Dems, the bunch of narcissists that they are, not truly care about what other people think. Because they aren’t “people” to the Dems. Just tools, reflections, things you use to make yourself feel good.
It is quite ironic that my instincts, over the course of watching Democrats belittle Bush’s foreign relations and diplomacy on Iraq, have been proven out in such a way that even Dems would find it hard to deflect with personal attacks. Hard, but not impossible. Not for those kinds of assassins.
Wow Ymarsakar, good memory and research. That makes the Big O’s (TOTUS’s nickname for him) action, and the Europeans (alleged) reaction, even more mysterious. We are given to believe that the Europeans were willing to accept this blood-thirsty Marine as the Supreme Allied Commander, but someone in the Obama Admin balked at the last minute? Maybe Senators Feinstein/Boxer/Snowe/Collins/Kennedy/Franken(?) told them he would not be an acceptable nominee. Hope we learn the whole story one day.
By the way. Admirals are a bit of a PC choice now. Unless they are Aviators or Seals they have probably never actually killed anyone. You notice that submariners are popular choices; followed by surface warfare officers. Now, it may be that they did shoot off some cruise missiles, but that is pretty much an anonymous act and isn’t like actually going after the enemy on his own turf or violating his airspace. Shooting cruise missiles was acceptable during the Clinton Admin, so it would probably be ok today. In fact, now that I think about it, maybe the Secretary of State got her big, fat oar in the process.