Is Obama like Eisenhower?

Is Obama like Eisenhower?

By: Michael Doran Commentary Magazine October / October 2013 Translation faith Sweden published in collaboration with a research services "I remember some of the Eisenhower speeches," Clinton said during a joint interview with President Obama in January / January "As you know, you have to be careful, you have to be sobering, you can not rush." It seems likely that the memories were ripples slowly due to a review of the newly released book for Evan Thomas, "Ike trick", in which he said that the experience as a soldier and General Eisenhower taught restrictions on the exercise of power. This book was cemented and a series of other recent studies Ike in the public mind as the embodiment of the same for the presidential wisdom. I have also transformed to the consultant after his death for the Obama administration. Before becoming defense minister, bought Chuck Hagel three dozens of copies of the study for "David A.. Nichols" for the Suez crisis, and distributed them to the President, Hillary Clinton, and Leon Panetta, his predecessor in the post of defense minister (and others). In Suez, Ike refused to support Britain and France when Egypt غزتا (in collusion with Israel), and spent about effective intervention. Studied Hegel was clear: Do not let the Allies Egerokm to reckless military adventures. In an influential article published last year in TIME magazine titled "On foreign policy, why Barack is like Ike," Fareed Zakaria discussed the topic, said that when he showed concern over the President to intervene in places like Syria, it was shown like a stranger Boisenhor. The basic type similarities shared by the two is the "strategic restraint," said Zakaria. In his recently released book, "presidential leadership and the creation of the American era" (Princeton University Press, 200 pages), deals with Joseph S.. Nye of Harvard University this debate a step further impetus to the front. It Nye argues that Eisenhower was in fact one of the first practitioners of what was one of Obama's aides, speaking about the Department's role in the overthrow of the Gaddafi Libya's Muammar, the label known as "leadership from behind." A quick examination of the actual policies of Eisenhower on the Middle East reveals, both for the emptiness of this thesis and the idea that Eisenhower follow, as president, strategic restraint, particularly with regard to the Middle East. There is no doubt is that it is often March sanity in military affairs. Ended the war in Korea, did not intervene in 1956 when the Hungarian revolution against Soviet masters. He highlighted that, refraining from intervention in Vietnam. But do not be confused between the military and caution among global strategy. In the modern era rush "Aldhabton the same" to cite a warning Eisenhower, in his farewell address, with regard to the dangers of "the military-industrial complex." In all cases, they forget Usually, Male justified for this: "We are facing an ideology hostile global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in style. Unfortunately, the threat posed by indicating that it would be for an indefinite period. In other words, I've Governor Eisenhower enthusiasm of the Cold War. Actually, I have conducted critics contemporaries diagnosis to management and they said they had suffered from the "pactomania," (the Pactomania period to conclude a treaty by the United States during the Cold War. During the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower, formed the United States , through the efforts of Secretary of State John Foster Dulles Basically, alliances with 42 separate state alongside treaty relations with nearly 100 countries, which are described by observers "pactomania), an irresistible urge to organize alliances against communism. And is considered by many historians now its dependence on the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which toppled regimes in Iran and Guatemala, that could be described as anything other than that of the same settings. There are also examples of more open and frank about Eisenhower showcases the presidential his muscles. There were Syria, for example. Then, as now, the country was in the midst of a regional power struggle. In the summer of 1956, when the Syrian government began drifting towards the Soviet Union, Eisenhower instructed the CIA to overthrow them. By the summer of 1957, he the بمحاولتي intelligence coup, both of failure. No sooner did the Syrian anti-spyware devices frustrate second plot Eisenhower even put another plan: inciting jihad. He instructed the CIA to repositioning itself to provoke violent unrest along the Syrian border. The goal was to provide these incidents to the world as a threat to Syria's threat to peace and security in the region. And then uses the neighbors Syria unrest as a pretext to invade Damascus and topple the government. It was the most difficult part of the plan to convince Arab states invaded. Eisenhower wrote a letter to King Saud hope of getting help Saudi Arabia. The message sounded the alarm about "the serious threat posed by Syria when will become the Soviet Communist in astronomy." She also stressed that "any country under attack by Syria, which was itself a country dominated by international communism, can rely on the United States for support. And then concluded the letter with an appeal to Islam:" Given the location Majesty your values ​​on places Islamic holy, I am confident that you will exercise your influence great to put an end to the doctrine of communism, atheistic and not take root in the prime location in the Islamic world. "has disappointed a bid message. P" Saud, "and also wrote of Salim Jacob," was little interest in jihad Eisenhower. " In the context of praising the Pacific record of Ike, Zakaria points out that "since the end of the Korean War and up to the end of his term did not die a single American soldier in the war." Statistical eye-catching, but it creates a misleading impression. Indeed, Eisenhower had the same quality in the possession of all successful leaders: It was lucky. Can be had for a number of policies, and easily backfire, and thus result in less statistical process much admired. The Syrian crisis in 1957 is an example. While Eisenhower was trying to generate Jihad, the Turkish government has mobilized 500,000 troops on the Syrian border. The move sparked the Soviets. In an interview with The New York Times, accused of Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet prime minister at the time, the United States publicly fueling the crisis and issued a warning to the Turks: "If you set off rifle fire, rocket will start to fly," it said downright rudeness. The Secretary of State John Foster Dulles immediately to help the Turks: He said, "If there is an attack on Turkey by the Soviet Union, this will not mean a purely defensive by the United States, and the survival of the Soviet Union haven distinct from which to attack Turkey." In such tense circumstances, could have been a miscalculation by the commander of Turkish, Syrian, or that the Soviet drag the United States into a very terrible conflict. To date, in this case, the statistics has resulted in less impressive. It also happen to be be Zakaria wrong in fact. There are a number of soldiers who died at the sight of three soldiers Eisenhower, to be exact. One of them fell by sniper fire of the enemy, and the other two by friendly fire. And all of them died in Lebanon during the 1958 intervention. Whether the number is zero or three, the record is remarkable, but it should be reminiscent of the fall of the Marines important fact: that Eisenhower did not elude from getting into the messy conflict, when the situation requires it. In the first half of 1958, it was Camille Chamoun, President of the Lebanese Republic, fighting a rebellion Eisenhower strongly urged to come to help him. The rebels are receiving support from Syria, which was at this time has merged with Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser to form the United Arab Republic. Eisenhower was afraid of falling into the swamp and resisted calls for intervention. But overnight, but its calculations. When Eisenhower went to his bed to sleep on Sunday, July 13, Iraq was an ally country, "the country in which we rely upon heavily as a bulwark of stability and progress in the region," he wrote in his memoirs. And Bastiqaza on Monday, the fort had collapsed. In the early hours of the morning, the dissident army officers successful coup, was the destruction of the Royal Hashemite regime in Iraq and replaced it with the Republic of Arab nationalism Eisenhower feared that they are consistent and bias as well as the United Arab Republic and the Soviet patron. In just a moment, was an ally of the Cold War has disappeared. Fear of a pressure campaign by Abdel Nasser and the Soviet Union against all Western-leaning countries in the region, called for a number of America's allies, including Lebanese, Saudis, Jordanians and to the immediate intervention of the United States. They said that it should be to Cairo and Moscow to take note that the Americans will not let the remaining friends to move in the same path of the Iraqi monarchy. If the United States failed to intervene, according to the Saudi monarch told Eisenhower, they will have "finished" as a force in the region. Eisenhower jumped to work with remarkable speed. Within a few hours, he gave the order to send the Marines to strengthen the resolve of allies and reactivate the deterrent capability of the United States. Almost immediately, Eisenhower called for a group of bipartisan congressional leaders to the White House to issue a brief statement. The Sam Rayburn, Speaker of the House, expressed concerns, saying: "If we and our intervention did not succeed our operation, what do we do then?". He was also worried "threat to the Russians out war." Eisenhower replied that it is impossible "to predict the correct course of events. Whether intervention or did not get caught, the consequences will be bad." The calculations worked with, he said, it is crucial to take the hand "a strong position and not a position along the lines of Munich's position, if we are to avoid the collapse of our security structure as a whole." Rayburn was also believed that "the intervention will increase the resentment against us throughout the region." And participate in Eisenhower feared this. Was interfering in Lebanon, according to what we know now, cleanly as any such operation in history. However, the moment of decision, Eisenhower considered risky project very serious indeed, as he mentioned to give it to go on day zero, this is the most momentous event in his life occurred. "Despite the disparity in the size of the two processes, it was possible consequences in each case of the two cases chilling, if things have not been so good," according to Eisenhower wrote in his memoirs. So what to make very serious interference in this way in particular? "In Lebanon, the question is whether it is better to suffer from a sense of deep resentment of all the Arab world, almost (and some of the rest of the free world), thus risking war in general with the Soviet Union or do something worse ie not do anything." During the past year, Nick procession of America's allies in the Middle East way through the White House, and دقوا alarm coming from Syria, and urged Obama to organize a more robust international response. Unlike Ike, as Obama and found that things do nothing better than to take action not be guaranteed results. As a result, when Obama finally decided to do what's response to Assad's use of chemical weapons is essential, he found himself almost devoid of allies. And what about the comparison Nye appropriate for Obama's foreign policy with that of Eisenhower? "The comment idiot by an official from the average level in the White House described the policy of Libya to" leadership from behind ", make it become the target of political criticism," writes Nye, but adds that "Eisenhower was a model big his knowledge that it is most effective at times to stay away from catching and driving from behind. " This act is a kind of hypocrisy and deception rhetorical. The use of Nye them gives the impression that two very different things are in fact one thing and have the same thing. The things regard to Obama, the "leadership from behind" is a description of his administration's policy toward the Libyan intervention. As for Pike, he described his management style, which will be called Fred Grinstein famous label "The presidency of the invisible hand." In the days of Eisenhower, intellectuals considered at the global level that almost moronic and Dodd, a golfer rather than strategic. Before placing Grinstein things in perspective (with Stephen Ambrose and others) in the eighties, it was John Foster Dulles, according to what is assumed and widely, is the man who ran U.S. foreign policy in reality. Using the documents declassified, Grinstein and showed the entourage that Eisenhower was in charge of the firm, Mr. details, fully assume strategic leadership and tactics. Eisenhower may have put Dallas in front and center stage, but he was always guided by the "invisible hand." Diary offers Jock Colville, the right hand of Winston Churchill, a vivid example of for Eisenhower skills in "gentle persuasion persuasion", in the words of Nye. After Stalin's death in March / March 1953, Churchill considered it, and was then in his last period as prime minister, signs of moderation in Moscow. He began a campaign to persuade Eisenhower to hold a summit with the Soviet Union along the lines of the major conferences wartime. Ike has repeatedly rejected Churchill's request, which made his differences with Eisenhower, in the end, publicly known. The tensions reached a peak in Bermuda in December / December 1953 at a conference attended by the leaders of the United States, Britain, and France. During one of the open meetings, Churchill immediately issued an eloquent appeal calls for the involvement of the new Soviet leaders. Eisenhower was furious, according to the what Colville books. The reaction was "very heavy short statement, coarse terminology," likening the Soviet Union as "whore" The United States is the main dimensions of the streets. Colville shocked verbal profanity Eisenhower, he noted, "I doubt that there will be heard such language at an international conference." Hopes now are as follows: the Islamic Republic of Iran elected a new president recently, is Hassan Rohani, considered by many observers a moderate person. They were observers insist on Obama's dialogue with him directly, just as urged Churchill Ike. Imagine a conference between Obama and a delegation from the European leaders who have said and expressed eloquently, for communication with the spiritual. Here rebellious arise Obama. Swell the veins of his forehead and begin to go on. And stems Ptahjm beat him profanity, says Hadra vowing, "Iran is a prostitute and we're going to be paid out of the alleys of the Middle East." If Obama really like Ike in foreign policy, these intellectual experience will be a strange experience. The popular group in the Eisenhower administration with a "strategic restraint" in itself is a product of historical revisionism. This is not the point of view of contemporary. Until the eighties, most critics believe the opposite. It was their point of view derived entirely from Book Townsend Hobbs "Devil and John Foster Dulles (1973)." The unspoken goal of the book inconvenience Republicans and hold them responsible for the Vietnam War - this does not mean that pursuant to a heroic feat, given that the Democrats Kennedy and Johnson had issued key decisions to intervene. However, it was found Hobbs and ingenious way to catch the direct responsibility of Eisenhower or, more precisely, the responsibility of the Secretary of State. According to Hobbs explains, the impact of John Foster Dulles enormous so it spread and infect the Republican Party. Dallas was able to form a zeitgeist through the consolidation of peaceful sacred in the vast culture on "America's unequivocal position of anti-communism and strategic concern, which has no boundaries." Once the printed Hobbs, and successfully, culture, intolerance, anti-communist, not in front of Aldemqratiaan any Khiarma except to follow the rigid logic, resulting in imperial expansion in Vietnam. He says Hobbs in his book, "In early 1968, when he led the Tet offensive and the withdrawal of Lyndon Johnson of fighting political rupture mask latter that hides the misunderstandings and failures the U.S. to defend freedom and state-building in South Vietnam, encountered, along with many other people, awareness that era in American foreign policy has ended. " This was, clearly, exaggerated hysterically, but in his day, intellectuals carry this argument seriously. It is worth considering why meditation. The picture cartoons, of course, exaggerate known aspects of reality. In the seventies, the anti-communist era very real in the Eisenhower era still form part of the living memory. The slogans echoed fifties "mutual assured destruction", "domino theory," and "brinkmanship" denote the fact that Ike, even while steering clear of military adventures, has taken the fight to the enemy. Conversely, if contemporary audiences know Ike only from history books like Grinstein books, which emphasizes the pragmatic Eisenhower, and, specifically, in order to replace the the cartoons prevailing image of stupidity. However, there are more than just a grain of truth in the presentation of Hobbs. Ike has worked in a specific ideological context. The separation of "Ike pragmatic" completely it means draw cartoons distorted picture and distorted in everything as far as image "fanatical Dallas". Zakaria looks at Ike and Obama that they are eerily similar on the show "strategic restraint" in their Middle East policies. Obama has set itself is undeniable. However, how and in what way is his unwillingness to use military force restraint "strategic" for the same? What is the biggest plan they serve? The best answer to these questions in the March / March last year from Tom Donilon, former national security adviser has. According to what explained in an interview, he said that the United States "exaggerated invested in our military efforts in South Asia and the Middle East." At the same time, it was "significantly under-invested in Asia, which is" the most economically dynamic region in the world, "so, it was a" rebalancing "towards Asia. Therefore contemplates Obama, the global strategic, published a huge map in front of him on the table. The Obama, using a stick as a stick signal director of the gambling table, moving spare the Middle East to Asia. All this is well and good at the global level, but what about the Middle East? The area is undergoing a decisive shift. Where do the president sees things heading? What is the U.S. role in directing there? In May / May 2011, a few months after the outbreak of the Arab Spring for the first time, select Obama a strong movement towards freedom and democracy and extending the hand of partnership. Obama has said at the time, "The question before us is what role to be played by Ombrka What تنجلي this story." And clearly answered: "There should be no doubt that the United States of America welcomes change that drives the chances of self-determination to step forward." After only two years, they have been less optimistic tone when he said: "There is an old sectarian differences in the Middle East, has launched the hopes of the Arab Spring forces of change, change that will take many years before anchoring on a solution. This is why the fact that we do not think about in the development of our troops and incorporated in the midst of a war of others. " Where Obama was feeding democracy two years ago, now argue and say imposing stone on sectarian violence. This blatant shift raises further questions. Will burn this same sectarian, or that the fire will grow? What are the security structures that will contain as the best? How will "re-balance" to build in Asia?One that calls into question the lack of answers to any of these questions, because the decision to retreat was separate from the larger vision of the Middle East. The "strategic restraint," when applied to Obama's policies, is a synonym for "strategic neglect . " This was not true in relation to the policies of Eisenhower. Has coincided his eight years in office, also with the revolutionary wave. It was the imperial system and the old colonial Faltering. There was a new system, dominated by secular Arab nationalism , takes his place. The saw Eisenhower Bbbassath, and clarity and develop a strategy to deal with it. His goal was to guide the nation in the region away from the Soviet bloc westward through the provision of security and economic aid. The United States was engaged in the process of balance-sensitive, and support its European allies against the Soviet Union with ease, at the same time, the rise of independent states in the Middle East, which was hostile to European countries. impossible to understand any of the moves main Ike without reference to this vision. Take, for example, the Suez Canal crisis, which Zakaria cites as a shining example of "strategic restraint" and held by Hegel as a model for Obama. When Eisenhower turned on his allies, did not do so out of any comprehensive commitment to "restraint." It has been thought, simply, that Britain and France were Tstadian Nationalists Arabs and Tadmran the potential for adaptation and strategic alignment between the Arab countries and the West. Therefore, the Europeans threw aside what was in fact the most dramatic confirmation of a U.S. priority on the Cold War. in the midst of the crisis, it was announced that the Eisenhower Doctrine, a Unilateral the U.S. commitment to defend the entire Middle East. We have made ​​a formal creed notice to the world that the United States replace Britain as the dominant power in the region. The result of "strategic restraint" to Ike tremendous increase in the global responsibilities of the United States. As for Obama represents restraint attempt to shed those responsibilities on his shoulders . This analogy Ike Obama creates are Commonalities and historical continuity where they are non-existent. It's a bad history, because it Depicts Eisenhower as a two-dimensional figure, completely separate from his aides and fundamental beliefs. At the same time, give us a distorted picture metaphor for Obama. Eisenhower doctrine has confirmed on the U.S. priority in the Middle East, and it was every president since then seen as a vital American interest for the formation of the international system in the region. What I mean every president, except the current. the old regime in the Middle East Collapses. And works competitors and enemies of the United States, Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al Qaeda and Assiduously, to shape the new system that benefits them. Has ignited their efforts , which are often conflicting, great fire. Unlike his predecessors, Barack Obama decided that the best way that serves the United States is the failure of others. This separation of a sharp break with the past, especially with Eisenhower. Those who are desperate to polish Obama's reputation when it comes to foreign policy by linking it to those for the presidency will be successful they look elsewhere.

Added on: 09:11 2/11/2013 | Last modified at: 09:18 2.11.2013