« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Our Anglophobic President

At the outset of his presidency, Barack Obama promised to restore America’s great diplomatic stature, weakened in the politically costly wake of its war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Healed by renewed international cooperation, those wounds would be a thing of America’s darker, Republican past, he promised.

But Number 10 never envisioned that Mr. Obama’s overhaul of America’s international relations would come at the cost of its own special relationship. Despite Britain’s political and economic proximity to the United States, that special relationship — invoked in every Anglo-American diplomatic communique from Winston Churchill to George Bush — has waned, diminished in equal proportion to Mr. Obama’s disquieting provocations.

From the president’s endorsement of Eurofederalism to his State Department’s acknowledgement it considers the United Kingdom “just the same as the other 190 countries in the world,” Mr. Obama’s White House has made no secret of its Anglophobic posture on the international stage.

But the president outperformed himself last week, when, in a meeting with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, he gushed that America had no greater partner on the international stage than France.

Nothing — not his promise of neutrality in the British-Argentina conflict over the Falklands or his Oval Office renovation in which he chucked a bust of Churchill –  evidenced more the president’s willingness to shift southward America’s great European political alliance.

“We don’t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people,” Obama said at the White House press avail.

The enduring value of Britain’s unique alliance with America is eclipsed, one might argue, for a president increasingly focused on his own domestic dilemmas: A fractured Congress, an uneasy public and compounded threat that his signature health care reforms might be upended by both.

For those who have chronicled Obama’s calculated insults, however, it is more likely the president never held America’s special relationship with Great Britain in any special esteem.

Some, including Obama’s grandmother, have speculated the president carries a lingering grudge against the British, who tortured his grandfather during Kenya’s fight against colonial rule. Obama wrote briefly in his autobiography of his grandfather’s imprisonment, which was said to have lasted more than six months.

As President Obama’s grandmother, Sarah Onyango, recounted in an interview last year with the Daily Mail: “Generally, my grandson has never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests,”

Whatever the cause of President Obama’s anti-British outlook, its result — namely, a fatigued partnership across the pond — is more concerning.

On the eve of the G20 summit in Pittsburgh, former UK premier Gordon Brown’s requests — no fewer than five, according to aides — for a meeting with President Obama were rebuffed. During that same period, the president held meetings with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, Chinese President Hu Jintao and Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Even when Obama has been unfaithful, America’s compatriots across the Atlantic have held up their side of the bargain. England’s steadfast commitment to the special relationship forged decades earlier has been no where more evident than her cooperation in America’s war on terror.

Like candidate Obama, who once called the Afghan front the “war we need to win,” the Brits appreciated the necessity of the military incursion, realizing the promise Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made to Ronald Reagan three decades ago: “Your problems will be our problems and when you look for friends we shall be there.”

Providing the second largest troop contingent to the Afghan military incursion with nearly 9,500 soldiers, over 345 British servicemen have perished on the battlefields of Afghanistan since 2001. France, meanwhile, provided 63 percent fewer troops.

And yet for Obama, France has succeeded the United Kingdom as America’s greatest ally.

In administrations past, Britain was not merely another country. So, too, in the Obama era of mending international geopolitical fault lines is Britain not considered just another country: It’s decidedly less.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • proudmarinemom

    Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf said, “Taking the French with you into battle is like taking an accordian on a hunting trip.”

    If Sarkozy is our greatest ally, we’re in more trouble than we thought.

    • MF

      ?We don?t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people,? Obama said at the White House press avail.

      Another reason why Obama said this is because he sees France gradually being taken over by the Muslims. To him, that’s a good thing. He’s really not a Sarkozy fan at all, but a fan of France – where it’s going, not where it is today.

      True, France passed that law prohibiting the head coverings, but that will soon be overturned when (not if) the Muslim population overruns the country. Take a look at the demographics (and it’s happening throughout Europe) – the Muslim birthrates are vastly higher than the non-Muslims. I don’t know the numbers, but I seem to recall something like an average of 7 kids per Muslim family, while it’s around 1.2 per non-Muslim. With numbers like that, it’s only a matter of time before they take over the country. Read Brigitte Gabriel’s books and you’ll get a real eye-opener.

      • boxedquad

        We have the same types of problems in all our states and more importantly at our large cities. Muslims and sadly race stereotypical response to all problems. Out growing your enemy alive and strong.

        • MF

          You’re right, the Muslim invasion is coming, but it’s a lot farther out there in the US than it is in France. Plus, I think Americans are far more willing to stand up to the Muslims than the weak-kneed French.

        • MF

          You’re right, the Muslim invasion is coming, but it’s a lot farther out there in the US than it is in France. Plus, I think Americans are far more willing to stand up to the Muslims than the weak-kneed French.

    • MF

      ?We don?t have a stronger friend and stronger ally than Nicolas Sarkozy and the French people,? Obama said at the White House press avail.

      Another reason why Obama said this is because he sees France gradually being taken over by the Muslims. To him, that’s a good thing. He’s really not a Sarkozy fan at all, but a fan of France – where it’s going, not where it is today.

      True, France passed that law prohibiting the head coverings, but that will soon be overturned when (not if) the Muslim population overruns the country. Take a look at the demographics (and it’s happening throughout Europe) – the Muslim birthrates are vastly higher than the non-Muslims. I don’t know the numbers, but I seem to recall something like an average of 7 kids per Muslim family, while it’s around 1.2 per non-Muslim. With numbers like that, it’s only a matter of time before they take over the country. Read Brigitte Gabriel’s books and you’ll get a real eye-opener.

  • gwalt

    Sometimes I just want to quit. Quit reading about this horrific figure of a man. Sometimes I just want to quit being nice to my family members that support EVERY Lieberal policy, no matter the facts.

    Then I remember.

    That is what they want and that is what The One wants. So I forge ahead.

    • nhbuckeye

      I feel your pain.

  • msctex

    . . .was the earliest defining moment of the Obama administration. It symbolized the Left’s aggressive abandonment of what constitutes true greatness in leadership — namely, a willingness to do whatever it takes to win in the face of genuine Evil — and as well offered a direct acknowledgment of this President’s varied collection of personal demons.

    It was as truly ominous a gesture as can be imagined, from a foreign policy standpoint. The fact Churchill helped us defeat the Nazis becomes secondary to Obama’s personal family history. The arrogance involved is beyond the power of words to convey.

    • voicefromthevoid

      was and is still important to BHO. It was the main reason for the removal of the bust. The man would rather see USA lost that war.

      That’s what happens when you allow your enemy to be elected your Commander-in-Chief.

      • msctex

        I’m going with the Kenyan family history, British colonialism, etc. If you were right. . .God, I don’t even want to think about it.

  • Menlo

    The nation has as much religious and personal freedom as Iran, while a growing share of its population engage in uncivilized personal immorality that is beyond the pale. The British government of course is completely amoral. And let us not forget their death-centered “health care” regime.

    It should be plain, especially to conservatives, that they are without question the worst nation in Europe today. What things were like half a century or more ago is irrelevant.

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      America is a product of Western civilization of a particularly British sort, and we are a part of the anglosphere, regardless of what the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave might think. While our nations have diverged in terms of domestic policy, especially since WWII, we should remain closely linked and work to influence them toward greater freedom and prosperity (a la Thatcher and Reagan). I recommend the book “The New Road To Serfdom” by Daniel Hannan (or Paul Johnson’s History of the American People) for an overview of why America is an extension, expansion, and improvement of Englishness, and cannot be understood in isolation.

      • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

        Since joining the EU, the UK has become increasingly European and less British (Hannan discusses this in The New Road To Serfdom). A strong American alliance might help to weaken the newer continental ties. Hopefully the EU will crack up pretty quickly (as a consolidated political and regulatory power, at least), and America can help to re-anglicize England. Or something like that. Hannan (a Tory MEP) sees a lot of hope in the Tea Party, actually, and is trying to import American ideas into British polity.

      • Menlo

        I want no part of the UK, so don’t include me as a “we.” I don’t care about its history.

        • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison
          • Menlo

            What I said is that I don’t care with respect to my opinion here..

    • aesthete

      The UK is far and away one of the better countries, if not the best, in western Europe right now: France’s laws on public expression of religion are positively fascist, and much of the right in other European countries is nativist, parochial, anti-capitalist, and wicked. Is any country in southern Europe better than the UK? Italy just recently elected something close to a fascist and has tilted heavily towards communism for years before that. The Iberian Peninsula has been dominated by actual fascist dictators, and then later by democratic socialists. France’s policies on religious expression in the public sphere is and has always been much more oppressive than that of the UK. What of Scandanavia? What of it, with a government that controls from 60-75% of GDP? Is that a model that is better than the UK’s? How about the Balkans (which have had actual religious persecution on both sides and governments that do not even rise to the accolade “awful”)? What country in western Europe, besides perhaps the Netherlands and Germany, do you think is better on domestic policy in western Europe? And of the Netherlands, Germany, and the UK, which has been most steadfast in loyalty, and willing to put troops on the ground? The answer is none other than the UK in Europe, and Commonwealth countries elsewhere in the world.

      • aesthete

        “What of Scandanavia? What of it, with a government that controls from 60-75% of GDP?”

        Should be “governments”, not “a government”.

        • Menlo

          The people are willing to pay the 50% income taxes to support such government control. I don’t agree with it, and it would be horrible in many if not most countries; but it seems to work for them. There is not a one-size-fits-all economic philosophy that is best for all nations.

          • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

            have not had a chance to choose. and have instead been both bribed and brainwashed into thinking that it is the only way.

          • aesthete

            “The people” who voted for said economic controls may not be the same people adversely impacted by them. For that matter, “the people” in several countries around the world have decided that abortion is fantastic: that’s no reason to condone the practice in those countries as one that is uniquely good for them. There’s something to be said for minority rights, and for an objective standard of what is and is not good governance, besides democracy.

            As to your point on whether it works or not, I would note that there is a difference between functional and better: the Scandinavian countries are countries with rule of law, healthy people, and coveted resources: they are going to “work” under any system short of full-on communism. Arguments based on “workability” need to take into account the outcomes that would result from other systems applied to the country in question: honestly, I cannot see Sweden doing worse than it is doing now (while Friedman’s recommendations to Iceland prove that Scandinavian countries are not uniquely exempted from the axioms of economics and human nature).

          • Menlo

            I do not believe that the quantity of taxing and spending is in and of itself an issue of inhumane treatment or injustice, though I recognize why others feel differently. Where and how the taxing and spending happens is another matter.

      • Jack_Savage

        They are mainly to give Muslim women an excuse not to be forced to wear a headcovering. I have read multiple first-hand accounts of women, Muslim or not, being forced to cover their heads, and being subjected to humiliation or worse if they refuse to comply.

        France was forced into their position by radical Islamists.

        • aesthete

          France has had radical laws on the issue of displaying religion prominently since the French Revolution. The image at hand was Muslims flouting these laws by wearing religious paraphernalia and the headdress in public. The French Christians were, understandably, upset that they were being forced to comply with a mandate that immigrant Muslims were seemingly exempted from. The correct position, IMO, would have been to allow Christians the freedom to wear their own paraphernalia and religious iconography, but this being France, they chose to double down on a bad law by applying it to Muslims and Christians equally — a position less unreasonable than the one the had before, but still pretty crappy on the whole.

      • Menlo

        I don’t look much at aggregates or individual leaders but at everyday life and practice. Similarly, their willingness to put troops on the ground doesn’t mean much to me right now. I’d take most any European nation, although the teeny-tiny European nations like Andorra and especially Malta seem like very nice places.

        In terms of actual policy in practice and the attitudes of most people, I maintain the UK is the absolute worst place, with Sweden and Belgium very close in some regards.

        • aesthete

          Not to offend, but have you lived or spent a significant amount of time in the UK/Europe? IMO, the statement that the UK is the worst country in Europe is analogous to Keith Olbermann’s pronouncements of “worst person”. Italy’s policy and political culture has tended towards both fascism and communism, and is rife with corruption, and the Balkan states are complete messes. I simply have no idea what specific policies implemented by the UK you consider so repugnant as to make forays into fascism and communism seem attractive by comparison. I cannot conceive of a world where Greece or Bosnia is a better place than the UK.

          Malta is gorgeous, btw: beautiful people and a beautiful place. Interesting history, too.

          • Menlo

            Certainly no policy or even several policies alone would qualify. It is the compounded effect of several policies coupled with the attitudes, beliefs, actions, and behavior of most people there.

      • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

        Poland

        • aesthete

          You can’t force me to choose between the rich gamut of relatively free, prosperous, and pro-America/pro-capitalist republics in eastern Europe: it’d be far too difficult! :)

          In all seriousness, I’d give Poland the nod as “best eastern European ally”, since they have contributed to our cause militarily and rhetorically.

      • renny

        Our language, law, and history are inextricably tied to Great Britain and the other English-speaking peoples of the world. We give that relationship up to our greatest peril.

        • aesthete

          Take a look at the nations in Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom: the top 4 have systems based on British common law, and 6 of the top ten have systems that are explicitly based on British common law. Only two of the countries on the list (Switzerland and Denmark) do not have any roots in British common law, and of the major European colonizers, the British were by far the best when it came to laws and customs passed down to its colonies.

  • trutexan

    and holding their noses until BO is out of office. Anyone who understands his penchant for anti-colonialism also understands that in as little as 4 years, this will change. He holds his grandfather’s prejudices out in public for all to see. I’m just praying Great Britian will remain steadfast in their loyal support of the US through our trials and tribulations with this indecent and incredibly rude President.

  • proudmarinemom

    about the upcoming wedding of Prince William of Wales to Miss Middleton.

    Stricken from the guest list, at the request of the groom, are the names “President Barack Hussein Obama and Mrs. Obama.”

    While I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the news, it is delicious to contemplate.

    This should send Michelle into a tantrum, since she already had spoken with dress designers about ideas how best to draw attention to herself, whilst sending a political message to Her Majesty and the British people during the ceremony. Pity.

    • http://www.thejoyofreason.com Greg Garrison

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339315/President-Obama-snubbed-sources-reveal-invited-Prince-Williams-wedding.html

    • tankertodd

      Given his involvement in the military perhaps he’s got the sense that escapes his dad. Another reason to skip Charles and make William king.

    • lineholder

      alienate our traditional allies, including England. He’s snubbed them plenty of times. Then when he and his wife don’t get invited to the Royal Wedding, his wife takes it as an insult?

      What could Prince William be thinking? (sarc)

  • bobmontgomery

    ….some things just aren’t done. Like bowing to foreign leaders; dissing America, especially when abroad; shopping at Costco for gifts for foreign dignitaries; lowering ones self to get in the middle of a domestic squabble in Cambridge, Massachusetts; putting one’s feet up on the desk in the Oval Office; calling out private citizens, whether business people, entertainers, or commentators, by name for ridicule; inviting Senators to the White House for televised discussions on public policy and calling them liars in front of the cameras.
    Oh, could we go on at some length here. But the point is, if someone touted as a “scholar” and as being “gifted” does not in the first instance know how to act, it is not surprising that he might deign to fiddle with the rudder of the ship of state. What is alarming is that there is apparently no one, in any Department, professional or knowledgeable or duty-bound enough to suggest protocol and extremely measured and informed consideration as to America’s relationships and arrangements. Oh, well. Pass me that Reset Button, wallya?

    • bobmontgomery
    • jiminga

      Well said. Even after 2 years the entire team are rookies and they are way too focused on personal goals, not national goals.

  • romeg

    Then double-digit unemployment is not our greatest problem.

  • throwback59

    I’m concerned about having an Ameriphobic (Yankeephobic?) one.

    • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

      he can multi-task

  • 2warabnvet

    Of course he despises the Brits. His daddy was an anti-British Kenyan Marxist. Remember. “Dreams of My Father”?

  • macsgrumpy

    What is alarming is that there is apparently no one, in any Department, professional or knowledgeable or duty-bound enough to suggest protocol and extremely measured and informed consideration as to America?s relationships and arrangements.

    I think there are a lot of professional patriots that suggest protocol, but the progressive, elitist, criminal people the one has running the government(because he certainly is not capable) intimidates or blows off these suggestions, since it wouldn’t fit in with their agenda to destroy our great republic.

  • mspector

    The OP quotes Obama’s grandmother as saying: ?Generally, my grandson has never believed the British do anything for a common good, rather than their selfish interests,?

    Seems to me that in seeing the British in this light Obama would recognize them as people after Obama’s own heart and embrace them lovingly.

    And isn’t this the same Sarkozy who expressed contempt for Obama’s actions on the international stage just about a year ago?

  • jackhammer

    But weren’t the British the first nation we had a war against? And they are supposed to be our friends now?

    I don’t remember fighting a war against the French…they sold us that large parcel of middle America, and they handed us that half finished war thing in Indochina…..

    And you are aware there is swearing and bare breasts on their TV shows…..

    How can you not see this?

    • aesthete

      Good times…

    • E Pluribus Unum

      Purely for academic purposes, I wish to verify this.

    • powertothepeople

      Prior to fighting the English although we were considered to be English at the time. The “we were English” argument is not wrong or right as we were already here in this country, we were already forming our way of life, and the winds of revolution were already blowing.

      We also fought them in WW2 after the Germans took them captive and had them raise arms against us.

  • tex41lb

    Perhaps France is also viewed as England,s best country in Europe, at least when it comes to attending the wedding. France’s Sarkozy is one of few heads of state invited to attend.

  • http://ja-js.blogtownhall.com RME KRNL

    … if what I’ve heard is true, that Prince William directed that the Obamas be stricken from the guest list for his wedding in the Spring.

    I’ve also heard the Obamas were thinking about playing the race card about the snub but then realized that other national leaders “of color” would be attending and welcomed.

    Then, they are reputed to try and play it off as a snub of America, or the American people, instead of just them personally.

    No, Obamas, Prince William probably just doesn’t want Michelle trying to steal the limelight from Kate or for Barack to act insultingly toward his grandmother, the Queen, again. William probably only wants people who know how to show some class at his wedding.

    Good call, Prince.