Dangerous World for Obama: Five Places Obama Will Be Tested

The Five Obama Foreign Policy Tests:
Obama's Not Even Sworn In Yet But
Russia, Terrorists, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran
Have Started the Testing of Obama

---

Americans were assured that the world couldn't wait until the election of a President Obama--and it was true. The world didn't wait until Obama officially takes office on January 20 to start testing the former junior senator from Illinois.

Joe Biden called it during the presidential campaign: Within six months, Barack Obama will be tested by countries around the globe if he won. [Joe Biden: Elect Obama and We’ll Have an International Crisis]

The Mainstream press didn't address Biden's comments much--other than feature numerous campaign spokesmen "clarifying" Biden's remarks. Obama's lack of experience or credentials wasn't a topic for polite MSM conversation: it was much more pleasant to write about what "Change" really meant.

Within hours of Barack Obama winning the 2008 election, Russia announced it was putting missiles next to NATO countries. This wasn't the only wake-up call for the new administration. There are other countries and groups seemingly lined up to see what the United States' response will be to global challenges.

We've picked out four of the earliest ones.

---

• Test #1: Russia and Europe
  
  From Obama's First Diplomatic Test:
  
  

  The day after Obama's election, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev publicly threatened to deploy missiles near the borders of two NATO allies to counter the Bush Administration's plans to install antimissile systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. The Russian announcement, rolled out during an elaborate ceremony, was timed to put one of the most contentious issues between Moscow and Washington on Obama's table right away. Obama and his advisers took it as an intentional provocation aimed at testing the President-elect.

  
  
  TIME then makes an amazing statement: "In fact, Obama's biggest challenge lies not in the tone he takes with the Russians but in the substantive policy choices he makes."
  
  What is this? Won't "acting presidential" pacify the Russians? It certainly worked on the American Mainstream Media during the election. It seems a little late in the game for TIME to talk "substantive policy choices" after the election.
  
  Unlike the MSM, Russia will not be swayed by a confident Obama style only. Like their invasion of Afghanistan during Jimmy Carter's term, the Russians will be watching U.S. responses and adjusting their policy accordingly.
  
  
  
• Test #2: Iraq and Afghanistan
  
  Obama ran a relentless campaign against George W. Bush--who wasn't a candidate. But Obama will find that it was Bush's surge policy--in stark contrast to Obama's plan to beat a hasty retreat--that carried the day in Iraq.
  
  From early indications, Obama will roughly follow the Bush agenda for Iraq; no doubt disturbing his anti-war supporters who helped him secure the Democrat nomination. It's been quiet in Iraq the last several months: some want to declare victory.
  
  But the incoming Obama administration may be tested by all parties in Iraq, including the Iraqi government.
  
  Al-Qaida seems detested, dejected and defeated, but they may be lying dormant. They will monitor developments and American policy and look for any openings to test the new president.
  
  Afghanistan is a different matter.
  
  The Afghan central government is corrupt; NATO allies--with the exception of Britain--are not much good once shooting starts; and, the Taliban appears to be getting stronger as the war wears on.
  
  It's promising that during the campaign, Obama did support the war in Afghanistan. So, cutting-and-running is probably not his first option from the opium capital of the world.
  
  Obama has also said that he recognizes the situation in Afghanistan is worsening. What actions will he take in response?
  
  
• Test #3: Biological and Nuclear Terror
  
  From Panel Fears Use of Unconventional Weapon:
  

  An independent commission has concluded that terrorists will most likely carry out an attack with biological, nuclear or other unconventional weapons somewhere in the world in the next five years unless the United States and its allies act urgently to prevent that.
  
  In a report to be released this week, the Congressionally mandated panel found that with countries like Iran and North Korea pursuing nuclear weapons programs, and with the risk of poorly secured biological pathogens growing, unconventional threats are fast outpacing the defenses arrayed to confront them.
  
  “America’s margin of safety is shrinking, not growing,” the bipartisan panel concluded.

  
  
  Pakistan is a particular area for concern, with terrorists with an eye toward causing death and destruction likely to come from that U.S. ally. It's suspected that the Mumbai terrorists came from Pakistan, where they likely trained and prepared.
  
  “Pakistan is an ally, but there is a grave danger it could also be an unwitting source of a terrorist attack on the United States — possibly with weapons of mass destruction,” the report said.
  
  
• Test #4: India and Pakistan
  
  ABC News called Mumbai "Obama's first foreign policy test". From Mumbai: Obama's First Foreign Policy Test:
  

  American officials believe the terrorists may be Pakistani extremists bent on turning the disputed Kashmir region along the border with India into a separate Islamic state.
  ...
  As Obama continues to work with the current administration to prepare for a seamless transition, history shows that foreign policy and national security cannot be put on hold during presidential transitions.

  
  
  Mumbai was seen by some, including Melanie Phillips, as another battle in the worldwide Jihad now being fought.
  
  One wrong move and the world could witness the first nuclear war between the countries on the Indian subcontinent.
  
  
• Test #5: A nuclear armed Iran
  
  Iran is not going to change its headlong pursuit of nuclear weapons--or its reasons for acquiring them--because of pleasant talk, smiles and handshakes. The Islamic Republic respects one thing: power.
  
  What actions will a President Obama take?
  
  Hopefully, they'll be wiser than the policies of ex-president, Jimmy Carter.
  
  From Obama's First Foreign Policy Tests
  
  

  Successive, Democratic and Republican U.S. administrations have appeased the Islamists in Iran, starting with the catastrophic Carter administration, which secretly assisted the Islamist overthrow of the pro-U.S. Shah, a modernizing monarch, in a craven, cynical attempt to curry favor with the Ayatollah Khomeini.
  ...
  China Confidential analysts believe that Iran's Hitlerian maniac-in-chief, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (whom President-elect Obama has offered to meet in face-to-face talks) is determined to announce a major nuclear breakthrough in time for this February's 30th anniversary celebrations of the Islamic Republic.

Five tests for President-elect Obama.

The world will be watching to see how he scores.

Americans hope he gets a passing grade.


by Mondo Frazier
image: dbkp file

Mandatory Paternity Tests: Another Intrusive Goverment Program Waiting to Happen

Good Intentions, Bad Laws and Unintended Consequences



A reader sends in an article which uses the John Edwards' affair to propose another onerous, intrusive government-mandated plan. It would take decisions from the people most directly involved and put them in the hands of bureaucrats in the social welfare agencies.

From Make Paternity Mandatory:

The recent extra-marital affair has ended John Edwards' political career, at least his chances for running for president. I often wonder how some men (and often women) can be so stupid.

What is really sad is Rielle Hunter, Edwards' ex-girl friend, saying she will not participate in DNA testing to establish the paternity of her daughter. Her decision means that the issue of who the father is will remain open, and may never be known.

Our government should demand that the father's name of every child born in America be put on the birth certificate.

We have all seen fathers who impregnate a girl, then run off or fail to live up to their responsibility of child support and fatherly duties.

The child, who is an innocent victim, is not given a fair chance in life, and faces enormous difficulties, and often goes through life without a father who is very much needed in every family in today's society.

Charles Harrington

Interesting idea; however, too many "interesting ideas" are picked up by the "there oughta be a law" crowd, make their way onto the books as law and become subject to another law: the law of unintended consequences.

Whenever the government makes anything mandatory, a little more freedom is lost. In this case, not only the freedom of the mother, but also the freedom of any guy suspected of being the father.

What of the single, professional mom who has no desire to establish paternity? Why encroach upon her freedom of choice? It is to be supposed that the mother would have some choice in the matter of who--if anyone--helps raise her child. Are we to believe that the government can make a better choice than the mother?

IF the mother applies for public assistance, there's more of a case to be made for demanding a paternity test. But as someone at DBKP pointed out, "How many times does Maury Povich have four guys on his TV show take DNA tests and none of them are the father?"

If this were to become law, expect that men who are subjected to DNA testing and are not found to be the father of the child in question, to reasonably demand some type of compensation for their time and trouble. Who's on the hook for that?

What about mothers who know who the father is and choose not to have that man around their child for a variety of reasons? Paternity payments mean visitation rights. Are we to force such mothers into an unwanted choice?

It's all one more Pandora's Box of freedom-stifling government regulations, with an all-too-familiar, "For the Children" sticker slapped on the outside.

We're sure the Mr. Harrington, like too many people today, had the best of intentions when writing his suggestive piece. Good intentions are always easier when it's someone else's freedoms and choices that are being infringed upon.

Maybe that's one reason they serve as the paving stones, not only on the road to hell, but also on the road to serfdom.

by Mondoreb
[hat tip: BR549]
image: djfeathers