Obama cannot charm his way to NATO hearts

Realizing that he was wrong about our victory in Iraq, President Obama has sought to make his military mark in Afghanistan with the help of NATO allies. Unfortunately, his efforts fall short:

Gordon Brown was the only one to offer substantial help. He offered to send several hundred extra British soldiers to provide security during the August election, but even that fell short of the thousands of combat troops that the US was hoping to prise from the Prime Minister.

Just two other allies made firm offers of troops. Belgium offered to send 35 military trainers and Spain offered 12. Mr Obama’s host, Nicolas Sarkozy, refused his request.
...
Germany, Italy, Poland, Canada and Denmark said that they were considering their positions. After a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, Mr Obama tried to apply further moral pressure. “I am sure that Germany, as one of the most important leaders in Europe, will be stepping up to the plate and helping us to get the job done.”

This isn't being widely reported by the mainstream media as part of the President's hyped European G-20 tour. Why? Because it makes Obama look bad. But why aren't our European allies stepping up to the plate on Afghanistan? When Poland, Canada, and Denmark, typically our staunchest allies, still have to "think about it," then there's something very wrong.

Has the threat of the Taliban and its terror-support network diminished? Hardly. In fact, intelligence and military analysts have documented a growing Taliban.

Is the world just too caught up with the global economic recession? Maybe so, but why didn't these allies offer a few troops even as a gesture of support in the Afghan engagement?

The heart of the problem is that these world leaders see right through President Obama. They see that he was wrong about Iraq, so what makes them to be confident about his strategy in Afghanistan? They know that the President lacks foreign policy experience (they still remember his first European tour as a presidential candidate) and is trying to find a footing in that area. I think they believe that Obama is just politicking this to strengthen his reputation at home and abroad.

NATO's response would certainly have been different if it were President Bush.

Criticizing Palin's lack of foreign policy experience

Now that ABC News' Charles Gibson interview of Palin is over and for the world to analyze, the Obama campaign and the Left have unleashed another wave of attacks. Fred Kaplan of Slate writes that "when it comes to foreign policy, Sarah Palin doesn't know what she's talking about." Moreover, he claims:

And why should she have? As governor of Alaska, nothing in her line of duties has compelled her to pay attention to such matters—and that is precisely the point.

I'll give Sen. Joe Biden credit for his foreign policy experience, but Mr. Obama? Are we so quick to forget what he said about the threat from North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela? That these "tiny countries" pose no danger to Americans and the world? At least Palin isn't complacent and understands the evils of the world, and the only way to defeat evil is to crush it. Whereas Obama thinks that he can talk and negotiate with evildoers and be done with it.

Today is Sept. 12 and would be a good time to reflect upon the state of our security. It's been seven years since the al-Qaeda attacks on our home turf. The fact is that President Bush has kept us safe for seven years. Did he achieve this by sitting down at a table with al-Qaeda and Taliban lieutenants? Or by instructing our military to disrupt and destroy the enemies?

Take some time to ponder on Obama's way of thinking...