Surprise! Sarah Palin Trips Over the Meaning of Enemy Centric
In Sarah Palin’s second book (also known as propaganda; a fact Palin herself admitted on Fox last night, albeit unknowingly- as she seems to do just about everything), “America by Heart,” she accuses the President of having an “enemy centric foreign policy” and reveals that she is spectacularly clueless about what an enemy centric foreign policy is.
Media Matters reports on Palin’s book:
“A prominent Czech official has called America’s current foreign policy “enemy-centric,” and I think he’s on to something. An enemy-centric foreign policy is one that seems more interested in coddling adversaries (in Washington, they call this “outreach” or “resetting relations”) and apologizing than in standing up to enemies and sticking by principles — among which are friendship and support for our fellow democracies. The current foreign policy is one that values the opinion of European elites more than the freedom of Iranian democrats. [Page 263]”
Perhaps Sarah is unaware that she’s quoting Alexandr Vondra, a European elite. It’s easy to understand how this fact escaped her, seeing as she is probably still unaware that the Czech Republic joined the EU in 2004. So, she is quoting a European elite while accusing Obama of catering to the opinions of the European elite. Yes, Dorothy, this person is going to run for Barbie President of her Barbie World and if you object, you are an evil elitist. Please, grab your American exceptionalism and follow Sarah Palin as she redefines exceptionalism to mean securing the rights of those whining Nouveau Riche Right wing elitists to sell their mediocre books and TV shows to the even more mediocre without ever being called out on their distortions, fabrications and utter lack of merit. Exceptionalism is also apparently unrelated to accountability, which does seem to mesh perfectly with Palin’s own enemy engagement strategy.
But most offensive is Palin’s utter failure to comprehend what “enemy centric” means. “Enemy centric” is not a foreign policy term; it’s a military term. The Center for a New American Security reported that on March 3, 2010, “Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, offered the first set of criteria for using military force since Gen. Colin Powell held Mullen’s job nearly 20 years ago. And Mullen’s inchoate offerings provide something of an update — and something of a refutation — to Powell’s advice. Mullen, the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to embrace the theorist-practitioners of counterinsurgency:
“Force should, to the maximum extent possible, be applied in a precise and principled way,” Mullen said, because the contemporary battlefield is “in the minds of the people.” That’s the first time a chairman has embraced the concept of “population-centric” warfare, a departure from the “enemy-centric” focus of doctrines like Powell’s, with its focus on applying “overwhelming force” to vanquish an adversary.””
The Czech elite who used it admitted it was strong language and pointed out that this is why he spent several years in jail. “Vondra, who is now a senator in the Czech legislature, acknowledged that he was using strong language in the hopes of getting Washington’s attention. “I was always speaking loudly,” he joked. “That’s why I was put into jail in the ’80s.””
I can only assume that if Sarah Palin wrote this book in 1980’s Czech, there would be a lot more happy Americans today, for viewing her behind bars for sedition or inciting violence or just plain willful desire to destroy this country would be tantamount to finally seeing Rove arrested. A girl can dream.
Palin took a term from one realm and misapplied it to another — or copied it from someone else who knew they were doing that, but assumed everyone else would know this and get the intended jab. Vondra didn’t count on the ignorance of Sarah Palin. And this is another stunning example of why, contrary to the Poujadist cries of exalting ordinariness and PTA moms being automatically qualified for the highest office in the land (this is now second on the list of Palin’s experience that makes her more qualified to be President than our current Summa Cum Laude Harvard Law President), a modicum of intellect matters in your president.
So we get that enemy centric strategy is inherent in the Bush Doctrine, which may explain Palin’s failure to communicate coherently on this subject, since she made it clear that she has no idea what the Bush Doctrine is and I highly doubt she’s wasted valuable pop culture infiltration time studying up on icky things like ideas.
Here’s a clue for the Hawkish Mama Grizzly: We were an enemy-centric force in Afghanistan until we began to implement McChrystal’s population-centric COIN strategy. But truthfully, the very definition of foreign policy should have clued Palin in to her failure to grasp the issue at hand: “Diplomacy is the tool of foreign policy, and war, alliances, and international trade may all be manifestations of it.” Perhaps the word diplomacy needs to be explained, very slowly, to Ms Palin, as it’s clear this is something of which she will never be accused.
But here’s a hint, Sarah: The way you deal with enemies in your own life and the way you advocate the US deal with her enemies is in fact the “enemy centric” policy of engagement. The Obama foreign policy is not focused on using overwhelming force to vanquish an adversary as is implied by Palin’s “book”; that would be Palin’s foreign policy she’s unknowingly criticizing.
The minefield of Palin’s mind and the resulting dizzying maze of perversion often leaves one panting, tenuously holding onto the nearest piece of solid earth they can find, so precarious is a trip down the Palin rabbit hole. See, I almost got lost in her accusations of appeasement – because that is what she meant. Instead, she ended up accusing Obama of her own weakness (once again) and also, too, revealing her supreme incompetence and unworthiness to the office she aspires.
In reality, President Obama’s military strategy as a sub-discipline of his foreign policy strategy is a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine; instead of stressing the power of enemy engagement, it stresses the limitations of military force. And clearly, in the same manner, President Obama’s foreign policy is not “enemy centric.” This ranks right up with Palin’s (pre-Death Panels) 2008 claims that she and McCain were for healthcare reform because it would shore up jobs. At what point are we allowed to scream?
But one would have to know the definition of enemy centric in order to grasp that they were wrong, something Palin and her screen-writing ghost-writer obviously do not know. Again, this is the result of Palin’s paranoid refusal to consult with real experts; her policy of rejecting expertise as a matter of course, allowing her to fall victim to the delusion that she is engaging in reasonable dialogue when in fact, she doesn’t know what she doesn’t know. We can call this trickle-down ignorance. Cue the rabid Palinbots screeching about enemy centric foreign policies, to which you can respond, “I’m glad you’re finally on board, you ignorant, low-information rube.” Or not. That might be sort of enemy centric and goodness knows we don’t want to kill our enemies.
Whoopsie daisy, President Palin meant appease. Is it too late? Sarah Palin’s lack of intellect is a national security risk.