Home | About | Donate

Obama’s Two-Faced Foreign Policy


Obama’s Two-Faced Foreign Policy

Robert Parry

The mystery of the Obama administration’s foreign policy has always been whether President Barack Obama has two separate strategies: one “above the table” waving his arms and talking tough like Official Washington’s arm-chair warriors do – and another “below the table” where he behaves as a pragmatic realist, playing footsy with foreign adversaries.


Once Obama praised Zbig on the campaign trail, it became clear that he would not be given full control over foreign policy no matter what State-of-the-Union speeches and cute photo ops (thinking of the Bin Laden meeting, here) may lead people to believe. The puppet masters may let him choose the color of the paint, but the words to be written on the wall come from them. Only a true leader could push back against the Washingtonian psychosis. Unfortunately, the only one I've seen capable of this lives in Moscow.


Perhaps no others have as yet bothered to read Parry's analysis of Obama's "Two-Faced Foreign Policy?" Then those who typically use any excuse to damn anything that relates to Obama's choices may have read, but felt no need to respond in the typical manner? Perhaps also because they have already made the choice to support Senator Sanders in his quest for the Democratic nomination to become POTUS? Maybe the same ones who've questioned my choice, to date, to make no personal commitment as to how to vote in the still months away primary or still more than a year away in the general election. Though as yet there has been no decision by Biden whether or not to throw his "hat" in the Democratic Party ring, on this topic of foreign policy, reading elsewhere today, I decided to share what I considered an excellent comparison of the foreign policy choices between Clinton and Biden along with his reason for not including Sen. Sanders. Also a shared opinion as to why I've made the choice to wait and see, before making the decision for my personal choice for who to cast my single vote in 2016 for POTUS. As a result I share the URL below for any who might find it of interest.



Mr. Parry is very good at deconstructing the dualistic narrative used to paint any foe of MIC-driven U.S. foreign policy as an enemy, but he's naïve in other aspects of his analysis. One of those is his embrace of the 911 official storyline; and another is seen in the following quote. It imagines that the President is the key decider rather than the CEO reading assigned Talking Points. The only thing "schizophrenic" is attempting to play the role of head of the nation that purports to be a global peacemaker when in reality, it inflames sectarian conflicts, assassinates leaders to destabilize already stressed nations, and sells both sides the arms used to massacre their own multitudes.

"In essence, these inconsistencies between Obama’s words and deeds reflect the schizophrenic nature of Obama’s “above-the-table” and “below-the-table” split personality."

Just as Hillary Clinton has to come off as a champion of the people while representing the interests of big banks and other corporate entities, Obama's ROLE is to seem like a calm and collected, serious adult diplomat when his JOB is to preside over the most massive KILLING machine the world has ever known. Attributing the conflicts inherent to today's Presidency with supposed flaws in the man sitting in the Oval Office falls to the level of what I term People Magazine style Celebrity Journalism, if it could be called journalism, at all.

C'mon, Parry. You can do better than this shtick!


Oops to those who read and commented, I was typing while you were also sharing opinions.


It's hard to imagine that Parry is so naïve as to think these appointments have nothing to do with the primacy held by the Military-Industrial Complex. It's obvious that after the Berlin Wall came down and the U.S began to do business with Russia and China that the Cold War was effectively over. Thus the necessity--on the part of the MIC--to quickly devise a formidable (seeming) enemy asserted.

The saying "follow the money" is apt since the MIC cannibalizes more than half of the U.S. discretionary budget. As astute commentators also recognize, there's plenty of under-the-radar drug money that also finances black-ops; and things like Veterans' benefits are not considered into the official MIC fiscal calculus, either.

"Clearly, Obama is to blame for his administration’s appointees, whether it was the misguided “Team of Rivals” at the start of his presidency or the current mix of mostly non-entities and neocon-lites in his second term. But the low quality of these officials is also a comment on how thin the Democratic foreign-policy bench is after three-and-a-half decades of cowering before Republican and media accusations about the Democrats showing “un-American” softness."

The above statement is NONSENSICAL without mention of the now fully entrenched interests of that same Military-Industrial-Media complex that Ike so presciently warned against.

Obama's choice is the same as voters: Pepsi or Coke... since a larger covert entity prints and controls the menu.

From the article:

"The vast majority of the Democratic foreign policy “experts” who have survived politically either have become “me-too” echoes of the Republican neocons (the likes of Hillary Clinton) or have adopted a militant “humanitarianism” favoring either coups or war in the name of “human rights” (the likes of Samantha Power)."

Like the 18th century scientists who postulated the idea of "spontaneous generation" since they could not see the microorganisms responsible for generating bacteria colonies and such, Parry seems to think that this limited Democratic repertoire somehow emerged out of nowhere; and that it speaks to the specific character of appointed (or elected) figures. But it's curious how, once again, the dominant role played by the MIC is left entirely out of the calculus.

There is something to this idea that what is NOT said is conspicuous FOR its absence from the conversation.

Too many writers protect the military; or they otherwise are so programmed by sports that they TRULY see the world, as Vonnegut put it, divided into TEAMS.

Those of us who weren't born to play with balls or see the world through a penis-prism see way beyond these IDIOT frames!


I wonder if Mr. Parry ever reads anything published by F.A.I.R? If he did, he would recognize that what passes for debate is ALWAYS 10:1 pro-war sources, guests, speakers to anti-war sources.

How much conjecture is openly aired related to the TPP?

How much was aired regarding any serious remedy for the stock market crash of 2007-2008?

How much about Obama care?

Corporations package the substance of those policies they've arguably purchased thanks to "Citizens United" style campaign "contributions."

The public is INFORMED AFTER THE FACT, if at all.

And what passes for a national discourse is wholly contained, controlled, and edited by the same entities who purchased a now captured media.

Similarly, the gatekeepers only allow a very small margin of deviation from THEIR scripts. Obviously, just as both teams show fealty to their high paying donor-sponsors, both "teams" also must bow in homage before the M.I.C. and those banks (i.e. The Fed) that "own the place."

From the article:

"Whereas the dominant ideology among the Republicans remains neoconservatism, the primary approach of the Democrats is “liberal interventionism,” but there really isn’t much difference between the two in practical terms. Indeed, arch-neocon Robert Kagan has said he is comfortable calling himself a “liberal interventionist.”

To not expose the behind-the-scenes systemic corruption that forces those within the existing system to produce outcomes consistent with said System's controllers is an effective way to keep citizens' eyes on the ball rather than who owns the stadium and perhaps pays coaches to influence particular outcomes.

Fairyland Democracy is the fig leaf held over the growing inverted totalitarian (i.e. fascist) state. When the PERSONALITIES and individual flaws of upfront players become the subject of analysis, the real powers that run the show get to keep their positions.

It's very much like the sports world... with plays analyzed and everyone mesmerized by The Game. This level of engagement makes any alternative to the "game of war" based on "who's the dominant military power" impossible.

All attention is riveted on the contrived playing field.

Perhaps it's time for Parry to see beyond his own white hats/black hats FRAME!


THIS, at last, is good stuff:

"Both neocons and liberal interventionists favor “regime change” strategies as a principal feature of U.S. foreign policy, whether through “color revolutions” or “responsibility to protect” military invasions. They also rely heavily on “strategic communications” or “Stratcom,” a blend of psy-ops, propaganda and P.R., to bring both the American people and the global public into line.

"That’s why once a propaganda theme is developed – such as blaming Assad for the sarin attack and Russia for the MH-17 shoot-down – there are no revisions or corrections even when the evidence leads in a different direction. The false narrative must be maintained because it is useful as a Stratcom weapon to discredit and damage an adversary in the eyes of the public."


You left out the part about most ending up dead.



Iraq formed a Parliamentary commission to investigate alleged airdrops by western forces to ISIS. This article lays out their conclusions , that being that the US and its allies are supplying ISIS with arms so as to prolong the wars in the region and ensure the regions remain destabilized.

This has prompted Iraqi officials to suggest they would welcome Russian intervention in Iraq to help in their efforts against ISIS.

As CIC Obama has to know that his own military supplies ISIS and that ISIS is part of the US MIC.


It's a mistake to romanticize Putin. You don't gain rank in the KGB by being a nice guy.


I said nothing to romanticize Putin nor did I call him a nice guy. He is a leader, though. Often, his favorite armament is the truth, e.g.: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww .


"Whereas the dominant ideology among the Republicans remains neoconservatism, the primary approach of the Democrats is “liberal interventionism,” but there really isn’t much difference between the two in practical terms. Indeed, arch-neocon Robert Kagan has said he is comfortable calling himself a “liberal interventionist.”

The only "liberal interventionist" thing about conservatives and neo-cons is their ability to intervene liberally in whatever country, in whatever women's, gays, scientific, economic, environmental and other issues wherever and whenever they choose.


WiseOwl, it may not have been your intent but I've noticed a tendency on the board to put things into a good guy/bad guy (or gal) frame.

What we see on the global level is often amoral self-interest framed as good or evil.

Putin is no better than Obama, he simply has less power.


On this topic suspect it is easier to lead when on has far more personal control instead of two other uncontrollable branches of government to deal with as well as the ability to have total control of the military, the media and not even the pretense of "democracy?"

ctrol_z on another totally different issue we were earlier discussing on another thread, but just to share. Didn't take long for my prediction to materialize. Now the question is who will it satisfy if any?



If you believe that Putin is no better that Obama, you have not been keeping up
with world events.


I am once again placed in the painful (for me) position of agreeing with Mr. Parry. Assad is preferable to the alternatives. That said, I still think Mr. Parry's lips are firmly planted on Mr. Putin's posterier. Are we to believe that, in a country of of over ten million, Assad Sr's only potential replacement is Assad jr?


If you believe Obama and Putin aren't birds of a feather, I have a Potemkin village to sell you.


'Compensation' and investigations with the white-wash stocked in advance aren't likely to satisfy anyone except those who want the attack on the hospital quickly forgotten.


A liberal interventionist is a conservative that liberally intervenes in a woman's right to choose, in what you do in your bedroom, in what religion you practice, in what is science or not, in what natural medicine you use, in what country to invade, and so on. 'Twas ever thus.