by Frank James
Sen. Joseph Biden stirred up the campaign waters with his recent comments at an Obama-Biden fundraiser on Sunday that if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, some U.S. adversary will likely test the new president's "mettle" by manufacturing a crisis.
Biden alluded to the Cuban Missile Crisis by mentioning President John Kennedy in his remarks as the model for what a President Obama might experience.
Of course, that crisis was provoked by the ill-fated Bay of Pigs invasion which JFK inherited from President Dwight D. Eisenhower's Defense Department and Central Intelligence Agency. To some degree, the missile crisis may have been a challenge Kennedy helped create for himself with his Bay of Pigs blunder which telegraphed weakness to the Soviets. But that's another story.
Sen. John McCain picked up on Biden's comments and has tried to use it in his argument as to why he would be the safer choice for the White House than Obama. His implied argument seemed to be because of his greater foreign policy experience, the U.S. adversaries would be less inclined to test him.
If only history have us such assurance. President Harry Truman did nothing less than drop two atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II and the North Koreans and Chinese still tested him on the Korean peninsula, and he was an experienced president.
The available audio of Biden's comments stops before we can hear how he completed his thought. But what we heard is probably a concern that has gone through plenty of voters' minds, that foreign foes might be tempted to test a young president if Obama is elected.
But it's likely that whichever man is elected president will be tested. Biden was only half right. As I suggested earlier, McCain will be tested too.
Biden also didn't state another obvious truth. Sometimes the test a president faces arises from an accident or is otherwise unintentional, not the result of scheming in some foreign capital.
Remember back to April 2001 when a U.S. Navy surveillance aircraft was forced down on China's Hainan Island after colliding with a Chinese fighter jet? The Chinese held 24 Americans for about two weeks before they released them after getting an apology of sorts from President Bush. The Chinese returned the plane, in pieces, after mining all they could of intelligence value.
Bush was widely seen as navigating that first foreign-policy test successfully and got passing grades from many people who would later come to despise his foreign policy. Ironically, it was some neocons who thought the resolution of that crisis made Bush and the U.S. look weak.
President Bill Clinton's first real foreign policy test became popularly known as the "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia. Clinton inherited a deployment of U.S. forces in Somalia from President George H.W. Bush who had sent the troops there on a humanitarian mission.
But that mission transformed into an effort to get capture warlord Mohamed Farar Aideed which led to the Mogadishu gun battle, the dragging of dead U.S. soldiers bodies through the streets, an outcry from the U.S. public and Clinton's rapid withdrawal of troops. No one considered that a success.
The point is that it may not even be a manufactured crisis by Russian premier and puppetmaster Vladimir Putin or some other foreign strongman that could be Obama or McCain's first foreign challenge.
It may just as easily be one of those accidents of history that few can foresee.
When it happens, as it inevitably will, history suggests that it won't just be the wisdom of the president that determines the outcome, but the judgment of his foreign-policy team and the decisions taken by the opponents on the other side.
Comments
Mr. James, you are incorrect in your historical analysis. Kennedy was faced with the Cuban Missile Crisis because he failed his first test. And that test wasn't an "inherited" Bay of Pigs. It was his distratrously weak performance in a meeting he held (without preconditions) with the bellicose Russian leader Nikita Kruschev. Kruschev surmised from that meeting that his adversary was weak, and that he would be able to get away with putting missiles within 90 miles of the U.S. mainland. Kennedy passed that test, to be sure. But he certainly failed in his first test with Kruschev. And no President "inheritts" a decision to support a foreign invasion. Kennedy made that decision, and he failed that test as well.
Posted by: Bemused | October 21, 2008 2:13 PM
Frank,
The battle of Mogadishu occurred on October 3 & 4, 1993. If Clinton inherited this from Bush41, then the logic should follow that 9-11 was inherited from Clinton. Couldn't Clinton pull the troops out of Somolia in eight-plus months?
Also, Clinton's first real foriegn policy test was not in Somolia, but occurred on February 26, 1993 with the first bombing of the World Trade Center. Unfortunately, he treated this as a domestic issue and the rest sadly is history.
Posted by: Terry | October 21, 2008 2:34 PM
To Bemused:
And guess why Soviet premer Nikita Khrushchev knocked JFK around like a rag doll at their infamous meeting in Vienna? It was the fallout from the Bay of Pigs. Even Kennedy himself said he believed the Bay of Pigs fiasco led to Khrushchev to view the American president as essentially weak. ("An Unfinished Life," by Robert Dallek, page 413.) So I'm standing on fairly firm ground.
Posted by: Frank James | October 21, 2008 2:42 PM
Every recent President has been faced with a test shortly after they took office.
GWB: 9/11
Clinton: Somalia
GHWB: The collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe. Panama,
Reagan: Assassination attempt, PATCO Strike
Biden is right Obama will be challanged by some event. But so will McCain. So would any new President.
Posted by: History is important | October 21, 2008 2:53 PM
They should tape Biden's mouth shut, the guy is a disaster. No wonder he's politician, I don't think he would be good for anything else. Guess there is some truth to the old saying, "Government, the last bastion of the incompetent!" I have very little use for any politician but this guy is Mr. Gloom and Doom personified!
Posted by: vla | October 21, 2008 3:24 PM
Terry:
How was the Clinton's handling of the first WTC bombing a failure?? I believe that the mastermind of that event was captured, tried and is currently in jail.
Can you say that about the 2nd WTC bombing and the way GWB handled that one??
Posted by: Bob "Hussein" inATL | October 21, 2008 3:29 PM
Terry,
How did John McCain treat the bombing of the World Trade Center on February 26, 1993??? I've looked in the Congressional record and I don't see his signature on any Declaration of War resolutions or any non-binding resolutions declaring a War on Terror with the ultimate goal being the capture and/or killing of Al-Qaeda and its leadership. I do see a rousing speech on the Senate floor in which Senator McCain urged the US of A to CUT and RUN from Somalia.
Posted by: jackson | October 21, 2008 3:55 PM
Joe Biden was saying that it will take courage to not over-react to some international crisis in order for a new president to make himself look tough enough, but instead, in spite of what public opinion might decree, to turn this Ship of State in a new direction.
There always seems to be an international crisis festering somewhere, like the Russia/Georgia confrontation.
Posted by: Donna Hughes | October 21, 2008 5:03 PM
I think Biden may be right and wrong. Sure, we might be susceptible to such an attack (although I would never say it in a campaign), but which candidate is more likely to bring this attack upon us? Think of it this way: You come to a road and find two wounded animals, one is a neighbor’s pet, and the other is a snake. What does the average person do? You squash the snakes head in, and you take sympathy on the pet. I will let you draw the conclusions as to who the world thinks is the snake and the pet in that scenario.
Posted by: Xcerllentform | October 21, 2008 8:36 PM
Frank - do you ever post any responses or are the IT guys on their coffee break?
Bobby,
Clinton's handling of the 1993 WTC bombing would be the equivalent to the FDR having had the Japanese pilots that bombed Pearl Harbor arrested, tried and imprisoned. Wouldn't have solved the situation?
President Bush went after the cause, not just the symptom. Bush handled his WTC bombing, and its aftermath, much better than Clinton.
Jacks,
McCain didn't sign any Declaration of War, becaue the President did not ask for one. It is Congress's responsibility to declare war only after the president has declared it.
As for Somalia, the mission in Somalia was one of Meals on Wheels and not one of the military. The military primary use should be to kill the enemy. And if you are going to use the military, don't be cheap about it - we saw that initially in Iraq - pre-surge and we saw it in Somalia. I don't blame Senator McCain asking to remove the troops from Somalia, since they weren't being fully supported by their commander-in-chief.
Posted by: Terry | October 21, 2008 8:49 PM
History is correct
Posted by: ornery | October 21, 2008 9:20 PM
Joe Biden says the election of Obama may lead to a new conflict, terrorist attack, or a third war. A careful analysis of history says he may be correct.
http://strategicthought-charles77.blogspot.com/2008/10/can-we-afford-third-war-that-obama.html
Posted by: charles | October 21, 2008 9:36 PM
Sorry Mr. James, your apology for Biden just doesn't cut it. Your's is just an effort to dodge the real issue. The most important part of Biden's speech was where he pleaded with the crowd to stand by Obama AFTER he failed the 'test', - "we need you stand by him because it will appear that he will be making an unpopular decision". In Biden-speak this means one of two things: Obama screwed up big-time and his approval ratings have tanked, or he will have to do the opposite of the intentions of all his left-wing supporters, (yourself included), and actually use American force, probably unilaterally God forbid, to protect American interests. What is so amazing is that this admission of weakness comes from this running mate, the supposed next vice president, and instead of focusing on this fact the Tribune offers your apology disguised as a 'fact-based' commentary. Just like Joe the plumber, the Tribune's angle is to cover for Obama.
Posted by: Fred | October 22, 2008 9:32 AM
"Frank" compares Clinton to FDR. Bush's actions after 9/11 would have been like FDR responding to the attack on Pearl Harbor by invading Mexico.
Posted by: Greg | October 22, 2008 8:05 PM
It seems to me that Mr. Biden can't wait to walk up and down the Oval Office advicing the political newbie in a crisis. Hopefully Obama was not to serious about wanting Biden around if there will be a crisis.
At least I think Obama is more self-confident than Kennedy was.
Posted by: Andy Wolf | November 11, 2008 12:25 AM