A recent article appearing in the American Thinker discusses whether or not President Obama displays the characteristics of a beta male.
Recall that alpha males display traits of dominance and power.
Conversely, beta males typically display a desire to avoid confrontation.
Does it matter if President Obama is a beta male?
Many Americans seem to have been drawn to him due to such traits.
Possibly, many have grown tired of the alpha male tendencies of most of our recent presidents.
President Obama, unlike the alpha male leaders of most other countries, does not go about demanding that the world conform to what is in his own country’s best interest.
Instead, he tells rogue world leaders “we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.”
Obama displaying his beta male characteristics might serve him well in his own life. In fact, some people might decide that avoiding conflict in their personal lives leads to a greater degree of happiness.
To be certain, I have no problem with people taking this course of action in their own personal lives.
However, when the leader of the free world exercises his beta male characteristics, many are forced to accept the consequences.
The potential negative consequences of President Obama’s beta male tendencies can be seen in his encounters with Iran.
Earlier this year, the president had a rare opportunity to support the Iranians agitating for more freedoms.
Instead, the president remained silent in an attempt to avoid confrontation with the leaders of Iran.
The president has told us he strongly believes in international law.
In fact, before the UN General Assembly President Obama said, “The world must stand together to demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise, and that treaties will be enforced.”
The president apparently forgot UN Security Council Resolution 1696 which requires Iran to “suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development.”
You might recall that representatives of both the United States and Iran met October 1 in order to discuss the threat posed by increasing Iranian nuclear capabilities.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the two nations had reportedly come to a preliminary agreement.
The “agreement in principle” would allow Iran to send low enriched uranium to Russia in order to be processed.
As can be seen, this agreement actually breaks Resolution 1696.
That sounds like international law really is an “empty promise.”
It certainly isn’t the enforcement of international law.
Not even the fact that Iran has admitted to operating a previously unreported nuclear facility has caused President Obama to take a firm stance against Iran.
Without question, the president tries to talk tough.
Concerning the new nuclear facility, Obama said, “The existence of the facility underscores Iran’s continuing unwillingness to meet its obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions and IAEA requirements.”
Once again, the president deflected conflict.
He tells us that this proves that Iran has consistently failed to meet its obligations; however, he will do next to nothing to stop it.
If President Obama hoped to bargain with the Russians in order to gain their aid in stopping Iran, he certainly did not do himself any favors.
The best potential bargaining chips were given to Russia for nothing.
The bargaining chips, of course, were the missile defense shields which were slated to be placed in both the Czech Republic and Poland.
In prototypical beta male fashion, President Obama tried to avoid potential conflict with Russia by forgoing missile defense.
In order to pacify the leaders of Iran, he has not supported dissidents.
Perhaps most dangerous to the security of the United States is the president’s unwillingness to take a tough stand on keeping nuclear weapons technology out of the hands of the Iranians.
At some point, the president must realize that avoiding conflict with other countries will not necessarily make them like us.
Many countries will never like us no matter what we do. It is not that their leaders hate us simply because of how our leaders conduct foreign policy.
Instead, leaders of rogue nations, such as Iran, are fearful of the United States because of our numerous freedoms.
It seems as though an alpha male would demand that Iran give up its nuclear program since it is against both international law and what is best for the United States.
Such a leader would also support doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the Iranians do not gain such technology.
Unfortunately, President Obama will continue to appease our enemies by avoiding and deflecting conflict.
The president’s beta male characteristics may have made him an attractive public figure.
However, these same characteristics will continue to put our country, as well as the entire free world, in grave danger.
--As Appeared in The Daily Mississippian on Thursday, October 15, 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment