Cuba

The Sad Reality About Ukraine: History Against Military Intervention!

Ronald 2 Comments

The right wing is already busy at work attacking President Obama, regarding the decision of Russian leader Vladamir Putin to intervene militarily in Ukraine, putting Russian forces in Crimea, the portion of Ukraine with a majority of Russians, and the center of the Black Sea seaport crucial to the Russian navy, and an important “warm water” port for Russia during the long winters in that nation.

All of us can condemn and deplore this event, and be sad about it to the extreme. But it is not at all surprising in reality, as to expect that Russia would allow an anti Russian government, at least in that part of Ukraine, is living in a dream world!

Major nations who have the power and numbers, historically, do NOT allow their neighbors to be unfriendly or rivals of their nation. Every nation pursues a policy in foreign affairs based on its national interest, and what is possible.

This has been part of the reality of America, as well as the old Soviet Union, China, and any other nation, when they have power and influence, and bemoaned when they do not!

The United States has been fortunate enough to have “weak” direct neighbors in Canada and Mexico, and we have been willing to intervene in Mexico when we have not appreciated their governments or policies, as in the 1840s and in the 1910s.

Yes, we have had Mexico as a “problem” at times since, with undocumented immigrants and drug dealings, but at least we have had a friendly government in Mexico, willing to work with us, and on the same page generally on most issues.

The closest we have had to a national security matter is, of course, Cuba, and we went to the brink in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, and while the Castro brothers still control that island, even today, they are no direct menace to us, and if they were seen as such, we could still use our power to intervene.

So, looking at that reality, that nations with power will use it for their benefit, to have an non-antagonistic direct neighbor on their border, and with economic advantages also a consideration, along with defense and naval matters, there is, sadly, little we can do about Ukraine, except hope for a minimal involvement in that nation by the Russians, but the thought of a military or nuclear response is totally insane, and could not be utilized!

Keep in mind that President Dwight D. Eisenhower could do nothing about Soviet involvement in its neighbors, Poland, East Germany, and Hungary, and neither could Lyndon B. Johnson do anything about Soviet involvement in Czechoslovakia!

The Barack Obama–Raul Castro Handshake: Much Ado Over Nothing!

Ronald 3 Comments

While at the Nelson Mandela commemoration in South Africa, Barack Obama had an opportunity to meet dozens of world leaders, some of them from democracies, and some from dictatorships.

Unfortunately, dictatorships are much more common historically and in contemporary times, than are democracies.

Richard Nixon went to China and met Mao Tse Tung.

Dwight D. Eisenhower met Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at Camp David, and John F. Kennedy met Khrushchev in Vienna.

Ronald Reagan met Afghan freedom fighters, who later became involved in promoting terrorism, including September 11.

John McCain met Moammar Gaddafi of Libya, and shook his hand.

Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein of Iraq as a emissary from Ronald Reagan.

Also, many Presidents have bowed to royal leaders, including George W. Bush with the King of Saudi Arabia, and many Presidents with the Emperor of Japan and the Queen of England.

Never was such a big deal made of these handshakes or discussions, and even summits, until suddenly, Barack Obama became President!

When he met Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, it was the worst crime of the century to the right wing whackos!

Now, Obama shook the hand of Raul Castro, who has made it clear that he is leaving power in 2018, when he will be 87, and his brother Fidel Castro, will be 92, if either is still alive.

There will be a successor government in Cuba within a few years, and there is always the chance that Cuba could undergo change and reform, and in fact, already has developed capitalism and private property, as China, for instance, has done.

Has our government, under Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, refused to deal with “evil” governments? NO in the modern era, and we are talking with Iran and North Korea at times, so why not Cuba?

After 55 years, has the embargo on Cuba changed anything in that island nation? NO, as it unites the government with its population, who are the true victims of the American blockade!

Do we blockade trade and contact with other nations of much greater importance? The answer is NO, but apparently, we must cater to three million Cuban Americans, and their leadership in the Republican Party, when it benefits no one, and is a failed policy!

It is time for rapprochement with Cuba, so that we can have an effect on its future. This is the time to start such development of relations, and forget the lobbying of right wing groups and Marco Rubio, who have no interest in planning for the future without a Castro in power!

60th Anniversary Of Castro Revolution In Cuba: What Is The Future?

Ronald 4 Comments

60 years ago on this day, Fidel Castro led a failed attempt to seize an army barracks, which is marked as the beginning of his revolutionary uprising against Fulgencio Batista, leading after five and a half years of struggle to his seizure of power in Havana on January 1, 1959.

Fidel Castro gave up power due to medical problems in 2006, after 47 plus years of leadership, but his brother Raul succeeded him, and the Castro dynasty is still in power in Cuba after 54 and a half years, and Fidel Castro will be 87 years of age nest month, and is reported in good health.

Fidel Castro, as evil a man as he is, will go down as the most significant Latin American government leader of the past century of history, with only Juan Peron of Argentina a weak second behind him.

The effect of Cuba on the international scene has been massive, considering the fact that Cuba never made a dent in world affairs before Castro, and we nearly had nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union 51 years ago, a year and a half after a failed American attempt to use Cuban exiles to overthrow him in the Bay of Pigs fiasco!

And our domestic politics has been profoundly affected by the loyalty of the few million Cuban Americans to the Republican Party, making them a distinct Hispanic group in their political behavior, particularly in Florida!

We have also seen three Cuban US Senators–Robert Menendez of New Jersey, Marco Rubio of Florida, and Ted Cruz of Texas–who have a great impact in the US Senate, as well as a few in the House of Representatives. Menendez is the lone Cuban Democrat who has made it to a prominent position, Chairman of The Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

The question is what will happen when Fidel and Raul Castro leave the scene, at least officially in 2018, according to the plans of Raul Castro to retire. How will Cuba evolve, and how will the United States react to change in Cuba? Will democracy develop in Cuba or come about by a new revolution, or will the Castro influence and Communism persist in Cuba?

This island, just 90 miles from the Florida Keys, will become the center of world politics again very soon, and what happens there will affect America domestically and in foreign affairs for the long term future, just as it has for the past six decades!

The Castro brothers have managed to survive in power through the terms of 11 Presidents from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Barack Obama! It is an amazing story just by that reality!

Celebrities And International Affairs: Ignore Them!

Ronald 5 Comments

In the last few days, we have seen a number of “celebrities” become engaged in international affairs actions and commentaries, an embarrassment to themselves and America.

These include:

National Basketball Hall of Fame player Dennis Rodman
Actor Sean Penn
Director Oliver Stone
New York Congressman Jose Serrano

It is inadvisable for public celebrities in sports and the entertainment industry to speak up in support of anti American foreign dictators, as the first three have done, with Rodman trying to play the role of a “diplomat” with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un, a man who has been developing nuclear weapons and threatening his neighbors; and Sean Penn and Oliver Stone publicly mourning the death of Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, a person they call a “good friend”, despite his collaboration with Moammar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other enemies of the United States.

It is also reckless and loony that Congressman Jose Serrano should act as if Chavez was good for his people, and to ignore Chavez’ s rants and raves against both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

Of course, nothing can or should be done about these utterances and statements, as we all have freedom of speech, but any decent American should repudiate these people and their irresponsible and toxic behavior!

Florida Senator Marco Rubio: His Record Not A Positive One For The Presidency In 2016!

Ronald 30 Comments

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is very charismatic, handsome, youthful, and charming, and Time Magazine called him “The Republican Savior”.

Then he gave the response to the State of the Union Address, and showed total hypocrisy when he stated that government gets in the way, and cannot solve people’s problems or help them in a major way.

But then, he also said in the same speech that he would never have finished his own education without the federal government loans program, and that his mother depended on Medicare for her health care, although now the federal government should be cutting both programs and others as well.

In so doing, being contradictory, Marco Rubio messed up his chance to be impressive, just as Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana and the same age as Rubio, did when he responded to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

And when one examines the Rubio record, he discovers the following facts:

Rubio has had huge personal debt problems and was implicated in a political credit card scandal.

Rubio has lied and exaggerated about his family history, including the idea that his grandfather escaped Fidel Castro and Cuba, when he actually migrated in 1957, when Fulgencio Basista was still in power.

Rubio backed Florida Governor Rick Scott in his scheme to limit the hours and participation of voters in the Sunshine State.

Rubio voted against the extension of the Violence Against Women Act.

Rubio has been involved in support of groups that are vehemently anti gay rights and marriage.

Rubio supported a bill to allow employers to deny birth control insurance coverage to employees.

Rubio has called for Defense Secretary nominee Chuck Hagel to withdraw, denying President Obama the right to select his own cabinet officers, as long as there is no corruption involved.

Rubio has denied science, questioning climate change and evolution

Rubio signed the Grover Norquist tax pledge.

And the list of faults and shortcomings goes on beyond this short list above, and disqualifies Marco Rubio as a serious Presidential nominee in 2016.

And yet, when compared to Jindal, Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, and many others, Rubio probably has a better chance to be the GOP nominee in 2016, and lose to Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, or whoever else the Democrats nominate!

America’s Underappreciated Presidents—James K. Polk, Grover Cleveland, William Howard Taft, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush

Ronald Leave a comment

With Presidents Day celebrated on Monday, this is a good time to reflect on which Presidents are underappreciated for their contributions in the White House.

Five Presidents, four of them having only one term, and three of them soundly defeated for reelection, are often overlooked in an unfair manner.

These five underappreciated Presidents are as follows, chronologically:

James K. Polk (1845-1849), Democrat—-who did not wish a second term in office, died only three months after his term of office, but accomplished more than any President, regarding expansion of the nation, as he negotiated the gaining of the Pacific Northwest with Great Britain, and went to war with Mexico to gain the Southwestern United States. Because of Polk, highly controversial due to his manipulation of conditions setting up war with Mexico, and often criticized as an “imperialist”, we gained more land than any other President, including Thomas Jefferson with his Louisiana Purchase.

Grover Cleveland (1885-1889, 1893-1897), Democrat—-the only two term non consecutive terms President, although winning the popular vote three consecutive times, Cleveland accomplished the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act, promoted civil service reform, and became regarded as a man of strong principles, including refusing to take over Hawaii, after a treaty was negotiated by the previous President, Benjamin Harrison. A rare President on the concept of opposing the addition of territory to the United States, he refused to go to war with Spain over the issue of Cuba in his second term, and opposed the Spanish American War and the Filipino Insurrection intervention under William McKinley, standing out as a leading anti imperialist.

William Howard Taft (1909-1913), Republican—-was unfortunate in coming in between two very charismatic Presidents, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, both of whom would end up ranked in the top ten of all Presidents, in most polls of experts on the Presidency. Taft also was the worst defeated President running for reelection, competing against both TR and Wilson, and ended up third, rather than second in defeat, and winning only 23 percent of the vote, two states, and eight electoral votes. But he deserved better, and did have the distinction of becoming Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the 1920s, where he was much happier. But Taft actually signed a highly successful regulation of the railroads, the Mann Elkins Act of 1910; won lawsuits causing the breakup of the monopolies of Standard Oil, United States Steel, and International Harvester; and supported two constitutional amendments, the 16th (Federal Income Tax) Amendment, and the 17th (Direct Election of United States Senators) Amendment.

Jimmy Carter (1977-1981), Democrat—served one divisive term, defeated for reelection by Ronald Reagan, due to the Iran Hostage Crisis, high inflation and unemployment, and the Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan, and faced primary challenges from Ted Kennedy and Jerry Brown. But he accomplished the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt; the Panama Canal Treaty; the promotion of the principle of human rights in foreign policy; the advancement of the environment, making him the third best President on that issue; and creation of three cabinet agencies–Health and Human Services, Education, and Energy. And his post Presidency, now the longest in American history, has been a model for Bill Clinton’s post Presidency, and Carter continues to promote human rights and economic and social reform nationally and world wide, and is often considered the best former President of the United States in American history.

George H. W. Bush (1989-1993), Republican—the second worst defeated President in American history, despite having led the coalition which forced Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, lessening a threat to the Middle East oil supply and the government of Saudi Arabia, in the Persian Gulf War of 1991; being the President under whom the Cold War came to an end in a stable manner in 1991; managing the unification of Germany between 1989 and 1990 in a skillful manner; and promoting the passage of civil rights law for the disabled population of America, a major reform in American history. Bush was always considered a master in the field of foreign policy, and for years after, had an impact on policy making through his significant staff members, who continued to have an impact.

All five Presidents deserve a better coverage and appreciation, despite the fact that each could be roundly criticized for events that would cause them to be overlooked as outstanding Presidents. Presidents Day is an appropriate time to do so!

The Coming Battle For The Hispanic Republican Leadership: Marco Rubio Of Florida Vs. Ted Cruz Of Texas

Ronald 2 Comments

Florida Senator Marco Rubio is gaining the spotlight next Tuesday evening, when he is commissioned by Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to deliver the Republican Party response to the State of the Union Address of President Barack Obama.

Rubio is young, good looking, charming, charismatic, and represents the Sunshine State, which sometime late in this decade will surpass New York in population and become the third largest state. In addition, it is a “swing state”, arguably the most important if the Republicans are ever to recover from their last two defeats for President, and losing the popular vote in five of the past six elections. And Rubio is clearly planning to run for President. So his response to the State of the Union Address will be crucial to his campaign to build up his image.

But as he becomes seen as the “savior” of the Republican Party, as Time Magazine terms it, he will have another Hispanic Senator, like Rubio a Cuban American, as a rival, who comes from a state much larger in population and in land area, and that is newly minted Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, second in land area to Alaska and second in population to California, and four and a half times the land area of Florida.

Cruz, just 17 months older than Rubio, clearly has his own Presidential plans in the future, and he is much more willing to be openly aggressive in his rhetoric and behavior than Rubio, who tends to be more gentlemanly by nature. Cruz is like a bull in a China shop, and does not care what anyone thinks, because he is an open Tea Party activist, while Rubio is only loosely connected to that right wing movement.

Rubio is diplomatic compared to Cruz, who is less than tactful in just a short time in the Senate, going on the offensive, not being a quiet freshman in the Senate. Cruz was born in Canada, but claims he can run for President, an issue which would have to be investigated further for its validity, particularly when Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but has had his native citizenship questioned because his father was Kenyan. Cruz is an “in your face” type, and his arrogance is likely to cause him to have fewer friends in the Senate than Rubio.

So Cruz cannot help but wish that Rubio “falls on his face”, as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal did in delivering the response to the State of the Union Address in 2009.

The irony though is that both Rubio and Cruz represent only three percent of Hispanics, and their conservative ideology is highly unlikely to draw Mexican American support (almost two thirds of all Hispanics in America) or Puerto Rican support ( the second highest percentage among Hispanics with a little over 9 percent), something that they seem not to understand.

So it really does not matter what happens with Rubio and Cruz and their Presidential ambitions, as it is clear that the vast majority of Hispanics will continue to vote Democratic over the long haul. A sign of this is that even the Cuban American population, traditionally Republican because of Fidel Castro, is starting to move in the direction of the Democratic Party, at least among the younger generation which has no memory or experience in fleeing Communist Cuba under Castro control for the past 54 plus years!

The Republican “Youth Brigade”: Unqualified For The Presidency!

Ronald 15 Comments

The Republican Party, which has usually gone to its “veterans” to find its Presidential nominee (George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney)—the only recent exception being George W. Bush (a clear cut mistake)— is now putting forward its “youth brigade” of four political leaders born in the early 1970s, meaning they would all be between 45 and 47 when running for President in 2016.

This “youth brigade” may be appealing in appearance, and in the ability to speak well, but none of them have the vision nor the understanding of where America is moving in the second decade of the 21st century!

The four in order of birth are:

Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin
Senator Ted Cruz of Texas
Senator Marco Rubio of Florida
Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana

Ryan had his exposure as the Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, and came up wanting in many respects, plus his destructive plan to destroy Medicare and Medicaid.

Ted Cruz has only been in the Senate for little more than a month, and already, heads are shaking and eyes rolling at his total inability to impress anyone that he has any understanding of what is happening in America.

Marco Rubio, himself the grandson of an “undocumented” immigrant, who was allowed to stay because he was Cuban, the only Hispanic group given special treatment by the US government in the 1960s and beyond, has shown that he is not aware of science, has a closed mind on many social matters involving women, is unwilling to challenge the far right of his party in any serious way, and is gaining a growing ego about his abilities, based on the attention he is receiving, including Time Magazine having a cover this week, calling him the savior of the GOP, this right before he gives the response to the State of the Union Address of Barack Obama next Tuesday evening. The burden on him to be impressive next week is now extremely heavy.

And Bobby Jindal had the chance to prove his ability, when he responded to the Obama State of the Union Address four years ago, and came across as a total failure and embarrassment.. And his lack of compassion about the poor, the sick, and the disadvantaged in his state, one of the most backward of all of the 50 states, does him no favor. Additionally, he has said the Republican Party has to stop being the “stupid” party, and then goes ahead and does “stupid ” things in his state, that make him look less than intelligent and able to handle the Presidency, and understand the life of real people, other than the wealthy!

Three of these four members of the “Youth Brigade” are “minorities”—Cruz and Rubio, both Cuban Americans, and Jindal being the son of parents from India. But to say that their ethnicity “qualifies” them to be President is preposterous—as Cuban Americans represent about THREE percent of Hispanics and Latinos, and Cubans have a heritage of totally different views and voting patterns than others who are from Latin America; and even Asian Americans, whether from India or other parts of South Asia, or those from East Asia and the Far East, also voted an even higher percentage for the Democrats than Hispanics and Latinos—73 percent, compared to 71 percent!

If the “Youth Brigade” is thought to be the hope of the GOP to turn things around for the party, the leadership will learn over the next four years that they are sadly, and tragically, misguided!

As John Kerry Becomes Secretary Of State, An Assessment Of The Most Influential Secretaries Of State In American History

Ronald 25 Comments

With Hillary Clinton leaving the State Department, and John Kerry becoming the 68th Secretary of State, it is a good time to assess who are the most influential Secretaries of State we have had in American history.

Notice I say “most influential”, rather than “best”, as that is a better way to judge diplomatic leadership in the State Department.

Without ranking them, which is very difficult, we will examine the Secretaries of State who have had the greatest impact, in chronological order:

Thomas Jefferson (1789-1793) under President George Washington—set the standard for the department, and was probably the most brilliant man ever to head the State Department.

John Quincy Adams (1825-1829) under President James Monroe—brought about the Monroe Doctrine, treaties with Canada, and the acquisition of Florida.

William H. Seward (1861-1869) under Presidents Abraham Lincoln and Andrew Johnson—brought about the neutrality of Great Britain and France in the Civil War, and purchased Alaska from Czarist Russia, a fortunate development.

Hamilton Fish (1869-1877) under President Ulysses S. Grant—involved in many diplomatic issues in Latin America, had America become more engaged in Hawaii, and settled differences with Great Britain, and often considered the major bright spot in the tragic Grant Presidency.

James G. Blaine (1881, 1889-1892) under Presidents James A. Garfield and Chester Alan Arthur briefly, and full term under President Benjamin Harrison—helped to bring about eventual takeover of Hawaii, and promoted the concept of a canal in Central America.

John Hay (1898-1905) under Presidents William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt—-involved in the issues after the Spanish American War, including involvement in the Philippines, Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and a major influence over TR’s diplomatic initiatives in his first term.

Elihu Root (1905-1909) under President Theodore Roosevelt—-a great influence in TR’s growing involvement in world affairs in his second term in office.

Robert Lansing (1915-1920) under President Woodrow Wilson—a major player in American entrance in World War I and at the Versailles Peace Conference.

Charles Evan Hughes (1921-1925) under Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge—-had major role in Washington Naval Agreements in 1922.

Henry Stimson (1929-1933) under President Herbert Hoover—-was a major critic of Japanese expansion, as expressed in the Stimson Doctrine of 1932.

Cordell Hull (1933-1944) under President Franklin D. Roosevelt—-was the longest lasting Secretary of State, nearly the whole term of FDR, and very much involved in all of the President’s foreign policy decisions.

Dean Acheson (1949-1953) under President Harry Truman—-involved in the major decisions of the early Cold War, including the Korean War intervention.

John Foster Dulles (1953-1959) under President Dwight D. Eisenhower—had controversial views on Cold War policy with the Soviet Union, including “massive retaliation”.

Dean Rusk (1961-1969) under Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson—highly controversial advocate of the Vietnam War escalation, but served under the complete terms of two Presidents, and never backed away from his views on the Cold War.

Henry Kissinger (1973-1977) under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford—-easily one of the most influential figures in the shaping of foreign policy in American history, earlier having served as National Security Adviser.

George Shultz, (1982-1989) under President Ronald Reagan—-very close adviser to the President on his major foreign policy initiatives.

James Baker (1989-1992) under President George H. W. Bush—very significant in Persian Gulf War and end of Cold War policies.

Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) under President Bill Clinton—-first woman Secretary of State and played major role in many issues that arose.

Colin Powell (2001-2005) under President George W. Bush—-involved in the justification of the Iraq War based on Weapons of Mass Destruction, which undermined his reputation because of the lack of evidence on WMDs.

Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009) under President George W. Bush—second woman Secretary of State and intimately involved in policy making.

Hillary Clinton (2009-2013) under President Barack Obama—third woman Secretary of State, and hailed by most as a major contributor to Obama’s foreign policy initiatives.

This is a list of 21 out of the 68 Secretaries of State, but also there are 15 other Secretaries of State who were influential historical figures, including:

John Marshall
James Madison
James Monroe
Henry Clay
Martin Van Buren
Daniel Webster
John C. Calhoun
James Buchanan
Lewis Cass
William Jennings Bryan
George Marshall
Cyrus Vance
Edmund Muskie
Alexander Haig
Warren Christopher

So a total of 36 out of 68 Secretaries of State have been major figures in American history, and contributed to the diplomatic development of the United States in world affairs!

Reelected Presidents And Foreign Policy

Ronald Leave a comment

An interesting trend of reelected American Presidents is their tendency to become deeply involved in foreign policy matters. This is true since the dawn of America as a world leader in the time of Theodore Roosevelt.

The question is whether this is a planned strategy, or a simple reaction to events, or both.

After Theodore Roosevelt won his full term, having succeeded William McKinley after his assassination, TR became involved in aggressive policy making, criticizing Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany over Morocco at the Algeciras Conference of 1906, and taking leadership of relations with Japan.

Woodrow Wilson, after keeping us out of war in Europe, called for our entrance into World War I a month after his second inauguration, and then went to the Versailles Peace Conference after the war, and worked, unsuccessfully, to convince the US Senate to ratify the Versailles Treaty and membership in the League of Nations. He also committed troops, along with Great Britain, France, Italy, and Japan, to attempt an overthrow of the Soviet Union regime under Nikolai Lenin.

Calvin Coolidge, elected after succeeding Warren G. Harding in 1923, became involved in the promotion of the Kellogg Briand Pact in 1928, an attempt to outlaw war as an instrument of international policy.

Franklin D. Roosevelt moved the nation closer to dealing with the German Nazi, Italian Fascist, and the Imperial Japanese threat before and during the early part of the Second World War, and then took us into the war after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in his third term, and pushed for an alliance with the British and the Soviet Union during the war, and advocated the formation of the United Nations as the war was ending.

Harry Truman, after succeeding FDR upon his death in 1945, and winning his own election in 1948, helped to form the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, took America into the Korean War, and gave aid to the French in the Indochinese War.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, in his second term, engaged in diplomacy with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev at Camp David in 1959 and secretly planned to overthrow Cuban leader Fidel Castro.

Lyndon B. Johnson, after succeeding the assassinated John F, Kennedy in 1963, in his full term, escalated American involvement in Vietnam to a full scale war that divided the country, and invaded the Dominican Republic in 1965.

Richard Nixon, after being reelected, became engaged in the Yom Kippur War in 1973, saving the possibility of a Soviet intervention in the Middle East, and also arranged the overthrow of the Chilean President, Salvador Allende.

Ronald Reagan, in his second term, engaged in arms agreements with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev; bombed Libya over its claim of a 200 mile territorial limit; and supported overthrow of dictatorial regimes in Haiti and the Phillippines.

Bill Clinton, in his second term, brought about peace in Northern Ireland; became engaged in war against Serbia over Kosovo; and engaged in counter terrorism actions against Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists.

George W. Bush, in his second term, conducted a “surge” in Iraq, and promoted action against the HIV-AIDS epidemic in Africa.

The question is what Barack Obama will end up doing in the field of foreign policy, and whether he will initiate it, or react to events he cannot control.