Pickup basketball: Playin' defense

In pickup basketball, offense is as unpredictable as a dinner date with Ron Artest. (That's just a wild assumption, by the way. I've never actually had a dinner date with Ron Artest. As far as you know.) Some nights your teammates won't pass the ball, other nights you might not hit your shots. There are a lot of unknowns on offense.

But you can almost always play consistent defense.

Defense isn't about natural physical skills. It's about focus and effort. That's why guys like Bruce Bowen and Raja Bell -- fairly average NBA athletes -- were able to become elite defensive players.

Several years ago, I decided I wanted to become a better defensive player. This attitude is pretty rare in pickup ball. After all, it's the first team to 11 points, not 11 steals, right? But trust me, you can swing games by playing great defense.

Here are the defensive principles I live by:

Commit to defense: The majority of pickup ballers are pretty lackadaisical on defense. In most cases, the only time they actually try is when their man has the ball during a halfcourt set. They jog back in transition and they space out when their man isn't directly involved in the current play. This behavior results in easy baskets for the other team. Consistent effort results in stops.

Committing to defense is step number one to becoming a better defender.

Develop the proper defensive stance: This is step number two. Here are the 10 keys to a great defensive stance from Breakthrough Basketball:

1. Fronts of the Feet - Most of your weight should be on the fronts or balls of your feet and the majority of the weight should be on the big toes. Heel should still be in contact with the ground.

2. Wide Base & Feet Turned Slightly In - Your feet should be pointing straight ahead or slightly turned in (pigeon-toed). This creates an angle that allows you to provide more force against the ground. In the picture to the right, the feet are bowed out which is improper form.

Your feet should also be slightly wider than shoulder width apart.

3. Hips Back & Knees Bent - Butt should be behind the heels and your knees should be pointing forward, but not past the toes.

4. Knees Inside of Feet - This helps create better push-off power.

5. Butt Down - Staying low helps maintain balance.

6. Shoulders Over Knees - Your shoulders should be over your knees with your chest out and back straight or slightly arched.

7. Hands up - Depending on the tactic (Hands out or hand up to defend shot/dribble).

8. Eyes focused on the player's waist or chest.

9. You should be able to draw a vertical line from the front of your forehead thru the front of your knees thru the front of your toes.

10. All of this should create GREAT BALANCE.

Watch your man's midsection: No, not to admire his six-pack abs. This is a follow up to step 8 of a great defensive stance. Watching the midsection is the best way to determine which direction he's moving. That way, you won't get tricked by ball fakes, head fakes or foot fakes.

Play off-the-ball defense: Karate Kid III taught us that "If a man can't stand, he can't fight." Similarly, if a man doesn't have the ball, he can't score. Chase your man all over the floor. Deny him possession whenever possible. This doesn't always work in the NBA because coaches are able to write up plays that free up their players, and the players are good enough to execute those plays. Pickup basketball isn't that organized. With the right amount of effort and intensity, you handicap your man by limiting his shot attempts.

To do this, pay close attention to the ball-man line. That's what coaches refer to as the imaginary line between the ball and your man. Do your best to a) stay between that line and the basket and b) impede that line so that your man can't easily receive the ball.

Sprint back on defense: It's amazing how many buckets you can stop by doing this. I can't tell you how many two-on-ones and even three-on-ones I've stuffed just by getting my ass back in transition. Remember, this isn't the NBA. There's no guarantee a pickup baller is going to finish a fast break.

Block out: They call them "defensive rebounds" for a reason, people. Rebounding is the final step of a successful defensive play. When the ball goes up, put your body between your man and the basket and make contact so he can't get around you. It's as simple as that. But you'd be surprised how many people can't or won't do it.

Grab rebounds with two hands: Dr. J was the master of the one-handed rebound. When he did it, it looked fucking cool. Guess what? You aren't Dr. J. Don't try to one-hand the rebound. Don't tap at it. Go after it and grab it with two hands.

Jump to the pass: Whenever somebody passes teh ball, take a few quick steps in the direction the pass was thrown. This will put you in the proper position to stop your man if he cuts to the basket or help a teammate who gets beaten off the dribble.

Call out picks: Seriously. Your teammates need to know.

Fight through picks: A lot of people get stopped cold by picks...or they stop themselves cold. Seriously, a lot of people hit the pick and then give up on the play. Fight through it. Again, this isn't the NBA. You can get through that pick.

Pressure your man when he has the ball: Make him work. Make him think. And whatever you do, don't keep backing up and letting him move to his sweet spots. Never concede anything. The harder you make life for the man with the basketball, the better the chance your team gets a stop.

When pressuring your man, keep your hand up and active so he can't see the court, shoot an open shot or make an easy pass.

Stay between your man and the basket: That's where he's trying to go. On that subject...

Slide your feet: When guarding a man who's dribbling the ball, step sideways with the lead foot (the foot closest to the direction you want to go), then push off with your trail foot. Keep your feet in contact with the floor. Stay in a low stance and keep your feet wide. Make quick slides.

Deny the middle at all costs: Always keep your inside foot high to deny dribble penetration toward the middle of the court. Overplay toward the middle to force your man baseline. This way, the baseline becomes an "extra" defender. The backboard can also become an extra defender if you force yoru man to dribble partially behind it.

Get in your man's shot pocket: Never heard of the shot pocket? Here's the definition: The position the basketball is in when a player begins his jumpshot. Typically, the ball is "in the shot pocket" when all parts of the shooting arm -- upper, lower, hand, and two shooting fingers (index and middle) -- are in a vertical plain to the side of the face, out in front of shoulder.

If you keep a hand inside your man's shot pocket, he's going to have to move the ball around your hand in order to shoot. This effectively takes him out of his natural shooting motion. Muscle memory is a key component of shooting, so making a player shoot in an unusual way often results in a missed shot.

Contest every shot: But do it the smart way: Stay on your feet and keep your hands up.

Do some scouting: Remember: Most pickup ballers have limited skill sets. They probably have only one or two moves. They can only hit a few pet shots. You should be able to figure out what someone's tendencies are after a handful of games. Once you know what they like to do, you can stop them.

My buddy Mister P loves to shoot threes from a specific spot. I always put extra pressure on him when he's near that spot. He also has this move where he takes on hard dribble to the right, comes back to the left and then pulls up for a jumper. When he's going into that motion, I overplay him left because I know he wants to come back that way. It disrupts the move and he usually has to pass the ball away.

Guard everybody: I don't care if your man isn't an offensive threat. D him up anyway. Why give somebody an open shot? Even bad players hit the occasional jumper. Or they earn garbage points -- open layups or putbacks -- because their defender isn't paying attention. I've been on teams that lost because bad players were given the green light. Many times. On the flip side, putting intense pressure on lousy players can cause turnovers. That's a better outcome, right?

Avoid All-Star Defense: Blocked shots and steals. There are people who think these are the only defensive plays that can be made. Blocking lots of shots or grabbing a lot of steals help make people an All-Star in the NBA. They also make SportsCenter. But fundamental defense rarely results in blocks or steals. Going for them, on the other hand, will get you beat. I play with guys who love to gamble for steals so they can go the other way for an easy bucket. Unfortunately, more often than not, the team defense gets disrupted by their wild gambles.

Worst of Game 4 of the 2010 WCFs

Strong bench play led to even stronger man love in Phoenix last night.
The Los Angeles Lakers: Last night, I got to watch the game with long-time commenter and site contributor Wild Yams. To my dismay, I found out that he's a pretty cool and intelligent guy despite being a Lakers fan. It was kind of like meeting a serial killer who donates to charity and volunteers at the local homeless shelter. But it was a good time nonetheless...even better because the Suns won the game.

Let me be frank: I expected the Suns to lose this one. I did. I figured that, in Game 3, they made the only adjustment they could make...going to the zone defense. That and Amar''''''e Stoudemire went bonkers. To me, it was a gimmick win, something that couldn't be duplicated.

And it wasn't. Turns out, it didn't have to be.

Going into Game 4, I felt there was no way Phoenix could be the Lakers straight up. The Suns apparently felt otherwise. Mind you -- unlike Boston's stink bomb in Game 4 of their series against the Magic -- the Lakers didn't play poorly. They scored 106 points on 50 percent shooting and committed only 7 turnovers for a mere 4 points going the other way. L.A. outscored the Suns 42-32 in the paint and held the run-and-gunners to only 6 fast break points.

And of course Kobe had one of "those" games: 38 points, 15-for-22, 6-for-9 from downtown, 10 assists, and 7 rebounds. That's the kind of stat line you usually associate with LeBron James...the kind of line that LeBron fans use as evidence that James is in fact better than Bryant.

But it wasn't enough.

The Suns -- so much weaker up front than the Lakers -- won the rebounding battle 51-36, including 18-13 on the offensive glass. Think about that. Did you think this Phoenix team could ever grab 18 offensive rebounds against this L.A. team? If you said yes, I'm calling shenanigans. But sometimes rebounding is simply about wanting the ball more than the other guy. And get this: Steve Nash finished with almost as many boards (4) as Pau Gasol (5). What does that tell you?

In addition to their rebounding deficit, the Lakers could not handle the Phoenix bench. That's right: The Suns' much-maligned reserves rose from their mass grave to score 54 points on 20-for-32, including 9-for-20 on threes. And check this. Here are the plus-minus scores of the Phoenix starters: Grant Hill (-3), STATUE (-5), Robin Lopez (-3), Nash (-9) and Jason Richardson (-4). The reserves: Channing Frye (+12), Leandro Barbosa (+13), Louis Amundson (+14), Jared Dudley (+12), Goran Dragic (+18), Jarron Collins (HA!).

TrueHoop's Kevin Arnovitz breaks down the Suns' bench play:


And because I want to, here's Dragic's sick layup around Fish and the Candyman:


Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that the bench players are better than the starters...even if Dragic was 27 points better than Nash on the night. But their effort and intensity changed the game. Frye -- who entered last night 1-for-20 for the series -- hit four treys, including a "Rally Monkey" shot in the fourth -- he drilled it right before the shot clock buzzer buzzed -- that was followed by threes from Barbosa and Dudley. Boom, boom, boom...and the Lakers never really recovered.


In terms of final tallies and raw numbers, the Suns' bench outscored L.A.'s pine riders 54-20 and outrebounded them 23-11. And as ESPN's J.A. Adande pointed out:

The unit of Frye, Dudley, Barbosa, Goran Dragic and Louis Amundson played the first seven minutes of the second quarter and turned a tie score into a 10-point lead even with Bryant on the floor for the Lakers. It was part of a 41-point second quarter. And after the Lakers won the third quarter it was that same unit for the Suns that played deep into the fourth and won the game on a night Amare Stoudemire scored only half of the 42 points he put up in Game 3 and Nash made only three of 11 shots.

L.A.'s defense: Well, let's see: They've given up 233 points over the last two games. In Game 4, the Suns scored 115 points, hit nearly 50 percent of their shots, and earned 32 free throw attempts.

Yeah, I'd say defense is a problem for the Lakers.

Of course, I've been beasting on the Lakers' D for a couple weeks now. It sure ain't what it was during the regular season, when L.A. ranked 4th in Defensive Rating. Now they rank 10th out of 16 playoff teams...giving up 111.1 points per 100 possessions. My take is that Andrew Bynum's general ineffectiveness is the root cause. With Gasol and Bynum at 100 percent and patrolling the paint, the rest of the Lakers could overcommit on their assignments without fear. After all, their two big men would swallow up anybody who got past them.

Well, Bynum has been hampered by a bum knee, and he isn't the defensive force he was. If L.A.'s perimeter defenders overcommit, opponents are getting to the rim or earning fouls. If they don't overcommit, guys are dumping in threes. And, well, there you have it.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe D isn't the problem. Let's see what Mamba has to say:

"Our defense could have been much better, I think."

"Coming up here, we lost a sense of urgency defensively. I think our concentration was focused on how to attack the zone."

"I think it kind of flipped our attention to detail defensively. Our focus was on the other side of the floor, which doesn't win championships. So we need to get back to ground zero when it comes to that."

"We lost the game because our defense sucked."

"Like I said, we've got to do a much better job defensively. Paying attention to [Phoenix's bench], all of them, and staying in front of your man and things like that."

"Looking forward to the challenge. I know my guys are. [We need] to get back to the basics of playing defense the right way."

"Our attention needs to be on the defensive end, period. That's second-chance opportunities [as well]."

"I was more aggressive in the second quarter. Felt the game slipping away, got going, make some shots [and] kept it going. But that has nothing to do with us getting to the next round. We can't -- offensively, we scored enough points. We've got to do a better job defensively, period."

"That's not what wins championships. Everybody wants to talk about the offensive side of the ball. It has nothing to do with it. Gotta defend."

And, well, there you have it.

L.A.'s offense: The Suns played a mix of man-to-man and zone...and the Lakers offense wasn't bad, per se. Like I said, they finished with 106 points and shot 50 percent. BUT...Phoneix again succeeded in seducing the Lakers into chucking an awful lot of jumpers. The result: L.A. attempted 28 three-pointers and only 13 free throw attempts. And as hot as Kobe was, he did most of his damage on contested jumpers of the "No, no, no...yes!" variety.

Is that a formula for success? I don't think so.

The Zen Master doesn't think there's a problem, nor does he think the Suns' zone is having an affect on his team's offense: "We shot 49 percent, didn't we? That's pretty good. Nothing wrong with that. I wouldn't say we're struggling against the zone. I think we're struggling at the defensive end. That's where I see it."

Maybe P-Jax watched a different game than I did, because I saw "clutch" three-point attempts by Ron Artest (1-for-5 on treys) and Lamar Odom (1-for-3 from distance) that bricked badly. I also saw Shannon Brown go 0-for-4 from way out there. Derek Fisher was 0-for-2 and also bricked a crunch time three.

For what it's worth, Bynum thinks he knows what the problem is: "It's the zone. We're settling for outside jump shots. They were out there moving that ball, they were confident playing at home and they really just shot the ball well. They had everybody spaced out so everybody's running around."

Hey, remember back in Games 1 and 2, when Phoenix was scoring points and shooting reasonably well but couldn't get it done? Isn't that basically what's happening to the Lakers right now? Sure, defense is L.A.'s biggest foil...but jacking up contested (and even contested) long-range jumpers sure hasn't helped their cause down the stretch in Games 3 and 4.

Reader comments: Here's where Basketbawful readers' voices can be heard, er, read:

From Miles:

As a Suns fan for decades, I can only say "That - was - effing - beautiful."

As a basketball fan for longer than that, I can only lament that the Phoenix Runs shot the ball unusually well when it counted (even for the the Runs), and that the Lakers blew it when it counted, and that I don't expect this trend to continue even for one more game this series. (Don't get me wrong, I'm still crossing my fingers).

Phil is too great a coach to let a defensively weak team like the Suns run all over his Lakers with zone defense for three games in a row, I doubt it will happen again.

Kobe, Gasol, Odom, Bynum, Fisher are too damn good to not put up a better combined performance for three games in a row, I doubt it will happen again.

The Suns bench, god bless them, are pretty good as far as benches go, but they PROBABLY won't have another 54 point game, and "Stat" PROBABLY won't have another 42 point game in this series.

I will weep like a baby if we can see Nash in the finals for the first time in his career, but I still can't help but think it's going to take a miracle.

Still, tell me you didn't jump out of your seat and spill chips and salsa all over your crotch when Frye hit that first tre.

From Heretic:

And the lakers do it again, pull out a bazooka and blast their own feet. This game is a prime example of why during the playoffs I prefer the aggressive Bryant than the passer. Took very few shots in the first quarter and his team still fucked it up. As talented as Gasol is, he's so soft that I'm surprised he hasn't been named "The Stay Puft Marshmallow Man". Wtf is it about Europe that produces the softest, most pillowy players on earth? I thought all the pussies were in France but apparently once a country joins the EU they're contractually obligated to remove the testicles of their basketball players.

Bryant pretty much bailed them out from a blow out. For god's sake the suns were playing the zone!! how hard is it to destroy zone defense? High school students can do it. Even if the lakers do end up winning this series they really don't deserve to. Schooled by a team that would have been legally labeled as midgets in 28 states. I honestly prefer to watch Bryant fire away from half court than watch Bynum trip over his own feet as he looks confusedly at the orange sphere in his hands.

The bench don't even warrant a discussion, its been long established that Phil Jackson has murdered them and replaced them with cardboard cut outs. Hopefully next season everyone one the bench with the exception of Odom have been traded (yes even Shannon Brown). Another game they could have easily won shot to pieces with the laker tommy gun of ineptitude.

From Karc:

The Lakers were totally owned tonight. That vaunted "length" of the Lakers got crushed on the boards (at least 50, including a gazillion offensive boards), got crushed by the Suns bench (at least 50 points), and were exposed in the second quarter, giving up 41 points to the Suns, despite having the "4th" ranked defense in the NBA. Note to Andrew Bynum, this is exactly why you do not look ahead to the Boston Celtics. You are not winning this series right now.

Hell, look at the trend. The Lakers scoring has been 128, 124, 109, 106. Meanwhile, the Suns score 107, 112, 118, and now 115. Their offense is getting better, and their defense is getting better. The LA media is going to freak. I love it.

Channing Frye, quote machine: How did that 1-for-20 shooting through three games affect him? Apparently, not at all: "I told you guys I'm just going to continue to shoot, and my teammates believed in me and I continued to just believe in myself. Why work so hard and why still be playing when it's almost June if you're not going to go out there and just have fun and let it ride?"

As for whether his confidence was shaken: "Come on, man, you're asking the wrong dude. My confidence is great every day. I'll be honest, last game I was what, 0-for-7? If I shot another seven I thought I was going to go 7-for-14."

Jared Dudley, quote machine: "You could tell right away tonight that they wanted to take away Amare (Stoudemire) early on. Once they did that, we just set up like target practice."

Obama Facilitates GE/Kremlin Ties

In the wake of President Barack Obama's abrupt decision to cave-in to the instragence of Vladimir Putin and shelve the Eastern European missile shield -thus abandoning the Czechs and Poles to the Kremlin's whims- a funny thing happened:

Once the White House announced they were axing the shield, Russia's government said PM Vladimir Putin would meet several U.S. executives today from firms including General Electric, Morgan Stanley, and TPG- one of the world's largest private equity firms

General Electric may be the company with the closest ties to the Obama administration (if not Goldman Sachs), and here we see the company benefiting from an sudden foreign policy change implemented by Barack Obama.

GE CEO Jeff Immelt sits on Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board, and GE owns MSNBC- you figure it out.

Like he used to do it back in Chicago with Tony Rezko- it's easy to cloak one's actions in some greater good like affordable housing or world peace... while steering deals and huge government money to your political supporters- Obama's got it down pat.

Winning the White House was like hitting the Lotto for this Chicago Machine huckster, once used to dealing with local slumlords like Tony- Obama's now moved-on to the big time of international deals with General Electric. The whole thing stinks like trash-truck juice... but it won't surprise anyone who's taken more than a glance at the Dear Leader's shady past and myriad criminal associations.

While Neville Chamberlain may have abandoned the Czechs in the niave hope of obtaining peace in our time- Obama's just doing it because he lacks moral and strategic clarity... and to steer a major political supporter a few billion bucks of business. This shameful opportunism is a disgrace that this country will regret- the Poles and Czechs gladly went to Iraq, you know.

Naturally, Putin was cock-a-hoop over a costless victory that keeps his nuclear arsenal relevent for the forseeable future... but this chum-in-the-water surely didn't appease the Kremlin. Predictably, it only left them hungering for more:

"I expect that after this correct and brave decision, others will follow, including the complete removal of all restrictions on the transfer of high technology to Russia and activity to widen the membership of the World Trade Organisation to (include) Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus," Putin said. (Reuters)

Hey Barack- he called you "brave" for doing what's in Russia's interests, and abandoning the cause of freedom... maybe if you let him snake Ukraine, you'll be a "hero" and Vlad will give you a medal- LOL

►h/t Government Mess

►Reuters

___________________________

A reaction from our allies: Conservative Aussie blogger "MK" at Down-Under on the Right Side posts that Obama has indeed betrayed the cause of liberty... -here-

UPDATE 7:30 am EST: Polish PM Donald Tusk refused to take the call from Hillary Clinton notifying him of the missile defense system's cancellation -here-

► h/t Memeorandum

And at Gateway Pundit, see how the Polish press has reacted to this betrayal -here-

Obama Blows a Slam-Dunk

Barack Obama is clearly not qualified to be President of the United States- period. The chance to topple the maniacal regime in Tehran is right-there for the taking... and Obama is standing frozen like a deer in the headlights. Our False Prophet appears to have no idea what a golden opportunity he is passing up... overthrow this evil regime without firing a single shot... get their Armageddon-inspired nuke program off the world stage... and free 30 million people all at one time. But the boy wonder is too stupid to see it... or somehow just doesn't care? Perhaps he's happy to sell out Israel and the Iranian's people's right to freedom for some perceived political gain- it's hard to imagine what on God's Earth he's thinking, really.

Reagan would have toppled Ahmedinijad last night, and you'd have read about it in the papers today... but NO, we've got a non-committal coward who's instead obsessed with having the DNC hector Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh rather than deal with America's actual enemies. Obama's surely too busy with petty domestic politics to do what history would expect of him... we'll all pay the price for it.

And if anybody doesn't think that American-delivered freedom in Iraq has been a substantial factor in bringing this about... think again; the effects of a free Iraq, in which there is a spectrum competing parties and substantial economic freedom must be dramatic upon the Iranians. Many of them visit Iraq annually... and today's New Iraq has maintained a Shiite Islamic character for the most part without the repressive policies the Iranians must endure. These two countries have long been competitive in most ways... and surely the Iranians feel they are missing out on something most Iraqis now enjoy.

Unfortunately for the appalling and incompetent regime in Tehran, this is exactly the opposite of how it was supposed to all work out... Bush was "losing"... and they were going to swoop-in and control their former Iraqi adversaries at America's expense.

Isn't this what George W Bush told you was going to happen in the Middle East following Iraq's liberation? Maybe that's why Barack Obama has so little apparent interest in finishing the job in Iran... no matter how much it benefits the US and free world. Anyone who expected him to act in the interests of the United States -rather than for his own political security- hasn't taken a serious look at how Obama got this far in the first place.

Of course, a ruthless, narcissistic thug like Ahmedinijad has a lot in common with Obama- small wonder Barack's been kissing his posterior since before he was even in the White House. He's the kind of guy a Chicago Machine hack can do business with... maybe that's why Barack's got his back.

Yes-We-Can (Get Laughed-At by an Eccentric Tin Pot Dictator)

Doesn't look like many countries take Obama and Hillary very seriously, does it?  And the reason it appears that way is because they don't. Time to break-out another goofy "restart" button, perhaps? 

(good luck spelling it right in Korean this time).

Dear Leader Comrade Generalissimo Kim Jong Il 

(I hear he's  one-hell-of-a-golfer ) somehow doesn't seem to have fallen under the charms of Obama's hollow schmoozing one bit.   Rather, sensing weakness, the communist North Korean regime responded to the conciliatory gestures with nothing but contempt and aggression.  The flurry of nuclear testing and missile launches timed for our Memorial Day weekend was yet the latest "diplomatic statement" from the pugnacious, Stalinist 

Hermit Kingdom.

Of course, it never really made a lot of sense to try and deal in good faith and "reach out" to a dark, evil, and Machiavellian regime that would "hate" Mickey Mouse if he was US president- and for a refresher, has shot-down civilian airliners, operates a cruel police-state with a chain of torture/concentration camps... and even had plans to assassinate Reagan on his visit to Korea's DMZ in 1983.  

So it's hard to imagine that a grown-man like Obama truly believed that Pyongyang was reasonable, trustable... and cuddle-able.  The difference with this president is that they will not only hate him, but will despise and disrespect him deeply for his cowardice, naivete, and lack of resolution.  Of course,  a man with all the diplomatic experience and strategic/moral clarity that Obama and Hillary lack -like say, a John Bolton- could have told you this is exactly how it would play out with Obama's appeasement-based posture... as he did. 

Sadly, all Team Obama are really considering is the same kind of "deal" that serial-failure Jimmy Carter talked Bill Clinton into ten years ago: bribing Pyongyang with fuels and food to stop their development of nuclear weapons and ICBMs, while they graciously accept our gifts and continue to do just as they please at secret, underground sites... and serruptitiously selling nuclear know-how to our other enemies like Syria and Iran.

Pyongyang is currently developing -and has now tested- it's longest range ICBM, one specifically designed to carry a nuclear warhead. The Taepodong-2 missile has a 6000 km range, bringing Alaska and even possibly the west coast of the US within range... and right as the misguided Obama seeks the cancellation of many of America's defense programs.

Although many still in the ether don't realize it yet, Obama is in a tailspin on the economy, ethics, and foreign policy.  Nobody that has any sense of how the world works respects (nor fears) him... and that includes Wall St., the military, the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas, or Pyongyang.  

Somehow all the talk of how Kim is this crackpot eccentric while Obama is portrayed as all-knowing and wise doesn't quite square with reality when the "crackpot" is running circles around our flawless messiah.  This is the same oblivious President Obama that was apparently busy with his puppy-vetting process or playing basketball while the Russians where nabbing our Afghan supply air-base in Kyrgizstan 

In addition to his ethical and fiscal follies, Barack Obama is endangering our national security, a failure of his most primary duty as president... maybe we should draw a line here? 

The luxury of living in a celebrity-driven/liberal/MSM fantasy world is not a right that Obama supporters can cling-to indefinitely, as it's both the voters and the press' duty to make informed, responsible, good-faith decisions... not waste power making a self-indulgent PC fashion statement instead.  And it's getting to the point where this kind of willfully-ignorant "thinking" is not just irresponsible, but dangerous.  Obamania's sheeple are deeply delusional, and in desperate need of deprogramming... as the misguided Obama's enablers, these fools are going to get us killed.

Ruthless, insatiable foes clearly have no reason to take seriously a smiley plastic mannequin like Obama, they know he's not going to do anything.  He was hoping to half-surrender to everyone on his recent international glad-handing tours and have Gates handle Iraq and Afghanistan- in order to buy us some peace and tranquility for him to focus on his real pet project, a radical, far-left domestic agenda... but events tend to have a way of intervening-

I would say that we should now expect for Tehran to deal Obama even greater defeats... except for the fact that tiny Israel will likely be saving us from our folly.   Obama, like Jimmy Carter, is making the US into an impotent, irrelevant bystander as events take their course, and nations like Russia and China fill the leadership vacuum.  Allies such as Israel will be plotting a more independent course in the interest of self-preservation... and will -like our enemies- simply ignore Obama.

The White House is likely working diligently on how to offer-up a speech or statement full of empty platitudes and ludicrous apologies (as in Prague)... do nothing about Pyongyang's defiance... and then blame it all on someone else.  But the problem with this standard Obama default strategy is that Democrats Bill Clinton and ex-President Carter are the ones who created this mess ten years ago... and our new president has adopted the identical, failed policy lock-stock-and-barrel.  

If you're American or one of our allies, and not scared with Barack Obama as US Commander-in-Chief yet...  you sure ought to be.  

What Must Our Enemies Think?

Barack Obama has made it to the White House despite a dearth of international experience by saying moderate-sounding things on security issues, making reassuring statements regarding Israel, and by gathering some retired military men around him to voice their support.

And Colin Powell has now stated that Obama is "qualified" to be US Commander-in-Chief.  But by what, or whom? Given the new President's comprehensive lack of experience in foreign policy, let alone defense issues, one has to wonder if the nominally-Republican Powell's endorsements have more to do with some sort of revenge on the Bush Administration in which he served- or perhaps a desire for some perceived redemption.  And it also begs the question:  why hasn't Colin Powell previously endorsed any liberal, inexperienced white candidates?

Obama currently expounds an internationalist, multilateralist, pacifist, one-world approach, clearly fashioned as a rubuke to the neocons- one that will supposedly restore our credibility in the world after the "dark days" of the Bush Administration.  And while he appears to believe in what he says, he's far from a pure idealogue- because with Obama, political expediency always trumps all other considerations. His flip-flopping stances, refusal to answer questions, and serial opportunism all point to a man who's main goal has always been getting elected to the next-higher office.  As one of his earlier associates had noted, "he was always running for something."

This week, in a cynical gesture, Obama signed orders for withdrawal from Iraq, apparently to fufull his now-extraneous campaign promise.  As with his first-day Executive Order to shut-down Gauntamino Bay, he and his staff had almost no details sorted-out... it was just "the beginning of the process."  Team Obama apparently felt the need politically to get something in the newspapers that looked like "action" on these touchstones of his campaign, but in the end, the actual results might take only slightly different form than could have been expected under a Republican administration.

Obama is not above trying to take credit for "ending" the war in Iraq,  even though the only reason he is not being handed a civil-war infested with Al Qaida is the dramatic success of "The Surge" strategy, which actually won the war... and which both Obama and Biden opposed vehemently.   During the campaign, when it became obvious that Bush and McCain were right, and Obama wrong, he simply changed the subject.  While his advisors felt that Iraq was no longer a useful talking point once General Petreus had won it, they now see an opportunity to put Obama's face on the withdrawal... and lend a facade of legitimacy to his previous, ill-advised cut-and-run  proposals.   And didn't Bush's Status-of-Forces Agreement with the Maliki government in Baghdad already set the timetable for the withdrawal over the next three years?  Obama's little skit here is simply fodder for the ill-informed.

Our new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has announced that the US will be implementing an "intelligent" approach to the Middle East, and has big plans for the region.  But obviously, Israel has already made the decision to deal with Hamas as they saw fit, rather than cast their lot with Team Obama.  The Israelis have too much at stake to put any trust in Obama's pollyanna world-view, as they are facing aggressive enemies sworn to their destruction.   US and Israeli policy is now headed in completely opposite directions, with the pugnacious nationalist Benjamin Netanyahu favored to win the February 10th election.  Bibi will not be forced into nonsensical, dangerous deals with the Palestinians, nor acquiesce to an Iranian Bomb... regardless of what Barack thinks is an "intellectual" or "cool" foreign policy.

Team Obama's plans to place diplomats in Iran for the first time since 1979, and to hold "talks" is clearly not what the Israelis, who face an existential threat, are looking to hear.  These same Iranians that are frantically developing a nuclear weapon to point at us and Israel are the ones who stirred-up maximum trouble in Iraq, sponsor, train, and arm the bloodthirsty terrorists of Hezbollah and Hamas, and boast publicly of plans to "wipe Israel off the map."

So the IDF will go-it-alone if they must, bombing Tehran's nuclear facilites into the ground.  The Israelis took-out Saddam's Osirak reactor in 1983, while enduring the world's condemnation... so they are used to doing the right thing while being shunned by those lacking the same strategic and moral clarity.  While it is good that tiny Israel can handle what Obama lacks the sense and courage to do, sadly America will end-up looking irrelevent and powerless as the result.

The Kremlin seems to think that there's opportunity for Russian gains in Obama's election... and is already challenging him with a flurry of threats and daunting pronouncements.  Starting on the day he was elected, the Russians announced major weapon programs and new-generation ICBMs, then threatened to point nuclear missiles at Poland and the Czech Republic.   Ex-KGB Kremlin thugs vs. our Yes-We-Can community activist, striving to make the world like us... yeah, that's how the Russians see it, too.

Obama has also expressed a desire to form a new relationship with Communist Cuba.  This week had Fidel Castro stating publicly that he "trusts" Obama to be "truthful".  But only a fool would trust the Machiavellian Castro, given his record of deceit and inflexible Communist dogma.  Jimmy Carter reached-out to Castro in the 1970s, but later KGB archives revealed that Fidel was laughing behind his back to whole time, calling Carter a "useful idiot".  And the popular, clever, and charming JFK was comprehensively outwitted by Castro in the Bay-of-Pigs debacle.  This error by the young President opened the door for the USSR to install missiles 90 miles from US shores... bringing the world to the precipice of WWIII.

Regarding the Pentagon budget, Obama was, of course, vague on the campaign trail... but he has now signaled that cuts are on the way.  Unsettlingly, Obama has attacked our greatest practical technology asset, missile defense- by stating that "unproven" systems will be cancelled.  This comes at a time in history when missile shields seem like an idea who's time has come, given Al Qaida's quest for nuclear weapons, the instability of nuclear Pakistan, continued North Korean instragence, Russian beligerence, and of course an apocolyptic Iran.

Disturbingly, there is also a widespread suspicion in the US military that Obama's election has emboldened radical Islam.  There is a fear of a new terror attack being put into action to test Obama, who generally faces a skeptical rank-in-file.  The Military Times found in a recent poll that 68% of active and retired service personnel backed John McCain in the Presidential race... while only 28% supported Obama.

The last time war-weary Americans elected an inexperienced, liberal "peacemaker" with issues regarding our "morals" abroad was 1976, with the ill-fated Jimmy Carter... and other parallels between his and Barack Obama's policies/rhetoric are indeed alarming.  While Carter somehow still feels his opinions are relevant, calling his Presidential legacy an "unmitigated disaster" would actually be mighty charitable.

In words that sound a lot like Obama's, Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that the tasks of foreign policy lay not with the "political" issues of war and peace, but with the "human issues" of poverty and development... and that America's "preoccupation" with "national supremacy" should yield to a more global perspective.  And also like today, Carter sought a "more equitable" international order, and saw the world in terms of an emerging division between rich and poor. 

Like Obama, Carter has in recent times made it clear he thinks that George W Bush's calling evil by it's name, and confronting it, was actually the cause of our problems.  But apparently neither Carter, Obama, nor "foreign-policy expert" Joe Biden have learned a thing from the myriad foreign policy failures of the Carter Administration. 

Upon his election in 1976, Carter enjoyed enormous Democratic legislative majorities, and a broken and demorilized GOP... much like the situation in Washington today.  And Carter was determined to refurbish America's image abroad after Vietnam, but not through strength-  like today's Democrats, Carter felt that America's "arrogance of power" was the primary source of international tension, and that the time was ripe for a new, more humble United States... to better fit a diminished, defeatist role in the world.

Underlying Carter's approach was an over-arching focus on human rights issues.  He felt that we had betrayed our own democratic principles in Vietnam and elsewhere, and the time had come for "change".  Governments that violated their own citizens' rights would therefore no longer receive support- but instead would become our opponents.  Carter thought that this would encourage indigenous democratic movements at the expense of more radical ideologies.

But in reality, just the opposite happened.  The withdrawal of support from petty dictators in Latin America and elsewhere instead meant significant losses of American interests to the USSR and Cuba, with damaging Marxist systems ruled by even worse dictatorships.  These events already had a clear precedent that should have been heeded, in Cuba in 1959- but it happened again, repeatedly, to the misguided Carter.   In Nicaragua, he cut-off aid to the corrupt and often-brutal Somoza regime, only to see it replaced by a Soviet/Cuban/East German proxy, the Communist Sandinistas.  And Carter was quite anxious to see Samoza fall;  he wanted to show the world America's new, honorable "post-Vietnam intent."  Sadly, his myopic and ineffectual human rights focus instead cost millions their freedom.  And worse, Nicaragua would go-on to become a key hub for the export of Castro's influence, including support for Communist insurgencies in El Salvador and Guatemala.

Regarding America's primary adversary at that time, the USSR- Carter actually scolded Americans that they harbored an "inordinate fear of Communism". He planned to reach-out to Moscow, reasoning that when they saw his sincerity, lack of 'imperial designs", and good-will, they eventually would learn to like us. 

Carter cancelled B-1 Bomber production, the first move in a direction that allowed the Soviets to gain real military superiority, while hiding behind the SALT treaty. And after Brezhnev met with him and saw what he was dealing with, the Red Army promptly invaded Afghanistan —just six months after Carter had embraced and kissed the Soviet president, publicly praising his cooperativeness in the conduct of world affairs. 

On his watch, the USSR went on an unrestrained rampage in which the Communists took over not only Afghanistan, but also Ethiopia, South Yemen, Angola, Cambodia (Pol Pot), Mozambique, Grenada, and Nicaragua.  In spite of all this, Carter's last defense budget proposed spending 45% below pre-Vietnam levels for fighter-aircraft, -75% for ships, -83% for attack submarines, and -90% for helicopters.   And the Russians had a field day... until they were finally confronted by Ronald Reagan in 1981.

Another high priority for Carter was giving-up control of the Panama Canal-  to him, a symbol of the bad-old-days of American imperialism.  The agreement, it was said, would bring a bright new future for Panama, and for Latin American relations in general. Unfortunately, nearly as soon as the Americans left, Panama descended into a cesspool of corruption and violence, and then became a center for the international drug trade.  Ruthless Panamanian dictators spent Canal revenue to entrench their power, while brutally oppressing the population that Carter thought he was freeing from Yanqui imperialism.  Eventually, under GHW Bush, America toppled the last and worst of them, Manuel Noriega-  thus providing and ironic, and what should have been educational, ending to the Carter-era's non-interventionism.  And today, the canal is freely utilized by Russian warships on the way to Venezuela... thanks to Jimmy Carter.

While focusing on the supposed "split" between developed and developing nations -as Barack Obama proposes as well- Carter turned the United States into an impotent spectator as a global shift of power unfolded... to the great advantage of the Soviet Union.

In perhaps Jimmy Carter's greatest blunder, he basically handed Iran to the Ayatollah Khomeini.  After supporting the Shah early in his Presidency, Carter abruptly abandonded this staunch US ally over human rights issues alone.   Carter was said to have thought that the Mullahs would be more "moral" leaders, since they were "men-of-religion"(!) 

In the event, the revolution was resolutely anti-American in tone, the US embassy invaded by radical students, and the entire staff taken hostage.  One of the leaders of this takeover was none other than Iran's current vengeful, holocaust-denying President Ahmedinijad.  Through it all, Carter rufused to consider any stronger military action against the Iranian hostage-takers;  he even expressed disgust when Ronald Reagan called them "barbarians" and "criminals" in the 1980 campaign.

Thirty years later, Iran stands on the verge of attaining a nuclear weapon... but also of being bombed by Israel before they can aim the missile at Tel Aviv.  Inexplicably, Obama still plans to hold "talks without preconditions" and send dipolomats to Tehran as they continue to flaunt their weapons programs in our face. This valuable time wasted while talking in circles with Tehran would provide them just the weeks they need to get their first bomb screwed-together.   Obama last month stated that he plans to extend the American "nuclear umbrella" to Israel... a defensive, deterrent strategy that sounds like willingness to meekly accept a nuclear Iran.  

Jimmy Carter had also made it a priority to clean-up what he saw as dirty business at the CIA, and bring a new openess to the agency... as Obama has appointed the Leon Panetta to do today.  The priority is, once again, anything but an aggressive and effective focus on defending the United States and her interests.

Except for sheer arrogance, why exactly does Barack Obama think that he can lead the US to a secure, yet respected and admired place in the world?  His proposals are largely based on the failed ideas of the past-  like a pacifist foreign-policy steeped in appeasement, coupled to a new "modesty" abroad, none of which has any precedent of success in this, or any other, country.

Such false hope for an "intelligent" approach purported to be "new", while disregarding history's lessons and almost identical past policy mistakes, guarantees us nothing but failure... and decreased security for Americans.  Any other expectations are purely wishful thinking.