In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
we are in a different time than bush senior, please. the challenges are different.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
But you have to recognize there is a certain degree of incoherence in that advice, right? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Middle East? One actually threw 100k US soldiers down a rat hole along with a trillion dollars. Or Russia? How did Bush stop the Russian invasion of Georgia? A lot of serious shit has happened and you cant say Obama has been particularly spectacular but Bush 43 has literally analogous examples of every challenge faced by Obama and has done consistently worse: more American dead, more American money wasted, less pressure on Russia...
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
I found it was a pretty slick move by him to go to india on their "republic day". getting that contract for civilian use of nuclear power and snatching that away from people like russia could also be seen as a victory to be honest.
The two sides have also pledged to increase their bilateral trade five-fold, from the current $100bn (£66.7bn) a year, and build co-operation on defence projects.
Mr Obama's visit to India has been shortened so he can visit Saudi Arabia and pay his respects following the death of King Abdullah. It means he and his wife, Michelle, will not now visit the Taj Mahal.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
But you have to recognize there is a certain degree of incoherence in that advice, right? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Middle East?
Bush had an effective Middle Eastern policy in place by the time that he left office. The US had substantial influence in Iraq in particular. Obama threw all of that away out of sheer disinterest.
Or Russia? How did Bush stop the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Where I fault Obama is in failing to recognize a geopolitical enemy at the outset. How stupid does his (and Hillary's....) "reset button" policy look now? It's a demonstration of horrifically bad judgment.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
But you have to recognize there is a certain degree of incoherence in that advice, right? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Middle East?
Bush had an effective Middle Eastern policy in place by the time that he left office. The US had substantial influence in Iraq in particular. Obama threw all of that away out of sheer disinterest.
Or Russia? How did Bush stop the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Where I fault Obama is in failing to recognize a geopolitical enemy at the outset. How stupid does his (and Hillary's....) "reset button" policy look now? It's a demonstration of horrifically bad judgment.
As opposed to looking in Putin's eyes and seeing a soul? At least when Putin betrayed Obama he actually did something about it instead of slinking off like a bitch like Bush. The US had a substantial influence in Iraq at the cost of about 300 KIA a year and 70 billion annually.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
But you have to recognize there is a certain degree of incoherence in that advice, right? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Middle East?
Bush had an effective Middle Eastern policy in place by the time that he left office. The US had substantial influence in Iraq in particular. Obama threw all of that away out of sheer disinterest.
Or Russia? How did Bush stop the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Where I fault Obama is in failing to recognize a geopolitical enemy at the outset. How stupid does his (and Hillary's....) "reset button" policy look now? It's a demonstration of horrifically bad judgment.
That "substantial influence" in Iraq could only have been sustained with a large (and expensive) occupation force. How is that effective?
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
But you have to recognize there is a certain degree of incoherence in that advice, right? What is the difference between Bush and Obama on the Middle East?
Bush had an effective Middle Eastern policy in place by the time that he left office. The US had substantial influence in Iraq in particular. Obama threw all of that away out of sheer disinterest.
Or Russia? How did Bush stop the Russian invasion of Georgia?
Where I fault Obama is in failing to recognize a geopolitical enemy at the outset. How stupid does his (and Hillary's....) "reset button" policy look now? It's a demonstration of horrifically bad judgment.
you talk about horrifically bad judgment in this regard, I would not even (fully) disagree with that. what then however, what was the 1,6 trillion invasion of iraq and afghanistan then?
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
My point is that I strongly disagree that it is okay to have a reactive policy in the Middle East or anywhere else of geostrategic importance. Yes, Obama is making a pivot to Asia, but the very fact that he's spending so much time reacting to ISIS and other Middle Eastern issues says all you need to know about how important the area still is. The problem with having a reactive policy is a nation is often perpetually placed into situations whether it is either making outright bad decisions or situations where there is no "good" decision to be made. Let's just take Syria as an example. Due to Obama's bungling in Syria, we are now in a position where we are supporting and arming groups whom we don't fully understand and certainly can't fully trust not to turn jihadist. Let's be honest. What's the "good" outcome for the US in Syria as things currently stand? I don't see it, beyond bleeding all of our regional enemies dry in a protracted war (which I know you enlightened liberals are just thrilled about).
Say what you want about Bush's Iraq policy (and it was very bad at the outset), but he did at least have a vision and a proactive plan for what he wanted to accomplish (and he did accomplish it, regardless of whether said effort was worthwhile). Obama has none of that. He's just swaying in the wind, which is a recipe for disaster.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
My point is that I strongly disagree that it is okay to have a reactive policy in the Middle East or anywhere else of geostrategic importance. Yes, Obama is making a pivot to Asia, but the very fact that he's spending so much time reacting to ISIS and other Middle Eastern issues says all you need to know about how important the area still is. The problem with having a reactive policy is a nation is often perpetually placed into situations whether it is either making outright bad decisions or situations where there is no "good" decision to be made. Let's just take Syria as an example. Due to Obama's bungling in Syria, we are now in a position where we are supporting and arming groups whom we don't fully understand and certainly can't fully trust not to turn jihadist. Let's be honest. What's the "good" outcome for the US in Syria as things currently stand? I don't see it, beyond bleeding all of our regional enemies dry in a protracted war (which I know you enlightened liberals are just thrilled about).
Say what you want about Bush's Iraq policy (and it was very bad at the outset), but he did at least have a vision and a proactive plan for what he wanted to accomplish (and he did accomplish it, regardless of whether said effort was worthwhile). Obama has none of that. He's just swaying in the wind, which is a recipe for disaster.
I think I missed the part when Bush's Iraq policy wasn't bad. Not sure what plan he accomplished? If removing Saddam was it, than it's like planning the perfect robbery but forgetting to plan a get-a-way. Accomplishing the robbery doesn't mean much if you don't get away...
well our limited capabilities in the region is smacking ISIS around pretty well atm. the sort of fundamental change in the region requires a lot of resources and will, and you could fault obama on the will part, but it is more like a decision of strategic give and take where it is just not realistic to have very ambitious plans for the region.
they did severely underestimate the level of bad at pretty much every turn though.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
I guess 200,000 deaths is just a statistic and not "concrete harm". To be fair, the GOP isn't talking about attacking Syria.
I would also note that Obama has already insisted he doesn't need Congressional approval to attack ISIS, he says he can use authority to attack it as a branch of Al Qaeda or hilariously, as part of the war in Iraq (ie the 2002 and 2003 AUMF). It is very strange to ask for another AUMF from Congress, particularly as it would likely be very restrictive. It is political gamesmanship, since the GOP is talking tough rather than talking limits.
Walker campaigning on his record. Hits most of the conservative positions on what's wrong in the country and how to set about fixing it. He couldn't draw a starker contrast to the mush of Christie, Romney, and Bush.
Walker campaigning on his record. Hits most of the conservative positions on what's wrong in the country and how to set about fixing it. He couldn't draw a starker contrast to the mush of Christie, Romney, and Bush.
On January 27 2015 07:13 oneofthem wrote: well our limited capabilities in the region is smacking ISIS around pretty well atm. the sort of fundamental change in the region requires a lot of resources and will, and you could fault obama on the will part, but it is more like a decision of strategic give and take where it is just not realistic to have very ambitious plans for the region.
they did severely underestimate the level of bad at pretty much every turn though.
Is it? ISIS doesn't seem to be materially weakening. In fact, I'd argue that Obama's request for additional war powers strongly suggests that what we're doing right now is having insufficient effect, if any.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
I guess 200,000 deaths is just a statistic and not "concrete harm". To be fair, the GOP isn't talking about attacking Syria.
I would also note that Obama has already insisted he doesn't need Congressional approval to attack ISIS, he says he can use authority to attack it as a branch of Al Qaeda or hilariously, as part of the war in Iraq (ie the 2002 and 2003 AUMF). It is very strange to ask for another AUMF from Congress, particularly as it would likely be very restrictive. It is political gamesmanship, since the GOP is talking tough rather than talking limits.
overthrowing assad doesn't prevent those deaths, gotta get the moderates in power, and that probably requires ground troops.
Walker campaigning on his record. Hits most of the conservative positions on what's wrong in the country and how to set about fixing it. He couldn't draw a starker contrast to the mush of Christie, Romney, and Bush.
I really like Walker, and he seems to be gaining steam. A special report panel last week generally agreed that he's either the favorite or a top 2 candidate for getting the nomination.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
I guess 200,000 deaths is just a statistic and not "concrete harm". To be fair, the GOP isn't talking about attacking Syria.
I would also note that Obama has already insisted he doesn't need Congressional approval to attack ISIS, he says he can use authority to attack it as a branch of Al Qaeda or hilariously, as part of the war in Iraq (ie the 2002 and 2003 AUMF). It is very strange to ask for another AUMF from Congress, particularly as it would likely be very restrictive. It is political gamesmanship, since the GOP is talking tough rather than talking limits.
overthrowing assad doesn't prevent those deaths, gotta get the moderates in power, and that probably requires ground troops.
Yeah like the moderate Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
On January 27 2015 05:44 oneofthem wrote: what would you have done differently?
Is "everything" an acceptable answer? I don't want to go through everything in detail when I've already done so several times in this thread. You're talking about a president who has flubbed pretty much everything, ranging from a gross miscalculation on Russian relations to an absolutely incoherent Middle East policy. I was reading a panel's assessment of Obama's foreign policy at foreignpolicy.com last fall, and to a man, every contributor said that Obama was a failure overall. Hell, they even posted an article arguing that Obama needed to be more like W in developing and conducting foreign policy. LIKE BUSH 43.
seems like you need to be either a prophet or a warmonger to be consistent in the middleeast, neither is all that desirable. russia is russia.
obama's foreign policy is mostly about the asia pivot, which is pretty sensible given diminishing u.s. ambitions in europe and less reliance on m.e. oil. it only looks bad because the middle east is a mess, but i'd hardly blame obama for that one.
I don't have a problem with the general idea of the "Asian Pivot," and I think that it is a good idea. HOWEVER, in making such a move, you cannot simply let the rest of the world burn when you're in the position of the US. With regards to the Middle East policy in particular, Obama hasn't had a coherent one, which is a huge problem. From his stupid "red line" to his recent request for expanded authority to use military force in the Middle East, Obama's Middle East policy has been one of unequivocal bungling.
the red line thing is pretty bad but what concrete harm did it cause? it's just a regular fiasco.
how is that contradictory to requesting more authority to use force in the region though? the isis situation has developed and is presenting new challenges.
obama's middle east policy is reactive, so as the situation evolves they'll do something different. it is reactive because he doesn't think it's worthwhile to pursue a grand strategy in that region, and i dont really see how he's wrong here.
but if you trust the republican rhetoric they'll probably think invading iran is good foreign policy.
I guess 200,000 deaths is just a statistic and not "concrete harm". To be fair, the GOP isn't talking about attacking Syria.
I would also note that Obama has already insisted he doesn't need Congressional approval to attack ISIS, he says he can use authority to attack it as a branch of Al Qaeda or hilariously, as part of the war in Iraq (ie the 2002 and 2003 AUMF). It is very strange to ask for another AUMF from Congress, particularly as it would likely be very restrictive. It is political gamesmanship, since the GOP is talking tough rather than talking limits.
overthrowing assad doesn't prevent those deaths, gotta get the moderates in power, and that probably requires ground troops.
What moderates? There currently is no viable moderate opposition to support because Obama dithered for three years as opposed to backing a moderate group. Now, it may be that moderate groups in Syria were doomed from the get-go, regardless of American intervention. Still, Obama fucked up by not proactively getting involved and eliminating any opportunity for a friendly, moderate faction to take over Syria.
EPT
