Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - A Delusional Failure

[TV and credit cards]

Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - A Delusional Failure

And Here's What He Should Have Done...

Hindsight's 20/20. Let's hear it, in equal length to your diatribe.

I don't know if Obama's approach was the correct one, but what we've done in the past in the ME sure hasn't bore much fruit. What's Max's foreign policy? More blood and treasure?

I think maybe the Obama game has a longer timeline. Let the neighbors know they have to have some skin in the game. Bleed Russia economically. What else would you do with the Ukraine? Let Saudi Arabia sweat not only instability in the region but low oil prices while they try to maintain their social programs. Saudi Arabia needs to be taught the value of friendship and I think this is what is happening. And this is why I think we're not going to see $100 oil for a good long time.

 

[Ford]

What ME policies in the last 40 years were actually good ideas?

40? Hell, the west has been implementing bad policy in the Middle East since the end of the Ottoman Empire. Drawing seemingly arbitrary borders, inventing countries out of thin air, installing and supporting all sorts of unsavory rulers then deposing and disposing of them when it becomes convenient.

As far as US foreign policy goes, the only real difference between any of the Presidents in the last half century has been the degree of interference in the affairs of those countries. That we should interfere is a foregone conclusion. This idea that the region is somehow our responsibility to reorder as we see fit is a rancid leftover of colonialism and should be abandoned at the first chance, but it seems to keep hanging around and stinking up the joint.

The only thing more ridiculous is the idea that an American President can somehow "fix" the century old mishandling of the region in a few short years.

 

[maxparrish]

No 9/11 on Obama's watch. Isis resulted from Bush's policies creating a disaster in Iraq. Obama got Osama Bin laden where as Bush just abandoned that effort. Did you want him to pour ground troops into the area? Go to hot war with Russia? Do you really think things would have been much different with Romney

What ME policies in the last 40 years were actually good ideas? While I agree that in some ways Obama's administration has had a very hard time in the ME, I have yet to hear what could be done differently that would result in less hate towards the US. To put it plainly, ever since deposing the democracy in Iran and making a clusterfuck out of Iraq, we're going to be deep in the shit for a long, long time. Add Israel to the mix and propping up countries just as bad as our enemies (Hi Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the extremist philosophy), and we aren't going to see the end of Paris-like attacks in our lifetime.

What was your ISIS policy?

Time does not permit a full review each of the eight to ten major failures of the Obama administration, but the history behnd the most recent developments in Iraq/Syria highlight the delusional and feckless behavior of the President. As I write, France and Russia are doing some of what Obama should have done 18 months ago, furiously striking at ISIS with more than a few pin-pricks.

Obama withdrew from Iraq, determined to end even minimal American ground support (the military pleaded for a small but effective force of 10-20K to remain, he refused). ISIS-Al Qaeda had been almost completely destroyed, the remnants fleeing to Syria.

The Arab spring spread to Syria. Obama drew "red lines" he never intended to enforce, and failed to help the main opposition which, at the time, was the only major force against Assad. When Syria began to unravel in 2012 CIA director Petraeus and Secretary of State Clinton developed a plan to train a cadre of fighters, and support the rebels, who would be supplied with weapons. The plan was supported by Leon Panetta (defense secretary) and Martin Dempsey (chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff).

But it was vetoed by President Obama, according to Mr. Panetta. Obama could not grasp the strategic concerns of the US or allies, nor the increasing threat to destabilization of other gulf states if the war continued unresolved. As with his withdrawal from Iraq, he had an inordinate fear of any involvement in anything other than 'safe' initiatives (e.g. climate change conferences).

In one or two years ISIS-Al Qaeda recovered and prospered in the Obama created vacuum. The Syrian moderates were reduced to a few strategic western enclaves, the oil resources seized by ISIS, and jihad returned to Iraq, taking Mosul and much of Northern Iraq.

Yet, he continued to ignore intelligence reports - until the widespread butchery of men, women, and children became impossible for Obama to ignore. Three years too late, Obama finally approved a Petraeus like plan.

So nearly two years after ISIS began its expansion back into Iraq, Obama's policy has failed. The hands-off, head in the sand, approach has resulted in Syria becoming a humanitarian and geopolitical catastrophe that has drawn Obama into the conflict anyway.

And his antipathy to leadership has created the worst of alternatives - his unwillingness to destroy ISIS has created a prolonged humanitarian crisis that has flooded Europe with refugees and displaced over 7 million Syrians to refugee camps, invited the opportunistic Russians into the conflict, and has resulted in an ISIS that can reach out in major terrorist operations in other countries.

A prescient critic once charged that Johnson's policy was devoid of "goal, course, or purpose", leaving "only sudden death in the jungles and the slow strangulation of freedom". He warned "And no, we will not let our support today silence our basic criticism that the war in Vietnam -- and let's call it what it is, a war--that the war in Vietnam is being fought under policies that obscure our purposes, confuse our allies, ... and encourage the enemy to prolong the fighting."

So our the pain and refugee crisis goes on...a tortured twist on Macarthur's famous quote, because for Obama, "There is no substitute for prolonged defeat".

 

[untermensche]

To claim Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and that there was ever an easy solution to anything after GW Bush blew the whole region apart is not persuasive in the least.

 

[maxparrish]

And Here's What He Should Have Done...

Hindsight's 20/20. Let's hear it, in equal length to your diatribe.

I don't know if Obama's approach was the correct one, but what we've done in the past in the ME sure hasn't bore much fruit. What's Max's foreign policy? More blood and treasure?

I think maybe the Obama game has a longer timeline. Let the neighbors know they have to have some skin in the game. Bleed Russia economically. What else would you do with the Ukraine? Let Saudi Arabia sweat not only instability in the region but low oil prices while they try to maintain their social programs. Saudi Arabia needs to be taught the value of friendship and I think this is what is happening. And this is why I think we're not going to see $100 oil for a good long time.

What we should have done was:

Arm the rebels as Obama's own advisers wanted.
Train the rebels, as Obama's own advisers wanted.
Kept troops in Iraq.
Put up a no fly zone to protect non-ISIS forces.
Redeployed boots on the ground in late 2013 to help check ISIS expansion into Iraq.
Put forward air controllers and special forces on the ground in Iraq when the ISIS threat was more than JV's in the summer of 2014.
Being an all-out air offensive to reduce ISIS installations, oil production, and infrastructure to rubble.

What he should do is admit his "strategy" of dainty air strikes has failed. No fly zones are no longer an option, now that Putin has arrived. That horse is out of the barn. He can, however, join France and Russia to reduce ISIS to ash, and strike a deal to return refugees, find roles for Assad and the remaining moderates.

But first and foremost, ISIS must be destroyed.

 

[maxparrish]

To claim Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and that there was ever an easy solution to anything after GW Bush blew the whole region apart is not persuasive in the least.

Syria was not blown apart by Bush. The Arab Spring happened under Obama's watch. The collapse of Syria and his failure to deal with it is clear. Hillary Clinton was correct on this one, Obama was not.

But then, Hillary has always had more moxie than Barry in international affairs. She has rejected the idea of mere containment, as she should have.

 

[untermensche]

But first and foremost, ISIS must be destroyed.

Yeah. That's just like those who said, first and foremost Hussein must be removed.

Which gave us ISIS.

What might any of your violent mad plans give us?

 

[untermensche]

To claim Obama is responsible for the mess in Syria and that there was ever an easy solution to anything after GW Bush blew the whole region apart is not persuasive in the least.

Syria was not blown apart by Bush. The Arab Spring happened under Obama's watch. The collapse of Syria and his failure to deal with it is clear. Hillary Clinton was correct on this one, Obama was not.

But then, Hillary has always had more moxie than Barry in international affairs. She has rejected the idea of mere containment, as she should have.

ISIS exists as a threat because of Bush.

And who knows what the region would look like had that terrorist Bush not launched an unprovoked attack of the Iraqi people.

That is the reason for all our present difficulties.

To think Mitt Romney or the mastermind genius Dr Palin would have solved anything is lunacy.

 

[RavenSky]

Humpty Bushy smashed Iraq and blew up the Middle east.

And all the Kings horseman and Obama could not put it back together again.

^^^ that

No 9/11 on Obama's watch. Isis resulted from Bush's policies creating a disaster in Iraq. Obama got Osama Bin laden where as Bush just abandoned that effort. Did you want him to pour ground troops into the area? Go to hot war with Russia? Do you really think things would have been much different with Romney

^^^ and that

 

[maxparrish]

But first and foremost, ISIS must be destroyed.

Yeah. That's just like those who said, first and foremost Hussein must be removed.

Which gave us ISIS.

What might any of your violent mad plans give us?

ISIS ashes.

 

[maxparrish]

Dup

 

[maxparrish]

^^^ that

No 9/11 on Obama's watch. Isis resulted from Bush's policies creating a disaster in Iraq. Obama got Osama Bin laden where as Bush just abandoned that effort. Did you want him to pour ground troops into the area? Go to hot war with Russia? Do you really think things would have been much different with Romney

^^^ and that

Proto ISIS terrorists, Al Qaeda and other terrorists existed before 2001. In 2008 in Iraq they were little more than a small handful of survivors, who had been crushed by the surge and change in tactics. Whatever you think of Bush's policy on Iraq , it is irrelevant to the failure of this President. Everything after 2008 has been on Obama's watch, and he fumbled the ball. He let Syria become a haven for terrorists. He let ISIS rise from the ashes and take over the opposition to Assad. He failed to listen to Clinton and others.

And he owns his continuing policy of failure, one that he stubbornly won't modify in spite of growing pressure from allies, Republicans, and now some Democrats.

You can't blame Bush for Obama's stubborn stupidity, not unless you fused the bama-bot loyalty chip to PC circuit board.

PS Assuming that chip is not operative, Bush did not give up getting Bin Laden. US agencies worked through both administrations. Obama's belated approval of killing Bin Laden may be the only intelligent decision he has made.

 

[zorq]

Max, you look at results that are less than perfect and conclude failure but in the world of diplomacy and war, there often is no path to perfect results.
You think you are a fortune teller. An armchair quarterback who can see the playbooks of all the teams on the field.

You're not. You're not even close. You're an ideologue with an axe to grind and an ego that eclipses his understanding. You know... even hindsight isn't 20/20 when glimpsed through the fog of war.

You're right to some degree though. I doubt that every move that Obama has made has been optimal. It is just impossible to call his performance a failure when it is so easy to imagine much worse states of global affairs and our knowledge of possible alternate futures is so limited (Non-existant). For all we know we are living in the best of all possible worlds. I already told you I doubt it but that's one of the differences between you and me. You can't see past your partisanship or your ego to acknowledge how much you just don't know.

 

[untermensche]

Proto ISIS terrorists, Al Qaeda and other terrorists existed before 2001. In 2008 in Iraq they were little more than a small handful of survivors, who had been crushed by the surge and change in tactics.

It is a shame Bush attacked Iraq and brought Al Qaeda there in force.

And obviously nothing was crushed by the bribe, I mean the surge.

 

[maxparrish]

Max, you look at results that are less than perfect and conclude failure but in the world of diplomacy and war, there often is no path to perfect results.

You think you are a fortune teller. An armchair quarterback who can see the playbooks of all the teams on the field.

You're not. You're not even close. You're an ideologue with an axe to grind and an ego that eclipses his understanding. You know... even hindsight isn't 20/20 when glimpsed through the fog of war.

I don't look at results that are less than perfect, I am looking a results that almost uniformly have been predictable failures. Moreover, this is not hindsight, but opinion developed from decades of reading and analyzing (beginning in college). Had Obama a framework of principled belief, at least his policies would have been pro-active and coherent. If a President does not know what his/her strategic goals are, what benchmarks he/she will use to measure its attainment, and what alliances and tactics are necessary then they will likely fail.

If a President intervenes on an ad hoc, crisis basis...if he/she is more worried about an exit strategy than a victory strategy...if they are risk averse and take counsel in their fears (or polls)...they will likely fail. If they cannot see the signals of weakness they send, the lack of resolve they communicate, the limits of their tolerance for abuse...they shall likely fail.

Obama is feckless and inconsistent. He abandoned Iraq when he was forewarned not to - but his sin was not in the withdrawal but in his inability or unwillingness to see and/or accept the potential consequences. If he intended to be an isolationist, then he should have realized that Iraq may yet fall to sectarian or terrorist violence AND having realized it, accepted the consequences. When he ignored the rise of ISIS, he should have been prepared to accept that Iraq might be under their thumb one day.

On the other hand, he could have decided that the humanitarian and strategic damage would be too great and composed a serious victory strategy to wipe out ISIS.

Instead Obama kinda...sorta...somewhat...acts without resolution, torn between the need to do something and the fear of doing something.

If Vietnam taught us anything, it is that to do "just enough" to keep a war going is a disaster; either a nation fights to some kind of win or does not fight at all. A lesson the child-man Obama should have been mature enough to have learned.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

What ME policies in the last 40 years were actually good ideas?

[/thread]

 

[Crazy Eddie]

^^^ that




^^^ and that

Proto ISIS terrorists, Al Qaeda and other terrorists existed before 2001.

ISIS has almost nothing to do with Al Qaida. Their emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War and their finding it incredibly easy to salvage leftover military material, expertise and resources from the crumbling mess that was Iraq's failure. Put a failed state with a huge military next to a civil war where one of the combatants is a collection of psychotic whackjobs; that right there is a recipe for disaster.

He let ISIS rise from the ashes and take over the opposition to Assad.

Obama was never in charge of the opposition to Assad; he had no influence over them whatsoever. To say that Obama "let" ISIS rise to power in Syria is a bit like saying Andrea Merkel allowed George Bush to win a second term in office.

He failed to listen to Clinton and others.

That's because Clinton thought -- and I believe still thinks -- that ISIS was a surprisingly well organized al Qaida offshoot and therefore their actions would follow the usual pattern. She was wrong, and she wasn't the only one.

Obama's belated approval of killing Bin Laden...

... was not "belated", at all and was, in fact, a DIRECT ORDER given by the President for a program he was directly overseeing from the beginning of his administration.

So no, Bush does NOT get credit for killing bin Laden. Nice try though.

 

[untermensche]

Yeah. That's just like those who said, first and foremost Hussein must be removed.

Which gave us ISIS.

What might any of your violent mad plans give us?

ISIS ashes.

And Bush and Cheney said Iraq would be quick and wouldn't cost us anything.

 

[dismal]

So no, Bush does NOT get credit for killing bin Laden. Nice try though.

But surely killing Bin Laden is just the sort of things that pisses off the terrorists?

 

[untermensche]

So no, Bush does NOT get credit for killing bin Laden. Nice try though.

But surely killing Bin Laden is just the sort of things that pisses off the terrorists?

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.