[kenberg]

To lighten the mood a little, I notice that Mardi Gras and the New Hampshire primary come on the same day this time around. If we tire of one we can try the other.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 15:37, said:

"Nothing bad happened" would be too much to expect. I doubt any president could meet that standard. That was not the standard I was applying.

What was the standard? That's what I meant to ask in the first place. Sorry to be unclear.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2016-February-09, 16:00, said:

What was the standard? That's what I meant to ask in the first place. Sorry to be unclear.

I don't have a precise standard, I doubt anyone does. Afghanistan has not gone as well as Obama had hoped. I find that an acceptable piece of bad news. Military action rarely goes as well as planned. So, if that were the only complaint, I would congratulate the president on a very successful overall effort. But I don't think much of anything has gone right and some things, I mentioned the rise of ISIS and the chaos in Syria and most certainly (and of course related) the flood of refugees. These are more than "not good", they are very bad.

Winston mentioned the deal with Iran on nuclear development. A bright spot, sort of. As I recall, even the administration did not really present it as a success, they rather said it had to be accepted because the available alternatives were worse.

Our relations with Saudi Arabia are bad, our relations with Israel are bad, our relations with Egypt are bad. We have reset relations with Russia, and maybe that's good but I am not convinced.


I'm no foreign policy expert and I am no gourmet. But I can recognize a burnt lamb chop when I see it.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 14:07, said:

We have refugees flooding Europe, ISIS expanding its reach, total chaos in Syria. It would not be difficult to expand this list. A grand slam doubled off twelve tricks might have been redoubled and off thirteen, but it is hard to look at it as a success.

ISIS expansion, European refugees, and Syria are interrelated. Putin and the last Bush have larger roles in the creation and expansion of ISIS than Obama. I think Obama has been wise to understand the limits of American power.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2016-February-09, 16:25, said:

ISIS expansion, European refugees, and Syria are interrelated. Putin and the last Bush have larger roles in the creation and expansion of ISIS than Obama. I think Obama has been wise to understand the limits of American power.

Yes. That's why it is so important to think things through before acting, particularly when considering military action. When Bush attacked Iraq in 2003, it was clear that the result would be something like what has happened. And, lo and behold, it has!

Of course we now have a responsibility to do what we can to fix what we've broken, and that is not easy. As Colin Powell famously said, "You broke it, you own it." Better to be careful not to break it in the first place...

[kenberg]

The general line of thinking here seems to be that the good things are due to Obama's good moves, the bad things are due to his predecessor's bad moves. After seven years in office this gets stretched a little thin. Not that there isn't some truth to it, but I think there has to be some statue of limitations on blaming Bush for everything that is off in 2016.

At any rate, I am sticking with my views that historians will not treat Obama's foreign policy kindly and the Dem nominee with strive to distance himself/herself from it.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 19:46, said:

The general line of thinking here seems to be that the good things are due to Obama's good moves, the bad things are due to his predecessor's bad moves. After seven years in office this gets stretched a little thin. Not that there isn't some truth to it, but I think there has to be some statue of limitations on blaming Bush for everything that is off in 2016.

It wasn't just Bush. Plenty of democrats went right along with it.

[Winstonm]

Does anyone really care who New Hampshire voters want? Or Iowa, for that matter. Put these two states into the Super Tuesday mix and they might get 4 seconds of air time.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 19:46, said:

The general line of thinking here seems to be that the good things are due to Obama's good moves, the bad things are due to his predecessor's bad moves. After seven years in office this gets stretched a little thin. Not that there isn't some truth to it, but I think there has to be some statue of limitations on blaming Bush for everything that is off in 2016.

At any rate, I am sticking with my views that historians will not treat Obama's foreign policy kindly and the Dem nominee with strive to distance himself/herself from it.

No, the general thinking is that the size of the respective mistakes is gigantic in comparison - it is unrealistic to assume that Obama could have undone the damage of the decision to invade Iraq and depose Saddam Hussein or that the US could have done anything other than imposing its military into Egypt and Syria, thus repeating to the mistakes of Bush.

Here is what happened under the 8 years of Bush II foreign policy: the U.S. was successfully attacked by a handful of terrorists armed with box cutters, who proceeded to kill over 3 thousand civilians. As a reaction, Bush ordered the invasion of a country that had nothing to do with the attacks, killed Hussein, and completely destabilized Iraq, leading to Al-Queda in Iraq to form which led to ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and Syria). Then, for good measure, as a retaliation for harboring a fugitive, Bush ordered another invasion in Afghanistan, a knowingly unwinnable situation which the Soviets had shown us on a few years before, all the while operating illegal torture sites throughout the middle east and east and creating Guantanamo Bay as a military prison for suspects stripped of all rights, both wartime or civilian.

Leaving this as his legacy, what would could be expected of Obama (or any other President)? The choices were to continue Bush policy or to try to detangle. Obama chose to detangle and I am glad he did so.

Obama, on the other hand, has avoided warfare, and untangled the U.S. as best he could from the morass that was and is Iraq and Afghanistan.

[mike777]

okok after 8 years posters main point is do not blame Omaba


8 years blame bush

Obama is great

in fact your post gets an upvote


silly

[helene_t]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 19:46, said:

The general line of thinking here seems to be that the good things are due to Obama's good moves, the bad things are due to his predecessor's bad moves. After seven years in office this gets stretched a little thin. Not that there isn't some truth to it, but I think there has to be some statue of limitations on blaming Bush for everything that is off in 2016.

At any rate, I am sticking with my views that historians will not treat Obama's foreign policy kindly and the Dem nominee with strive to distance himself/herself from it.

Iraq and Afghanistan certainly can be blamed on Bush (and congress, and the UK). Given the mess Bush left and given the premise that USA would have to reduce its involvement their anyway, it is naive to expect anything better than the current situation. It could have been worse. Kurdistan, Southern Iraq and Kabul are not in that bad shape. Neither of those countries are quite like Somalia and Libya.

Syria, Libya, South Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Somalia, Ukraine, Nigeria, North Korea and Zimbabwe can't, AFAIU. However, with the possible exception of Libya, USA didn't do anything active to worsen the situation and can at worst be blamed for inaction. I'd question whether USA should feel responsible for any of those countries, except for Israel which obviously is a close US ally.

Even Libya which obviously was a disaster, might well have gone that way anyway albeit slower (with more Ghadafi masacres in the meantime), and besides it was a no-win situation. Suppose Ghaddafi had been allowed to commit his genocide in Benghazi and a few other places and the situation would then stabilize except that the regime would have become even more brutal. Would you have considered Obama's Libya policy (or lack of policy) a success in that scenario?

This is speculative but anyway, if any outside power should take responsibility for Libya it should be Europe. We are their neighbours, we were as involved as the US, we buy their oil, it is a former Italian colony.

Meanwhile, Obama has normalized relations with Cuba and Iran, and unlike certain earlier US administrations he has not interfered in the left-wing takeovers of parts of Latin America.

[mike777]

 helene_t, on 2016-February-10, 00:37, said:

Iraq and Afghanistan certainly can be blamed on Bush (and congress, and the UK). Given the mess Bush left and given the premise that USA would have to reduce its involvement their anyway, it is naive to expect anything better than the current situation. It could have been worse. Kurdistan, Southern Iraq and Kabul are not in that bad shape. Neither of those countries are quite like Somalia and Libya.

Syria, Libya, South Sudan, Egypt, Israel, Somalia, Ukraine, Nigeria, North Korea and Zimbabwe can't, AFAIU. However, with the possible exception of Libya, USA didn't do anything active to worsen the situation and can at worst be blamed for inaction. I'd question whether USA should feel responsible for any of those countries, except for Israel which obviously is a close US ally.

Even Libya which obviously was a disaster, might well have gone that way anyway albeit slower (with more Ghadafi masacres in the meantime), and besides it was a no-win situation. Suppose Ghaddafi had been allowed to commit his genocide in Benghazi and a few other places and the situation would then stabilize except that the regime would have become even more brutal. Would you have considered Obama's Libya policy (or lack of policy) a success in that scenario?

This is speculative but anyway, if any outside power should take responsibility for Libya it should be Europe. We are their neighbours, we were as involved as the US, we buy their oil, it is a former Italian colony.

Meanwhile, Obama has normalized relations with Cuba and Iran, and unlike certain earlier US administrations he has not interfered in the left-wing takeovers of parts of Latin America.

ok if not usa...how about...


France
Germany

Sweden
Uk

etc



I mean do not other countries have zero blame

I keep in mind a poster from Scotland who said....Scotland should do nothing...nothing and have defense budget close to zero

[helene_t]

Yes, some will say that Reagan ended the cold war and Obama restarted it by letting the Russians have their way.

But I think you should take some inspiration from the Chinese foreign policy. They are taking over the World and making money and friends at the same time.

[mike777]

If cninese forum policy inspires you ok...

If china TAKES OVER THE WORLD OK.


AGAIN WE DISCUSS THIS OFTEN....SILENT AMERICA=CHINA

[Zelandakh]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-09, 19:46, said:

The general line of thinking here seems to be that the good things are due to Obama's good moves, the bad things are due to his predecessor's bad moves.

Rather depends who you ask, Ken. According to Republicans, all bad things are due to Obama and all good things are relics of his predecessor. It is good to try and look at things objectively rather than get caught up in political spin, even if that is rather difficult when almost all information sources are strongly politicised.

[mike777]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-10, 03:53, said:

Rather depends who you ask, Ken. According to Republicans, all bad things are due to Obama and all good things are relics of his predecessor. It is good to try and look at things objectively rather than get caught up in political spin, even if that is rather difficult when almost all information sources are strongly politicised.

If you ask Democrats all good things are due to Obama and all bad things are due to Bush

You need to add this

Some say Regan was brilliant and ended the cold war...other say Dems were to get all honor and praise

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-February-10, 00:32, said:

okok after 8 years posters main point is do not blame Omaba


8 years blame bush

Obama is great

in fact your post gets an upvote


silly

Silly is a belief that a one dose cure-all of fairy magic is always the answer to every situation. For me, Obama was a big disappointment for his first 4 years - he listened and accepted his advisers advice too often. His last 3 years have been exceptional, working with a Congress bent on destroying any and all accomplishments he has made.

[Winstonm]

 mike777, on 2016-February-10, 04:54, said:

If you ask Democrats all good things are due to Obama and all bad things are due to Bush

You need to add this

Some say Regan was brilliant and ended the cold war...other say Dems were to get all honor and praise

I don't think I have ever heard anyone claim the Democrats ended the cold war. I have heard over and over how Reagan brought Russia to its knees; however, I have also read well-regarded sources that wrote that Russia brought itself to its knees, that it was already teetering when Reagan took office, and would have collapsed regardless of Reagan or any other Western politicians.

[kenberg]

 Zelandakh, on 2016-February-10, 03:53, said:

Rather depends who you ask, Ken. According to Republicans, all bad things are due to Obama and all good things are relics of his predecessor. It is good to try and look at things objectively rather than get caught up in political spin, even if that is rather difficult when almost all information sources are strongly politicised.

I agree.My intention is to understand as best I can. As it happens, today's Washington Post has a fair amount of opinion on Syria. Here is a piece by David Ignatius

An excerpt, where he is referring to Kerry:

Quote

"What we're doing is testing [Russian and Iranian] seriousness," he said. "And if they're not serious, then there has to be consideration of a Plan B. . . . You can't just sit there."

Although Kerry wouldn't discuss specific military options in Syria, he did offer some broad outlines. The aim, he said, would be "to lead a coalition against [the Islamic State], and also to support the opposition against Assad." He said Obama has already directed the Pentagon and the intelligence community to move "harder and faster" against Islamic State extremists so that the terrorist group "is reined in and curbed and degraded and neutralized as fast as possible."

Wait! I thought that leading a coalition against ISIS and supporting opposition to Assad was plan A. Is plan B to keep doing plan A? At any rate, the entire article is interesting.

The WP has an editorial

The headline is "Mr..Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught on Syria. "

Neither the WP nor Mr. Ignatius are usually thought of as right wing nuts. I am unaware of whether they drool.

There was a further opinion piece in the Post. I don't know anything about the authors.

At any rate, the idea that Obama is not doing so well in foreign policy does not seem to be some far out view held only by paid supporters of the Republican Party.

What strikes me is that Obama seems to be perpetually surprised by events. Recent news stories have indicated (maybe incorrectly but again I think by fairly unbiased reporters) that Russian actions may well be very effective in giving Assad the opportunity to destroy U.S. supported Syrian rebels. Maybe this won't come about, but it was obviously the Russian intention and they seem to be having some success with it.

I am neither an advocate for Obama nor a determined critic of Obama. I did vote for him and I wish him the best. But as I look at how things are going, I don't think he is doing all that well in foreign policy areas where he has announced U.S. intentions to influence results.

One purpose of such an assessment is to try to see how we might do better in the future.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2016-February-10, 08:51, said:

I agree.My intention is to understand as best I can. As it happens, today's Washington Post has a fair amount of opinion on Syria. Here is a piece by David Ignatius

An excerpt, where he is referring to Kerry:


Wait! I thought that leading a coalition against ISIS and supporting opposition to Assad was plan A. Is plan B to keep doing plan A? At any rate, the entire article is interesting.

The WP has an editorial

The headline is "Mr..Obama stands by silently as Russia continues its onslaught on Syria. "

Neither the WP nor Mr. Ignatius are usually thought of as right wing nuts. I am unaware of whether they drool.

There was a further opinion piece in the Post. I don't know anything about the authors.

At any rate, the idea that Obama is not doing so well in foreign policy does not seem to be some far out view held only by paid supporters of the Republican Party.

What strikes me is that Obama seems to be perpetually surprised by events. Recent news stories have indicated (maybe incorrectly but again I think by fairly unbiased reporters) that Russian actions may well be very effective in giving Assad the opportunity to destroy U.S. supported Syrian rebels. Maybe this won't come about, but it was obviously the Russian intention and they seem to be having some success with it.

I am neither an advocate for Obama nor a determined critic of Obama. I did vote for him and I wish him the best. But as I look at how things are going, I don't think he is doing all that well in foreign policy areas where he has announced U.S. intentions to influence results.

One purpose of such an assessment is to try to see how we might do better in the future.

That the WP editorial page calls for more war is not a surprise:

Quote

To read the Washington Post’s op-ed page at the end of this summer is to have a distinct sense of déjà vu. Just like this time last year, Post pundits gnash their teeth and warn us that Obama’s foreign policy is broken and the U.S.’s reputation around the world is shot, but that the best way to definitely fix both is for our country to start bombing Syria.

Of course, in 2013, the target of our Tomahawks was to be elements of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad’s regime. After Assad’s use of chemical weapons last August, in the midst of that country’s intractable civil war, the Post’s editorial board and plethora of its op-ed columnists—both liberal and conservative—came out strongly in favor of a military strike as a response. When Obama took a “go slow” approach that rejected airstrikes and instead focused on a diplomatic effort to rid Assad of his WMDs, the paper was unsparing in its criticism. The Post—along with much of the Beltway—bemoaned that Obama’s “credibility”—along with our country’s—was sunk.

That the Post’s op-ed page would prove a friendly redoubt for war hawks aggressively pushing for US military action around the world is no surprise. After all, the paper’s editorial board was a big cheerleader, and then staunch defender of, the US invasion of Iraq. (As far as contrite apologizer for, not so much.) It’s safe to say that it channels the neocon proclivities of the Beltway conventional wisdom like no other publication. If there’s a “serious” case for war to be made, in other words, the Post will take up the challenge.