American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

Or, we can look at the policy and view it as a success. Obama's foreign policy was based on multilateralism and building coalitions to find solutions.

haha, this is literally a nothing statement. I feel like I'm in a meeting with a fresh MBA.

Defend away, I'll criticize away, we're not going to meet on this one. Obama was a fine president and I liked him. His foreign policy wasn't good.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

haha, this is literally a nothing statement. I feel like I'm in a meeting with a fresh MBA.

And I feel like I'm talking to a six year old. You've stated absolutely nothing about foreign policy and have hung your weak argument on a agreement to exit Iraq, made by the Bush administration. You're also going to have to explain how that is a nothing statement. That is a clear and accurate interpretation of the Obama foreign policy. If you think that is a nothing statement please feel free to articulate what you think his foreign policy is/was.

[nik-]

No, it's a generic vague statement. If that's a clear and accurate interpretation of his foreign policy then no wonder it was so milquetoast.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by peter12

This thread is not enjoyable to post in.

Mission accomplished?

[DuffMan]

Anyone want to say what they would have done if they were doing Obamas job?

[Hockeyboy2]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Anyone want to say what they would have done if they were doing Obamas job?

I would have hired him as my Vice President and then referred to him on all issues.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by peter12

This thread is not enjoyable to post in.

political threads tend to skew that way...

that said, this is a love fest compared to the PGT during the ducks series!

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, it's a generic vague statement. If that's a clear and accurate interpretation of his foreign policy then no wonder it was so milquetoast.

is there a specific instance you are referring too?

Obama's tenure encompassed a lot of different actions - some proactive, some reactive and some non active...

it runs a pretty wide gamut, though consensus building was something he gravitated to as much as possible...

summarizing the totality of a administration's foreign policy on a message board is always going to sound much more reductivist than it really is in reality.

[Red Slinger]

Criticizing any Presidential administration for not making the situation in Iraq better is not really fair or accurate. Once the invasion took place without an exit strategy the damage was done and their really was no right way to deal with it from a U.S. perspective. The best you could hope for was to minimize the amount of damage done.

I think the Obama administration was relatively pragmatic with Iraq, Al Queda and ISIS. They built multi-national alliances, created an intelligence network, ramped down the hyperbole about the scary Muslims and used drones whenever their network discovered a target. I keep hearing that the Obama foreign policy was the weak point of his administration but what would have been the correct way to handle it? I don't think the correct way existed under the circumstances.

So, again I don't think you can necessarily criticize a U.S. Presidential administration for not rapidly making things better in such a volatile region. You can certainly criticize them for making it worse though. I don't think Obama made it worse with his "let's keep the lid on this" strategy. Frankly I don't think Trump has made it worse either. As a matter of fact, flexing a little muscle may be just what is needed to keep Putin off balance. North Korea, however, is a whole different story.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nik-

No, it's a generic vague statement. If that's a clear and accurate interpretation of his foreign policy then no wonder it was so milquetoast.

It's not a generic or vague statement. Maybe you just don't understand what that term means or recognize it in action.

You are aware that all administrations will have an overarching philosophy that drives their foreign policy? And that decisions are based off that philosophy? Administrations just don't make random decisions as instances arise. They employ a strategy based on their overall philosophy and all decisions are based on establishing a pre-determined endstate. That is how political agendas are achieved. Random decisions are seldom made.

The Obama Doctrine was based predominantly on non-interventionism (not getting drawn into foreign engagements with large commitments of troops or assets) and multilateralism (building coalitions to address issues in foreign states and share the burden of finding resolution). The efficacy of that doctrine is the only thing open for debate at this point. Considering the state of the world that he inherited I think he left office with a better situation than what he walked into. I don't think they achieved the endstate they hoped for, but they left a better situation than what they had on their first day.

Now we'll see what Trump does and what his foreign policy is. So far, he appears to be all over the roadmap. He's more than willing to rattle the sword like the Bushies, but he's following through on his sabre rattling with Obama-like responses, but with Trump flourish and results. Trump has ordered an embarrassing failed attack by a SEAL team, used $100 million worth of cruise missiles to not close an airbase, and then dropped the bigliest non-nuclear munition in the American arsenal in a remote part of Afghanistan to kill 36 insurgents. No one is sure what the Trump Doctrine is based on, or what direction it is headed, but so far it is all about using flashy shows of force with little to no result or regard for a possible endstate.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by New Era

I don't think they achieved the endstate they hoped for, but they left a better situation than what they had on their first day.

I'm not taking sides on the Obama argument but this statement doesn't ring true. During his administration both Libya and Syria became disasters and ISIS rose to prominence. I'd have to say the Middle East is in worse shape than when he started.

[burn_this_city]

Both would have potentially been disastrous regardless of what he did. No one wanted boots on the ground in either. Libya had a successful air campaign but the aftermath was crap. Syria potentially could have had a no fly zone but no one wanted to put soldiers in either country.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I'm not taking sides on the Obama argument but this statement doesn't ring true. During his administration both Libya and Syria became disasters and ISIS rose to prominence. I'd have to say the Middle East is in worse shape than when he started.

What would you have done in his position?

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by edslunch

I'm not taking sides on the Obama argument but this statement doesn't ring true. During his administration both Libya and Syria became disasters and ISIS rose to prominence. I'd have to say the Middle East is in worse shape than when he started.

Sure, but that's not on Obama...

Syria and Libya started as civil uprisings and were part of the 'Arab Spring' that many thought would lead to fundamental changes to the region....

there were many internal issues in both countries that boiled over leading to the current civil wars (though Libya has a UN cease fire in place) - where now a bunch of other actors are involved, which has lead to wider ranging regional reverberations...

the US were not involved in either country, outside of normal diplomatic relations, so I don't know how the US can be blamed for either situation either.

ISIS is another matter entirely and they were well underway before Obama took power... while one could argue that he should have kept US forces in Iraq longer, there are a number of facts that need to be reiterated:

1) the date for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq at the end of 2011, the Status of Forces Agreement, that set the deadline was signed by Bush, not Obama.

2) It is pretty much agreed upon that one of the major seeds of ISIS was the disbanding of the Iraq Military, the so called de-Baathification of the new Iraq government happened under Paul Bremer, a Bush appointee

3) Sectarian violence and oppression in the restructuring of Iraq... now it gets way more complicated, and i certainly am not an expert on this...but it boils mainly down to the sunnis versus the sh i i te and all the complicated history and the countries involved there.

the problem with civil wars is that you really don't have any authority to go into those countries without a UN mandate (ie consensus/coalition building) and then Colin Powell's "Pottery Barn" rule is always in play.

One could argue that the Middle East has been, historically, carved up and occupied so many times, and that this history of imperialism (US, England, France) has not helped anyone at all...

[nik-]

Originally Posted by New Era

It's not a generic or vague statement. Maybe you just don't understand what that term means or recognize it in action.

You are aware that all administrations will have an overarching philosophy that drives their foreign policy? And that decisions are based off that philosophy? Administrations just don't make random decisions as instances arise. They employ a strategy based on their overall philosophy and all decisions are based on establishing a pre-determined endstate. That is how political agendas are achieved. Random decisions are seldom made.

And do you realize that what you said is basically just international relations. Build coalitions to find solutions? That's not a foreign policy.

I know you're trying super hard to be smug here, but seriously, what you said was hilariously generic.

Regardless. We can argue all day about this. In the end, the results are the results. Not a success and therefore not a great foreign policy. Either through not executing it, or having poor policy to begin with.

Originally Posted by New Era

The efficacy of that doctrine is the only thing open for debate at this point. Considering the state of the world that he inherited I think he left office with a better situation than what he walked into. I don't think they achieved the endstate they hoped for, but they left a better situation than what they had on their first day.

Effectively this is where our disagreement lies.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nik-

And do you realize that what you said is basically just international relations. Build coalitions to find solutions? That's not a foreign policy.

I know you're trying super hard to be smug here, but seriously, what you said was hilariously generic.

Regardless. We can argue all day about this. In the end, the results are the results. Not a success and therefore not a great foreign policy. Either through not executing it, or having poor policy to begin with.

not trying to push buttons here, but i am genuinely curious:

What US administration would consider to be a model that was successful, and what is the metric for that success? Especially in the middle east?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

What would you have done in his position?

I have no idea, the Middle East is too complicated. As I said I'm not taking a position on Obama's foreign policy, simply pointing out that the statement that things are in better shape after his presidency doesn't square with the reality in the Middle East.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by oldschoolcalgary

not trying to push buttons here, but i am genuinely curious:

What US administration would consider to be a model that was successful, and what is the metric for that success? Especially in the middle east?

Are you asking me what would fix the middle east? lol who knows, breaking it up into a bunch of smaller states?

I think every administration has successes, but none of them are completely successful obviously. Obama has the Iran deal, but he also has a misguided minimalism in the middle east which, while sounding ideal in the election cycle and was popular, came at a critical time for the region and wasn't really adjusted. Then when it was, it was done on a minor scale and too late. Also an announced policy of what is effectively Chinese containment in Asia, which stalled, and now the Chinese will react as expected by being more suspicious and aggressive.

Great guy, good president, not great foreign policy.

[oldschoolcalgary]

Originally Posted by nik-

Are you asking me what would fix the middle east? lol who knows, breaking it up into a bunch of smaller states?

I think every administration has successes, but none of them are completely successful obviously. Obama has the Iran deal, but he also has a misguided minimalism in the middle east which, while sounding ideal in the election cycle and was popular, came at a critical time for the region and wasn't really adjusted. Then when it was, it was done on a minor scale and too late. Also an announced policy of what is effectively Chinese containment in Asia, which stalled, and now the Chinese will react as expected by being more suspicious and aggressive.

Great guy, good president, not great foreign policy.

fair enough... i feel the same way about the middle east to some degree... its historically unbelievably complicated...i realize it seems to be dodging the issues sort to speak, but Obama's foreign policy tried to be as hands off as possible...and avoid unintended consequences

I am not sure if any US foreign policy by any administration will ever be successful in the Middle East.

[direwolf]

Trump having a hissy fit this morning over the "tax march" protests that took place yesterday. Of course a Trump meltdown just wouldn't be complete without mentioning his Electoral College win for the gazillionth time. What a petulant child.

Donald J. Trump‏Verified
@realDonaldTrump

I did what was an almost an impossible thing to do for a Republican-easily won the Electoral College! Now Tax Returns are brought up again?

6:07 AM - 16 Apr 2017

Donald J. Trump‏Verified
@realDonaldTrump

Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over!

6:13 AM - 16 Apr 2017