General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's newfound love for intervention wins over the FP establishment that Obama spurned
Its time America explored how to end the multiple wars it has helped cause since 2001, rather than dropping more bombsPatrick Coburn, The Independent
...Whatever Trumps precise motives, his sudden fondness for the use of armed force shows that what President Obama criticised as the Washington playbook is back in business as the guide for conduct of American foreign policy. Its a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment, said Obama in an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic Monthly last year. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarised responses.
...Simple-minded though some of Trumps declarations might appear, others were more realistic than anything said by Hillary Clinton or Senator John McCain.
In Syria, for instance, the main problem for the US and its allies is and has long been that, though they would very much like to get rid of Assad, the only alternative appears to be anarchy or the empowerment of Isis and al-Qaeda clones. Clintons policy, insofar as she had one, was to pretend that there already existed, or could be created, a third force in Syria that would fight and ultimately replace both Isis and Assad. This is the sort of fantasy that is frequently common currency among think tanks and dedicated experts, often retired generals or diplomats working as TV commentators.
...There is nothing quite so frightened or ferocious in the world as an established order that is subjected to criticism questioning its core beliefs. Hence the embarrassing relief shown by so many world leaders, academic specialists and media commentators at the news that the direction and management of US foreign policy is returning to its old norms. Their optimism may be premature but they would clearly welcome a Trump administration neutered of any radical intentions.
Ignored in this is the fact that the militarised options favoured by the Washington playbook that Obama came to so despise have produced little but disaster in the post-9/11 era and are likely to do so again. Almost everything advocated by the Washington foreign policy establishment since the start of the war in Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, Libya and Syria in 2011 and Yemen in 2015 has created or exacerbated the conflicts. Note that none of these wars have ended or show much sign of doing so.
...Goldberg says that Obama questioned, often harshly, the role that Americas Sunni Arab allies play in fomenting anti-American terrorism. He is clearly irritated that foreign policy orthodoxy compels him to treat Saudi Arabia as an ally. He had similar misgivings about US links to Pakistan.
TV channels and op-ed writers who treat the expertise of Washington think tanks with such fawning reverence should reflect on the Obama White Houses view of these institutions. Goldberg, who spoke to Obama and his staff over a long period, reports: A widely held sentiment inside the White House is that many of the most prominent foreign policy think tanks in Washington are doing the bidding of their Arab and pro-Israel funders. Ive heard one administration official refer to Massachusetts Avenue, the home of many of these think tanks, as Arab-occupied territory.
More at http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/donald-trump-moab-bomb-syria-afghanistan-libya-wars-caused-middle-east-a7684181.html
underpants
(182,839 posts)Great read.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)nocalflea
(1,387 posts)to spend our money and blood in a den of vipers that is the middle-east.Sounds more like the carping of hurt egos than viable policy.
delisen
(6,044 posts)I believe that President Obama was fully in control of his administration and made the decisions to use military in each case. Clinton was Secy of State during Obama's first term.
If anyone knows otherwise-that Obama was not making the decisions please post.
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)and, by extension, the foundations of his FP, after she left. From The Atlantic article; link is above and in the Coburn article:
When The Atlantic published this statement, and also published Clintons assessment that great nations need organizing principles, and Dont do stupid stuff is not an organizing principle, Obama became rip-shit angry, according to one of his senior advisers. The president did not understand how Dont do stupid shit could be considered a controversial slogan. Ben Rhodes recalls that the questions we were asking in the White House were Who exactly is in the stupid-shit caucus? Who is prostupid shit?
The Iraq invasion, Obama believed, should have taught Democratic interventionists like Clinton, who had voted for its authorization, the dangers of doing stupid shit. (Clinton quickly apologized to Obama for her comments, and a Clinton spokesman announced that the two would hug it out on Marthas Vineyard when they crossed paths there later.)
delisen
(6,044 posts)assessment of Clinton, Biden, and Kerry vote on Iraq.
Kerry and Biden had voted against the first Gulf War (George Bush Senior) Clinton was not yet a senator at the time. I've wondered why Biden and Kerry became interventionist after 2001.
I have also wondered why Obama had brought these three close in his administration, considering his judgement on doing stupid things.
Of course there were political reasons but what were the qualities that gave these three interventionists power in Obama's administration, beyond the political reasons?
BeyondGeography
(39,375 posts)Maybe the sad answer is the Democrats with the most FP experience tend to be pro-intervention. If you look at the D-Senators who voted against IWR, eg, not too many obvious choices for SoS in there:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/r...
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
pansypoo53219
(20,981 posts)against war w/ napoleon. and the more i learned about the idiocy of the dulles brothers. just say no.