Thread: Worse. Than. Carter.

Of course Hanson thinks the enemy are Radical Islamists, not the entire Muslim population.

Killing the ones trying to kill us, while trying to persuade the rest that we're not against them, is I think what Bush did, specifically in Iraq.

As for Obama carrying a big stick, that remains to be seen - why the deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan?

castellano,

Of course Hanson thinks the enemy are Radical Islamists, not the entire Muslim population.

so, in this case he should understand the value of soft words in keeping the terrorist pool from growing.

why the deadline for withdrawal from Afghanistan?

several things-- first, the moral hazard, to let karzai understand we will NOT be there forever; second, if you look at what he said and what the pentagon is actually doing, the deadline is not as firm as all that.

ie by the time it rolls around, there will be another review, most likely aimed at afghanistan operations once the surge troops are withdrawn.

seriously, hanson's message falls apart simply because he cannot provide any evidence that there's been an uptick in attacks, whether it is from obama or not. indeed, if obama is such a pathetically weak leader as he claims, then we should have seen the collapse of US foreign policy in both afghanistan and iraq by now.

as historical comparison, south vietnam, a lynchpin in US foreign policy for over ten years, collapsed in less than one.

Originally Posted by astralis

second, if you look at what he said and what the pentagon is actually doing, the deadline is not as firm as all that.

It doesn't need to be as firm as all that. As soon as he announced a date, that's all Mohammed Q. Public heard.

You really aren't getting this. HE. IS. WEAK.

Originally Posted by astralis

several things-- first, the moral hazard, to let karzai understand we will NOT be there forever;

Astralis,

I didn't have time to reply to you on this before, but my gut tells me that the wise way to avoid moral hazard is to let Karzai know that he will not be there forever if he doesn't shape up, and to tell the American people that fact so Karzai and co will actually believe it.

What Bush and Obama have been doing with regard to him has been foolish.

Doesn't mean we have to kill him like in the Cold War days but there is more than one way to skin a cat....

second, if you look at what he said and what the pentagon is actually doing, the deadline is not as firm as all that.

Of course it's not, and that makes him saying it only more foolish.

ie by the time it rolls around, there will be another review, most likely aimed at afghanistan operations once the surge troops are withdrawn.

By now everyone understands that game, and that's just one reason why Obama's popularity rating is in free fall.

The American people don't like to be BSed.

seriously, hanson's message falls apart simply because he cannot provide any evidence that there's been an uptick in attacks, whether it is from obama or not. indeed, if obama is such a pathetically weak leader as he claims, then we should have seen the collapse of US foreign policy in both afghanistan and iraq by now.

Obama's message is largely irrelevant in Iraq and Afghanistan because local conditions and the message of hellfire missiles soaring in from the sky dominate. Where his message falters is w.r.t. Iran, Russian, China, etc. He has utterly been unable to influence events in our favor, with all three countries proceeding as if they believe he is weak.

In my view Obama has been completely inept during his first year, which should surprise no one who actually listened carefully to what he was saying during the elections. He seems to be getting better. We will see whether get becomes more adept next year. Short of anything extraordinary I will not vote for him come 2012. Main reason is that his attempt to remake the American economic landscape is moving toward a completely different direction (and IMO a very foolish one) than what I would like to see.

keith,

you may be surprised, but...

You really aren't getting this. HE. IS. WEAK.

i actually agree with this statement.

however, i also recognize that this weakness has relatively limited effects. again, US foreign policy has not collapsed in the intervening year, and in terms of afghanistan, we actually have a better plan than anything we had since 2002.

citanon,

I didn't have time to reply to you on this before, but my gut tells me that the wise way to avoid moral hazard is to let Karzai know that he will not be there forever if he doesn't shape up, and to tell the American people that fact so Karzai and co will actually believe it.

i believe i discussed this with you before, too-- again, we've sent just about every senior leader we have to talk privately (and publicly) to karzai about this. gates was just screwed over when karzai publicly embarrassed him by talking about afghanistan not being prepared for another fifteen years.

i personally do not think karzai will believe the US will go until he actually sees US boots on the helicopter leaving his palace.

By now everyone understands that game, and that's just one reason why Obama's popularity rating is in free fall.

The American people don't like to be BSed.

what is good for foreign policy is not necessarily popular domestically; something bush was proud to trumpet. he was right, too.

Where his message falters is w.r.t. Iran, Russian, China, etc. He has utterly been unable to influence events in our favor, with all three countries proceeding as if they believe he is weak.

as much as we talk about their importance, those three countries are relatively peripheral in our most immediate foreign policy goal, stabilizing afghanistan; also, limited US chips makes it harder for us to influence them. bush, for all of his aggressiveness, did not gain much (or stop much-- russia ran over georgia when bush, not obama, was prez).

all three countries realize the LIMFACs which iraq+afghanistan operations put on the US stick; the US doesn't have much of a carrot given the economy. so they're actually more limited by their own internal issues than anything else. iran, with the post-elections chaos; russia, with her economy in free-fall (far worse than the US); china, economic growth and stability.

Originally Posted by astralis

so, in this case he should understand the value of soft words in keeping the terrorist pool from growing.

He does, he explicitly said so in the first article I posted:

"We need not be gratuitously rude. There surely is a role for sober diplomacy and soft speech. But the degree to which radical Islam will be aggressive toward the West hinges a lot on what it imagines will be our reaction — in terms both of military responses, and of the sense of confidence we project about our own civilization. "

The contention is that soft words have a role, but that's not the issue.

The issue is whether the Obama administration would enact proven protocols for dealing with this Islamist terrorism.

several things-- first, the moral hazard, to let karzai understand we will NOT be there forever; second, if you look at what he said and what the pentagon is actually doing, the deadline is not as firm as all that.

ie by the time it rolls around, there will be another review, most likely aimed at afghanistan operations once the surge troops are withdrawn.

As has been pointed before, by spelling out a date in public, you are unnecessarily conceding the Talibans a devastating talking point - "we will still be here in 3 years time, and they won't"

seriously, hanson's message falls apart simply because he cannot provide any evidence that there's been an uptick in attacks, whether it is from obama or not. indeed, if obama is such a pathetically weak leader as he claims, then we should have seen the collapse of US foreign policy in both afghanistan and iraq by now.

I think the point he makes is more to disprove the notion that this conflict is some sort of misunderstanding. He does point to the fact that the year of outreach "saw the greatest number of foiled terrorist plots against America since 9/11".

castellano,

The issue is whether the Obama administration would enact proven protocols for dealing with this Islamist terrorism.

actually, hansen's article argues that obama is waging a schizophrenic war; that he promotes outreach while at the same time upholding the vast majority of bush's policies (and indeed, expanding them).

so, despite that paragraph, it is not hard to see that hansen would be more comfortable if obama does draw bush-like "lines in the sand".

As has been pointed before, by spelling out a date in public, you are unnecessarily conceding the Talibans a devastating talking point - "we will still be here in 3 years time, and they won't"

ultimately of limited utility as an argument; china, for instance, uses the same argument against taiwan-- despite the fact that the US has guaranteed taiwan's defense for over thirty years and has actively defended it for the past fifty.

it was also an argument made when the US and iraq were negotiating the SOFA. iraq isn't under the control of sadrists or AQI today.

I think the point he makes is more to disprove the notion that this conflict is some sort of misunderstanding.

if that's the point, then it is a strawman. misunderstandings usually aren't responded to by doubling the number of US troops in-country, relaxing drone ROEs, and vastly expanding hellfire missile strikes.

Originally Posted by astralis

actually, hansen's article argues that obama is waging a schizophrenic war; that he promotes outreach while at the same time upholding the vast majority of bush's policies (and indeed, expanding them).

It is schizophrenic to argue "Bush did it", and ritually repudiate his policies - and then go on to uphold most of those same policies.

so, despite that paragraph, it is not hard to see that hansen would be more comfortable if obama does draw bush-like "lines in the sand".

Me too.

And he draws lines. For all its pandering and rewriting of History, I personally think the Cairo speech was positive, and it does contain lines in the sand.

ultimately of limited utility as an argument; china, for instance, uses the same argument against taiwan-- despite the fact that the US has guaranteed taiwan's defense for over thirty years and has actively defended it for the past fifty.

it was also an argument made when the US and iraq were negotiating the SOFA. iraq isn't under the control of sadrists or AQI today.

I guess we can agree to disagree in this one.

if that's the point, then it is a strawman. misunderstandings usually aren't responded to by doubling the number of US troops in-country, relaxing drone ROEs, and vastly expanding hellfire missile strikes.

Hanson is making a prediction, he thinks that the Obama Administration is too invested in the narrative that explains away the ongoing conflict as the result of some sort of cultural misunderstanding - which, I agree with Hanson, is deadly wrong.

That said, you were asking for proof for an uptick in attacks, and in fact there have been more attacks - which doesn't prove that Obama is doing bad job, but does disprove the idea that outreach in the form of semantic acrobatics like 'Overseas-Contingency Operations' or 'man-made disasters' will make the trick at all.

Re-visiting this one, because OH MY GAWD, I have been SO vindicated in the original title: he really IS worse than Carter. FAR worse.

NOT.

EVEN.

CLOSE.

And do you guys really get how bad that has to be to make this true, which it so very clearly and inarguably IS?

WOW, this guy is with no doubt whatsoever the very worst President this country has ever had, going away.

As I predicted he would be.

Originally Posted by Bluesman

Re-visiting this one, because OH MY GAWD, I have been SO vindicated in the original title: he really IS worse than Carter. FAR worse.

NOT.

EVEN.

CLOSE.

And do you guys really get how bad that has to be to make this true, which it so very clearly and inarguably IS?

WOW, this guy is with no doubt whatsoever the very worst President this country has ever had, going away.

As I predicted he would be.

And he still has 3 more years to go...)

Originally Posted by gunnut

And he still has 3 more years to go...)

Not funny, man.