Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Obama Doctrine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by astralis View Post
    pari,



    the rebalance to Asia is not directed AT China, in fact, Obama has made it very clear through both speech and action that he wants to encourage China to actively work with the US in upholding the international order.

    however, it's undeniable there is a hedging element, both economically and militarily. economically, there's the TPP; militarily, ensure US partners have an enhanced deterrence capability themselves (again, to avoid the free-rider issue mentioned). and in that, note the huge expansion of US arms sales (and assistance) to Asia in the last five years.

    also note that US official talking points to the Chinese ALWAYS mention rock-solid US support to our allies, period stop. if the Chinese pick on the Philippines, for instance, there is (deliberately) no wiggle room that there is for somewhere like the Ukraine.
    I agree, I just don't think China does, which seemed entirely likely to me at the time. They've moved since the announcement to making the China Sea into China's Sea.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • #17
      pari,

      I agree, I just don't think China does, which seemed entirely likely to me at the time. They've moved since the announcement to making the China Sea into China's Sea.
      from a US perspective, China's bullheadedness in this regard is strategically wonderful. (the US does not have a dog in the South China Sea territorial disputes past the insistence that freedom of navigation be upheld and that land reclamation will not be recognized.) the Chinese are sinking (bad pun intended) significant sums of money into their SCS ventures...and as a result, korea, philippines, japan, and vietnam have all moved significantly closer to the US orbit in the last five years.

      as for making it "China's Sea", well:

      http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/us-so...ity-commander/
      There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

      Comment


      • #18
        I read the whole thing and the thing that jumps out is that Obama is spineless. He lost his nerve the night of the attack on Assad's chems and the facts on the ground did not change. His justification is political (UK Parliament voted no and American polls disdain another war) that overruled his own personal convictions that Assad must not be allowed to get away with using chems.

        He was elected to make the tough decisions, not to run a popularity contest.

        And if he was a fan of Bush Sr and his team, he should have known that there these war veterans had an end game in mind. Democracy wasn't it.

        And how quickly the author and Obama forget why we went into Afghanistan in the first place. It ain't to bring the ballot box to Khandahar.
        Chimo

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by officer of engineers View Post
          i read the whole thing and the thing that jumps out is that obama is spineless. He lost his nerve the night of the attack on assad's chems and the facts on the ground did not change. His justification is political (uk parliament voted no and american polls disdain another war) that overruled his own personal convictions that assad must not be allowed to get away with using chems.

          He was elected to make the tough decisions, not to run a popularity contest.

          And if he was a fan of bush sr and his team, he should have known that there these war veterans had an end game in mind. Democracy wasn't it.

          And how quickly the author and obama forget why we went into afghanistan in the first place. It ain't to bring the ballot box to khandahar.
          *like*

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by astralis View Post
            as for making it "China's Sea", well:

            http://thediplomat.com/2016/01/us-so...ity-commander/
            Yup
            http://www.defensenews.com/story/mil...-sea/81270736/

            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              snapper,
              diplomacy is -part- of the execution of a strategy. a strategy does NOT -need- to be secret squirrelly at all times, and in fact quite often shouldn't be. there can be value in predictability. that's why there's a thing called public diplomacy and a State Department.
              that's why for major initiatives we announce things, like the way Reagan announced the Star Wars program, or Truman announced the Marshall Plan. or how Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine. shall i go on?
              I understand that and can understand why to some degree a public announcement of "pivot to Asia" or anywhere else might serve as warning; "back off" as it were. I suppose it could be argued that that particular signal worked to some extent though of course had the 'pivot' been done without public confession it could be argued the same might be accomplished and the deterrent effect elsewhere continued. These are "what ifs" of course but do you not think that was some encouragement to the criminal regimes sitting in Moscow and Damascus? When announcing a strategy you must consider who you encourage as well as deter and in this case I think a strong argument could be made it that it was misguided. Certainly I would never have advised such a public statement and I know many of my elders who would agree with me in this regard.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              it should not be that difficult to understand that there ARE aspects of foreign policy that should be loudly announced, and other aspects that should not be discussed at all with outsiders.
              Like Russia will target Denmark with nukes if they do x? I forget it what it was offhand - something to do with their Navy I think. Not defensive and public. See the difference? Now that might rightly be called a bluff.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              i'd say removing chems from Syria is a pretty successful bluff, although I do agree that the red line rhetoric shouldn't have been used publicly.
              It was a called bluff and not responded to. The murder continued and the Muscovites joined in. We lost the controlling hand. Idiotic and fail Foreign Policy Basic. If your bluff gets called you have to back up your threats or nobody will believe any future bluff. Obama's bluff was called and he chickened. But he should never have tried to bluff if he wasn't prepared to back it up if called.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              having said that, any decision to remove Assad by the US should be done on the basis of US interests, and not just because Assad was a monster to his people.
              I think it would be in everyone's interests not to have Daesh no? Well apart from Kadyrov perhaps who I am told has plans for them.
              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              lol, and the removal of Saddam Hussein/Gaddafi largely ended the internal divisions within Iraq/Libya and the opposition wasn't so extremist afterwards?
              As I said the Italians in particular were keen to put "boots on the ground" in Libya immediately post Qadaffi. Why were they not backed? Because US Naval assets would have been required and Obama wasn't interested. To blame your allies for it when many were willing to organise a 'Roman Legion' as it were is sheer hypocrisy and to do it publicly sheer stupidity. You simply do not conduct foreign policy that way; Putin is laughing at it.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              seriously, READ UP on the establishment of ISIS. it grew from AQI and it largely started due to insurgent cross-mix at Camp Bucca. Gen Odierno assessed back in 2010 that ISIS was 80% Iraqi, and the reason why it exploded was because they leveraged the considerable wealth they captured following the fall of Mosul.
              I must admit I have not read much on on the establishment of Daesh, my attention being elsewhere. However I hold to the view that the barbarism of Assad is critical in the evolvement of the extremist opposition. I am not alone in this view.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              moreover i'm still curious as to whom would the occupation of Syria be "outsourced" to, considering that no one is jumping to occupy Libya.
              I think these are two separate questions... Well on the 'outsourcing' of Syria they are trying to get people involved now so why not before once Assad was gone and not having driven his people to Europe or gone bonkers? As to Libya it goes back to the shilly - shallying over the 'Egyptian Spring' about which I am freely admit I was wrong. The whole Egyptian question raises alot of moral and standards questions (much the same as Turkey does now for the EU). As I understand it the Egyptians were willing to go in to Libya as part of the UN force but someone turned off the taps to Mubarak when the Libyan 'Spring' spread to Tahrir Square. Guess who was in Washington right then? He was then the Egyptian Chief Of Staff, now he's the President. The Europeans would have backed a peace keeping force in Libya with Egyptian involvement and it is possible that all may have run alot easier for the Libyans. I recall some arguing for an entirely European Force but others arguing it required an Arab contingent etc even in the papers at the time.
              The answer reason why it was not done (I believe) is that US Naval assets would have been required to sustain a long term peace keeping force. I was told by a friend at the time that the Italians were preparing their troops and that the majority of European nations supported a peace keeping operation but the US wasn't interested.

              Originally posted by astralis View Post
              if the Italians wanted to do it, they would have. they assuredly have the capability, just as the French had the capability to execute Operation Unicorn, or how both the French and the Germans intervened in Mali. blaming Italian non-intervention because the US wasn't on board is ridiculous.
              I won't rehash the Libya business but why didn't the world super power propose a UN resolution is a random question that comes to mind? Obama simply wasn't interested. You can argue that he was right not to be interested perhaps but blaming us for his lack of interest does not make it our fault.

              Your social worker President has presided over farce after farce because he never had a policy nor a Foreign Policy 'doctrine' and now you attempt to wrap up eight years of misjudgement and confusion and call it a 'doctrine'; you are not fooling anyone outside the US. Tell me with the benefit of hindsight if the Russian "Reset" was a success? The "Red Line" in Syria? The defence cuts? Who do you think benefits from him publicly criticing Britain and France? We know this is not because all the US personnel in the field are useless - some of them are brilliant but their advice is not accepted by the Obama administration. An unmitigated disaster for the West in general and a Lady who spills Classified Information in her emails because she refuses to conform to the standards and obligations of an everyday staff level employee, lies consistently and blames all on bi partisanship bias ain't likely to do better sadly. When you get it wrong a strong person owns up and doesn't blame others. I suppose this is 'legacy' laying though... what a prat Obama is. I could count twenty colleagues in a minute who have more sense, balls and honour than this clueless President.

              "Someone sounds a little bitter as though the US has not done enough or should do more. Luckily you can only have an opinion..."

              Many of us in Europe are very aware that we should and must do alot more to maintain our own security but when you claim to be the world super power - and in fact are - having a social worker run your foreign policy is not a recipe for success. You may not like it but there are serious bastards in this world; go look at a Syrian/Ukrainian hospital ward. Sure they are not near you at present and you can be thankful for that but if you imagine they do not exist and "Reset"/draw "Red lines" which you fail to back up you are giving them encouragement and sooner or later they will come knocking on your door if you don't knock on theirs first. Si vis parem, para bellum and do NOT inform the bastards of your intentions.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                I read the whole thing and the thing that jumps out is that Obama is spineless.
                Not spineless. Just refuses to do the bidding of our "Allies" that have continued to cut their defense budgets to the point that they can no longer do things alone. Then complain that the US isn't doing their bidding.

                "____ has a chance of destabilizing Europe" The US needs to step in and stop them" The American people are tired of it. We say "No, You need to stop it. We will provide support but its in your neighborhood, not ours.

                We finally have a post cold war President that puts the American People before the rest of the world. Thats what he was elected to do


                He was elected to make the tough decisions, not to run a popularity contest.
                To make the tough decisions That are for the good of the United States.




                And how quickly the author and Obama forget why we went into Afghanistan in the first place. It ain't to bring the ballot box to Khandahar.
                We went to get Bin Laden. Obama did that
                Last edited by Gun Grape; 12 Mar 16,, 16:27.

                Comment


                • #23
                  GS, that wasn't my point. My point was he made a decision based on his own convictions that Assad should be punished. He backed down from it because it was unpopular. That was the tough decision I was referring to. Hell, no one in his cabinet even thought of punishing Assad. He did.

                  I was against going into Libya and I was surprised that Obama went in but he took the leadership role without thinking how to hand that off. And Indeed, we had to choose a Canadian to take over. Real good leadership hand off there.
                  Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 12 Mar 16,, 16:27.
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    "we got Bin Laden" is a campaign slogan, not a foreign policy.
                    "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by GVChamp View Post
                      "we got Bin Laden" is a campaign slogan, not a foreign policy.
                      It was the reason Bush gave for invading Afghanistan after 9/11. To kill him and destroy his support base the Taliban.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        What happened to the second part of that mission?
                        "The great questions of the day will not be settled by means of speeches and majority decisions but by iron and blood"-Otto Von Bismarck

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Not a foreign policy though.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            And a reason we should have never gone there and defiantly a reason to get out and not send troops back.

                            The country that you are trying to instill democracy in has to want it. And want it more than you want them to have it. They don't want it, never wanted it.

                            F*6k them. Not another American should die there

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Gun Grape View Post
                              The country that you are trying to instill democracy in has to want it. And want it more than you want them to have it. They don't want it, never wanted it.
                              Hmm and Ukraine? The European missile shield? Supporting your allies and not publicly criticising them?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                Hmm and Ukraine? The European missile shield? Supporting your allies and not publicly criticising them?
                                What about Ukraine? We don't care. For decades they badmouthed the US, now all of a sudden we need to step in and help them? If the Ukraine had spent money on defense, if their soldiers hadn't deserted in droves then maybe they wouldn't be in the position they are in now. Not our problem. Solve your problem with urkraine blood not American.

                                Being a superpower means that we can interfere in other countries policies/actions when its in OUR best interest. Ukraine doesn't meet that standard.


                                Our "Allies" have had no problem criticizing us for decades. Why should we keep our mouths shut?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X