Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[Winstonm]

Two quotes I particularly like from Andrew Bacevich:

 

“Rather than offering an antidote to problems, the military system centered on the all-volunteer force bred and exacerbated them. It underwrote recklessness in the formulation of policy and thereby resulted in needless, costly, and ill-managed wars. At home, the perpetuation of this system violated simple standards of fairness and undermined authentic democratic practice. The way a nation wages war—the role allotted to the people in defending the country and the purposes for which it fights—testifies to the actual character of its political system. Designed to serve as an instrument of global interventionism (or imperial policing), America’s professional army has proven to be astonishingly durable, if also astonishingly expensive. Yet when dispatched to Iraq and Afghanistan, it has proven incapable of winning. With victory beyond reach, the ostensible imperatives of U.S. security have consigned the nation’s warrior elite to something akin to perpetual war.”

― Andrew J. Bacevich, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country

 

“The folly and hubris of the policy makers who heedlessly thrust the nation into an ill-defined and open-ended 'global war on terror' without the foggiest notion of what victory would look like, how it would be won, and what it might cost approached standards hitherto achieved only by slightly mad German warlords.”

― Andrew J. Bacevich, Washington Rules: America's Path to Permanent War

 

It is this latter area where I think Obama has been most successful, i.e., in altering U.S. strategy from invasion to more precise, targeted strikes. In other words, away from a classical military intervention toward a more police-like and precise action against terrorism.

[barmar]

Suggestions that we should vote for her because of historical importance do not sit well with us.

And wouldn't it be almost as historical to elect a Jew? Not quite as radical as a woman or black man (BTDT), but close enough that the "historical importance" factor isn't so significant.

[PassedOut]

It is this latter area where I think Obama has been most successful, i.e., in altering U.S. strategy from invasion to more precise, targeted strikes. In other words, away from a classical military intervention toward a more police-like and precise action against terrorism.

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

 

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

[kenberg]

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

 

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

 

Certainly a major difference between the two Iraq wars is that Bush 1 left the government of Iraq intact. It is not entirely clear, to put it mildly, that Obama sees the significance of this difference. It is not enough to say that someone must go.

 

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy. I wish I could see it differently, but I don't.

 

At any rate, his time in office is coming to an end so we must choose who is to follow him. I am uneasy about all of the candidates. I will do my best to choose..

[Winstonm]

There's quite a stark contrast between what Bush 41 did in Iraq and what Bush 43 did. Bush 41 had a specific objective, accomplished it, and got out.

 

Like Kennedy and Johnson in the 1960s, Bush 43 got the US into the military quagmire that everyone with an ounce of sense knew was going to be the inevitable result. Obama has been working on cleaning that up, but it's going to take a long time to recover--a lot longer than his term in office. And clearly a lot of idiots want to repeat the whole Kennedy, Johnson, Bush 43 stupidity yet again.

 

Yes, and again I refer to Andrew Bacevich as much more of an expert than me on military matters, and (I paraphrase) he said in "The Limits of Power" that successfully utilizing the military is a matter of having precise goals, both military and political.

 

I view the military as task-centric. "Go stop terrorism" is too vague. I think Obama gets this. I hope the next President does, as well.

[Winstonm]

Certainly a major difference between the two Iraq wars is that Bush 1 left the government of Iraq intact. It is not entirely clear, to put it mildly, that Obama sees the significance of this difference. It is not enough to say that someone must go.

 

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy. I wish I could see it differently, but I don't.

 

At any rate, his time in office is coming to an end so we must choose who is to follow him. I am uneasy about all of the candidates. I will do my best to choose..

 

 

I find it odd that you don't find the Obama administration's negotiations to halt Iran's nuclear programs and open them up to oversight incredibly significant - that a U.S. President would negotiate with an enemy in order to avoid warfare is as radical as John Kennedy's ideas of detente with Soviet Russia. Also, the fact that Obama was wise enough to keep the U.S. out of the Arab Spring uprisings will turn out, IMO, to be on of the wisest courses ever undertaken by the U.S. and will go a long way toward easing tensions between the US and North Africa and the Middle East.

 

I do think Obama was not so wise in his first 4 years - probably due to inexperience and too much trust of long-established advisers. Once he no longer had to concern himself with re-elections, he started to make, IMO, quite brave and quite radical foreign policy choices.

 

And it is precisely in foreign policy matters where I most question whether Clinton is the right choice - she comes across as quite hawkish and too uncritical of Netenyahu for my taste.

[PassedOut]

Perhaps history, as well as you, will judge me to be wrong but I see Obama as being very unsuccessful in foreign policy.

In what ways? What would success have been?

[kenberg]

In what ways? What would success have been?

 

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.

[PassedOut]

We have refugees flooding Europe, ISIS expanding its reach, total chaos in Syria. It would not be difficult to expand this list.

Okay. If a successful US foreign policy means nothing bad happening around the world, you are right. But I don't see it that way.

 

Obama has resisted the droolers who are constantly calling for more US "boots on the ground." He has stopped the US from engaging in torture. He has insisted that the rules of engagement for the conflicts he inherited be structured to try to reduce civilian casualties.

 

I recognize that there's lots of support for the notion that we should bomb the hell out of people until they start to like us: "The beatings will continue until morale improves."

 

Certainly Obama is not perfect, and we're never going to get a perfect leader. But I like that Obama does not subscribe to the idea that, "Real men don't think things through." Conservative David Brooks put it this way:

 

Many of the traits of character and leadership that Obama possesses, and that maybe we have taken too much for granted, have suddenly gone missing or are in short supply.

 

The first and most important of these is basic integrity. The Obama administration has been remarkably scandal-free. Think of the way Iran-contra or the Lewinsky scandals swallowed years from Reagan and Clinton.

 

We’ve had very little of that from Obama. He and his staff have generally behaved with basic rectitude. Hillary Clinton is constantly having to hold these defensive press conferences when she’s trying to explain away some vaguely shady shortcut she’s taken, or decision she has made, but Obama has not had to do that.

 

He and his wife have not only displayed superior integrity themselves, they have mostly attracted and hired people with high personal standards. There are all sorts of unsightly characters floating around politics, including in the Clinton camp and in Gov. Chris Christie’s administration. This sort has been blocked from team Obama.

 

Second, a sense of basic humanity. Donald Trump has spent much of this campaign vowing to block Muslim immigration. You can only say that if you treat Muslim Americans as an abstraction. President Obama, meanwhile, went to a mosque, looked into people’s eyes and gave a wonderful speech reasserting their place as Americans.

 

He’s exuded this basic care and respect for the dignity of others time and time again. Let’s put it this way: Imagine if Barack and Michelle Obama joined the board of a charity you’re involved in. You’d be happy to have such people in your community. Could you say that comfortably about Ted Cruz? The quality of a president’s humanity flows out in the unexpected but important moments.

 

Third, a soundness in his decision-making process. Over the years I have spoken to many members of this administration who were disappointed that the president didn’t take their advice. But those disappointed staffers almost always felt that their views had been considered in depth.

 

Obama’s basic approach is to promote his values as much as he can within the limits of the situation.

The goal of the US cannot be to fix everything wrong in the world, and especially not by blowing stuff up. Yes, we do need to defend ourselves, particularly since we've already gone out of our way to enrage so many folks by blowing stuff up.

 

But our policy goal must be to avoid making things worse, and to join with other countries to fix what we can. And, beyond that, to work on becoming the best country that we can be.

[kenberg]

"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.

[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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.