Pages:
Author

Topic: President Obama has no foreign policy (Read 2099 times)

full member
Activity: 169
Merit: 100
August 29, 2014, 07:59:35 AM
#53
Actually president Obama has foreign policy, but the policies are always pro-US policy, If the policy does not benefit the United States, then the United States will cancel the policy, this is what makes other countries, especially developing countries become less comfortable against the policies made ​​by the government of US, hopefullu US goverment can make US government can make policies more fair to other countries ...

Yes.

And he is just a sock puppet to show the rest of the world anyone can be president in the US. Even a black and a Muslim.
DrG
legendary
Activity: 2086
Merit: 1035
August 29, 2014, 06:55:23 AM
#52
Actually president Obama has foreign policy, but the policies are always pro-US policy, If the policy does not benefit the United States, then the United States will cancel the policy, this is what makes other countries, especially developing countries become less comfortable against the policies made ​​by the government of US, hopefullu US goverment can make US government can make policies more fair to other countries ...


Haha, how can you say that with a straight face.  Even Clinton is biting her tongue for the next 2 years.  She would have Obama thrown in Gitmo if she was in office - now that's pro-US.  Obama is the antithesis of previous US policies.  180s = chaos.
sr. member
Activity: 280
Merit: 250
August 29, 2014, 04:47:59 AM
#51
Actually president Obama has foreign policy, but the policies are always pro-US policy, If the policy does not benefit the United States, then the United States will cancel the policy, this is what makes other countries, especially developing countries become less comfortable against the policies made ​​by the government of US, hopefullu US goverment can make US government can make policies more fair to other countries ...
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 09:37:22 AM
#50
Quote
Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
Suggesting that China is aligned against us is to ignore their economic dependence on us. It's Russia which is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant. In fact, if they didn't have a veto in the security council the country would be about as important as India.
I would look at Russia as being more similar to Pakistan. Both countries are driven by severe paranoia, and they both have nukes.
A decent enough analogy too, both have trouble regions. I chose India because it was a BRIC country as Russia is and also has nukes but is a bit more stable than Pakistan is. But yes, Russia is driven by fairly deep paranoia. It's part of the Realist parcel.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 09:12:40 AM
#49
I’ve been hearing this, or a variation of it, quite a bit from my family and others from my hometown which means it has been a popular mantra on both Fox News and/or conservative talk radio. It’s also; from a professional and academic standpoint, completely false.

President Obama is more of a neo-Liberal when it comes to International Relations Theory (in his actions at least), with a tinge of realism which has been so pervasive in our historical domestic foreign policy formulation and discourse. To this end, president Obama tends to favor (with some exceptions as mentioned above) a generally multilateral approach to foreign engagement, he likes to work through international institutions, is a much stronger wielder of soft power, and prefers a more nuanced foreign policy approach than many of his predecessors (especially neoconservatives) who often relied on straightforward / simple, unilateral realist approaches.

This can be seen in most of his foreign relations dealings during his two terms here (save for our Israeli, and to a lesser extent: Egyptian policies, which is where that realist twinge comes into play).

His approach to Libya is a good example, where he went through the UN Security Council, worked with NATO and kept a limited engagement policy, preferring to work with and through other actors including the Arab League.
What website do I go to in order to get all this information about what we're doing in the world? If there was a newsletter I would read it often. This stuff is important and it is almost completely unknown to Americans.


Also, while I don't see you advocating it, I wonder how you would address someone who equated neoliberal foreign policy with, not necessarily "nonexistent" foreign policy (which for some reason seems to be a relatively new Fox News trope?) - but maybe a "weak" foreign policy.

To put it a bit differently: is neoliberal foreign policy compatible with American Exceptionalism so to speak? (I think the latter is pretty dangerous, but my feeling is that it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.)
Unfortunately isn't one source. A couple that I use though to keep up to date on international affairs are as follows (you can pick and choose):

1.) Reuters: (a decent place to get general overviews of world news, go to their world section and click on the 'more world news' link on the center of the page).

2.) Relief Web: is a UN sponsored news aggregation site that deals with both conflict and natural disasters / disease. you can search by country, or what I do is simply read through their 'Updates' section every day).

3.) Institute for the Study of War: carries updates on Iraq and Syria (including updated maps)

4.) The Long War Journal: Is a bit more neoconservative in its opinions, but posts updates on the global war on terror (so mostly Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). They also report SITE Intelligence findings which is a good way to stay up to date without having to pay hundreds of dollars for the SITE subscription.

5.) IRIN: is linked to the UN and is updated a couple of times per week with in depth humanitarian news.

6.) The Jamestown Foundation: has a couple of publications, a daily one about China, a daily one about Russia / Europe, a weekly one about the Caucuses, a bi monthly one involving terrorism analysis, and a publication on terrorist leader profiles.

7.) Combating Terrorism Center: produces a monthly PDF on reports concerning terrorist theory and activities and the occasional in depth longer report on a specific topic.

8.) Foreign Affairs: The name pretty much speaks for itself. if you register you can get a couple of articles free every month, otherwise you have to pay for it.

9.) Africa Confidential: A publication that the Bureau of African Affairs receives with updates on key issues in Sub-Saharan Africa.

10.) International Crisis Group: I mostly read their longer published reports which tend to be quite good.

11.) Human Rights Watch: Humanitarian news updates, I skim them and mostly read their in depth reports / PDFs.

12.) Amnesty International: Same as Human Rights Watch

13.) BBC News: Decent world news source, ok reputation, a little slow sometimes to update though.

14.) Al Jazeera English: Pretty similar to BBC description, only this is influenced by Qatar

15.) Al Arabiya: Saudi Arabia's version of Al Jazeera English

16.) IHS Janes: Security analysis, some stuff free, some requires a subscription.

17.) Economist Intelligence Unit: In depth analysis of different countries, you can usually find some of their material online for free after it's been published for a while, otherwise a subscription is required.

18.) Council on Foreign Relations: General foreign relations content.

19.) Brookings Institute: Same.

20.) Foreign Policy Magazine: Self explanatory, requires a subscription though, like Foreign Affairs you can register for free to read a couple of free articles every month.

21.) UN News: Self explanatory, you can also explore other UN pages.

22.) AllAfrica: African news

22.) Local news sites: Reading local news sites also helps since they tend to report on both the details of what is going on and on how the United states is interacting with them. Some I use include: Radio Dabanga (Sudan), Sudan Tribune, Radio Tamazuj (South Sudan), Radio Okapi (DRC), Daslan Radio (Somalia), Sabahi (Horn of Africa), Shabelle (Somalia), Yemen Times, Bangkok Post (Thailand), Irrawaddy (Burma), Democratic Voice of Burma, Karen News (Burma), Sahara Press Service (Western Sahara), Haaretz (Israel), B'Tselem (Israel), Times of India, etc.

I added a bunch of your recommendations to my read list on Google Play Newsstand. It's been good reading so far. I appreciate the list good sir.
Hope you enjoy them! It is a lot of material, but sometimes just taking the time to read the headlines and skim the articles helps.

I also tend to stay away from opinion pieces on most news sites, like Al Jazeera, and regional news places. I prefer the opinions expressed in the longer files obtained from places like the CTC, and Jamestown, occasionally I'll read some opinion pieces from FP Magazine too. Of course one also has to keep in mind the influences behind these sources as well (something I am sure you do). The Institute for the Study of War is conservative, the Long War Journal is neoconservative, the CTC is out of West Point and al Arabiya has a strong Saudi POV, while B'Tselem is more liberal. Let me know if you have any questions or seek any clarifications!

Happy Reading!
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 08:56:45 AM
#48
Quote
Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
Suggesting that China is aligned against us is to ignore their economic dependence on us. It's Russia which is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant. In fact, if they didn't have a veto in the security council the country would be about as important as India.
I would look at Russia as being more similar to Pakistan. Both countries are driven by severe paranoia, and they both have nukes.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 08:52:52 AM
#47
Quote
Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
Suggesting that China is aligned against us is to ignore their economic dependence on us. It's Russia which is becoming increasingly isolated and irrelevant. In fact, if they didn't have a veto in the security council the country would be about as important as India.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 08:46:37 AM
#46
It has been standard operating procedure within the United states to encourage popular protests for reform in countries with poor institutions. Ukraine was one such country. We supported the protests, but they were largely domestically created. that's largely how we work. When a domestic base is formed and acts, then we reinforce that. Either way, Ukraine was facing political tumult. I guess you are suggesting that we would be better served to have let Russia keep it a pawn / satellite. But I ask you this: Why? The US isn't hurting at all in this conflict and even half of Ukraine strengthens our position in the area and gives us a strong pressure mechanism on Russia. We reap benefits (perhaps long run benefits) and Europe and Russia shoulder the bulk of the costs.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 27, 2014, 08:43:08 AM
#45
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 26, 2014, 08:47:04 AM
#44
Similarly, the approach to Russia has been idiotic. NATO is essentially irrelevant insofar as US geopolitical interests are concerned, so it would have made far more sense to allow Russia a sphere of influence over the former Soviet Union, especially since both America and Russia have a shared interest in containing China. Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
America and China have an equal interest in containing Russia. There won't be any long term alignment between any of those three countries, just whatever works at the moment.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 26, 2014, 08:41:21 AM
#43
Similarly, the approach to Russia has been idiotic. NATO is essentially irrelevant insofar as US geopolitical interests are concerned, so it would have made far more sense to allow Russia a sphere of influence over the former Soviet Union, especially since both America and Russia have a shared interest in containing China. Confronting Russia over Ukraine forced Russia to align with China against the US.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 26, 2014, 08:39:31 AM
#42
sr. member
Activity: 364
Merit: 250
August 26, 2014, 08:33:57 AM
#41
I’ve been hearing this, or a variation of it, quite a bit from my family and others from my hometown which means it has been a popular mantra on both Fox News and/or conservative talk radio. It’s also; from a professional and academic standpoint, completely false.

President Obama is more of a neo-Liberal when it comes to International Relations Theory (in his actions at least), with a tinge of realism which has been so pervasive in our historical domestic foreign policy formulation and discourse. To this end, president Obama tends to favor (with some exceptions as mentioned above) a generally multilateral approach to foreign engagement, he likes to work through international institutions, is a much stronger wielder of soft power, and prefers a more nuanced foreign policy approach than many of his predecessors (especially neoconservatives) who often relied on straightforward / simple, unilateral realist approaches.

This can be seen in most of his foreign relations dealings during his two terms here (save for our Israeli, and to a lesser extent: Egyptian policies, which is where that realist twinge comes into play).

His approach to Libya is a good example, where he went through the UN Security Council, worked with NATO and kept a limited engagement policy, preferring to work with and through other actors including the Arab League.
What website do I go to in order to get all this information about what we're doing in the world? If there was a newsletter I would read it often. This stuff is important and it is almost completely unknown to Americans.


Also, while I don't see you advocating it, I wonder how you would address someone who equated neoliberal foreign policy with, not necessarily "nonexistent" foreign policy (which for some reason seems to be a relatively new Fox News trope?) - but maybe a "weak" foreign policy.

To put it a bit differently: is neoliberal foreign policy compatible with American Exceptionalism so to speak? (I think the latter is pretty dangerous, but my feeling is that it isn't going anywhere anytime soon.)
Unfortunately isn't one source. A couple that I use though to keep up to date on international affairs are as follows (you can pick and choose):

1.) Reuters: (a decent place to get general overviews of world news, go to their world section and click on the 'more world news' link on the center of the page).

2.) Relief Web: is a UN sponsored news aggregation site that deals with both conflict and natural disasters / disease. you can search by country, or what I do is simply read through their 'Updates' section every day).

3.) Institute for the Study of War: carries updates on Iraq and Syria (including updated maps)

4.) The Long War Journal: Is a bit more neoconservative in its opinions, but posts updates on the global war on terror (so mostly Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Pakistan). They also report SITE Intelligence findings which is a good way to stay up to date without having to pay hundreds of dollars for the SITE subscription.

5.) IRIN: is linked to the UN and is updated a couple of times per week with in depth humanitarian news.

6.) The Jamestown Foundation: has a couple of publications, a daily one about China, a daily one about Russia / Europe, a weekly one about the Caucuses, a bi monthly one involving terrorism analysis, and a publication on terrorist leader profiles.

7.) Combating Terrorism Center: produces a monthly PDF on reports concerning terrorist theory and activities and the occasional in depth longer report on a specific topic.

8.) Foreign Affairs: The name pretty much speaks for itself. if you register you can get a couple of articles free every month, otherwise you have to pay for it.

9.) Africa Confidential: A publication that the Bureau of African Affairs receives with updates on key issues in Sub-Saharan Africa.

10.) International Crisis Group: I mostly read their longer published reports which tend to be quite good.

11.) Human Rights Watch: Humanitarian news updates, I skim them and mostly read their in depth reports / PDFs.

12.) Amnesty International: Same as Human Rights Watch

13.) BBC News: Decent world news source, ok reputation, a little slow sometimes to update though.

14.) Al Jazeera English: Pretty similar to BBC description, only this is influenced by Qatar

15.) Al Arabiya: Saudi Arabia's version of Al Jazeera English

16.) IHS Janes: Security analysis, some stuff free, some requires a subscription.

17.) Economist Intelligence Unit: In depth analysis of different countries, you can usually find some of their material online for free after it's been published for a while, otherwise a subscription is required.

18.) Council on Foreign Relations: General foreign relations content.

19.) Brookings Institute: Same.

20.) Foreign Policy Magazine: Self explanatory, requires a subscription though, like Foreign Affairs you can register for free to read a couple of free articles every month.

21.) UN News: Self explanatory, you can also explore other UN pages.

22.) AllAfrica: African news

22.) Local news sites: Reading local news sites also helps since they tend to report on both the details of what is going on and on how the United states is interacting with them. Some I use include: Radio Dabanga (Sudan), Sudan Tribune, Radio Tamazuj (South Sudan), Radio Okapi (DRC), Daslan Radio (Somalia), Sabahi (Horn of Africa), Shabelle (Somalia), Yemen Times, Bangkok Post (Thailand), Irrawaddy (Burma), Democratic Voice of Burma, Karen News (Burma), Sahara Press Service (Western Sahara), Haaretz (Israel), B'Tselem (Israel), Times of India, etc.

I added a bunch of your recommendations to my read list on Google Play Newsstand. It's been good reading so far. I appreciate the list good sir.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:59:20 AM
#40
This is definitely someplace where you both I think have more insight than I. I do read a lot of news as zolace commented on (IR news), but it rather crowds out a lot of domestic news consumption which makes me a bit of a one trick pony. So my foreign policy analysis isn't really influenced at all by his domestic policy and politicking because I am not very familiar with it.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:56:46 AM
#39
I still think his biggest weakness is his inability to use the office's power of persuasion/bully pulpit. He has never really managed to build relationships on the hill. Even Bush jr and Carter were able to do that. I think that partly exaggerates for me any inconsistencies.

And for the record, no matter the rhetoric from the congress, I squarely blame the president for that lack. That's his job, in my opinion. Bush got over being called a loser by Harry Reid. Partisan hackery in congress is always there. The president should be able to find ways around it.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:55:39 AM
#38
Egypt, well Egypt is a bit more realist which I mentioned on the first page as well. We just have too many blunt interests there. It's honestly one of the priority countries in terms of maintaining domestic US support which makes Obama much less inclined towards ideology there and much more inclined to realpolitik maneuvers; which, while not perhaps the most consistent with President Obama's other policy plans, has been pretty routine as far as US dealings the Egypt, the Sudan and Libya region.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:51:40 AM
#37
I thought I was doing alright keeping up on things. There are three news e-publications which I read thoroughly, daily, and a few more I read less frequently. That's about to change, thanks to the above recommendation from Sana who evidently reads about 8 times more news than me. But for now, my idea of doing alright seems pretty pedestrian. I wonder if you're in the same boat as me, but are less welcoming to Sana's argument, owing to less of an inclination to appreciate affirmations of the president's successes.

I'm stubborn as shit, I know how this works.
I've also mentioned several times there may well be lots of information at his fingertips that I'm not privy to that would change my mind. And I keep looking through what Sana8410 posts looking for a pattern or tidbit that would make me say..."ahhhh". But I haven't seen it yet. I'm not terribly partisan unless I'm trying to draw someone out, which I certainly do from time to time. Not so much from Sana8410, as he personally is very consistent.
I am not as familiar with Central Asia so I struggle to find effective alternative policy options for Pakistan in combating that actual threat to us. I'm not sure it's as much a matter of consistency as a matter of not really having any better options other than perhaps inaction (other than maybe manipulating our foreign aid as a lever).

I think the case is similar in Yemen (that I detailed on the last page). Outside of leaning on Saudi Arabia to deal with the Houthis who aren't a major threat to us and try to help with AQAP, we have limited options in how we can combat the threat of AQAP. That being said, President Obama has recently supported Yemen's new offensive which has really hurt AQAP; and Yemen has moved more towards a political solution in federation which we have supported. Unfortunately the northern Houthi rebellion has made a lot of inroads and has threatened to destabilize Yemen, and that is a battle in which we have very little if any real recourse to address. So we are left with helping them against AQAP via drone strikes. Not ideal, but I just don't see many alternative options other than material support and disengagement. Disengagement in either Pakistan or Yemen would be hard to justify domestically here though or politically given the problem that exists in those being the two countries that harbor the most imminent threats to US security.

I'm not a big fan of drone strikes, but I've been on the fence about them because of this.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:47:26 AM
#36
As far as making a decision and moving on, there would be no purpose in my doing that. I was describing why I wasn't really suited to long posts at this point. I can't make any decisions on the actual subject because I don't have the information to make it. So I remain skeptical. There are only a few people here I pay much attention to here to try and gain perspective. Both you and Sana are amongst those people, as I've received good info from both of you. There are others as well, but only a few. And these are the only reason I still post here at all.
sr. member
Activity: 378
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:44:16 AM
#35
I thought I was doing alright keeping up on things. There are three news e-publications which I read thoroughly, daily, and a few more I read less frequently. That's about to change, thanks to the above recommendation from Sana who evidently reads about 8 times more news than me. But for now, my idea of doing alright seems pretty pedestrian. I wonder if you're in the same boat as me, but are less welcoming to Sana's argument, owing to less of an inclination to appreciate affirmations of the president's successes.

I'm stubborn as shit, I know how this works.
I've also mentioned several times there may well be lots of information at his fingertips that I'm not privy to that would change my mind. And I keep looking through what Sana8410 posts looking for a pattern or tidbit that would make me say..."ahhhh". But I haven't seen it yet. I'm not terribly partisan unless I'm trying to draw someone out, which I certainly do from time to time. Not so much from Sana8410, as he personally is very consistent.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
August 22, 2014, 11:43:46 AM
#34
Pages:
Jump to: