Topic: President Obama has no foreign policy - page 2. (Read 2099 times)
Quote
I don't believe he actually has a background in journalism. He's a political scientist specializing in political risk. His perspective would be on the consequences of inconsistency.
Yeah, I read his bio. He wouldn't have been able to pass his PhD though without adhering to those standards in his thesis (or at least I would hope that he wouldn't). He should know better, so I find it to be a fairly poor standard for an academic as well. I guess it is a blog article, but hell I put more thought than that into some of my anonymous forum posts let alone anything associated with my actual name.I guess the point is that his argument was poorly supported (almost not at all) and that the entire blog post read more like a soundbyte than an honest attempt at academic or journalistic discourse.
As far as I know, he wasn't discussing his own opinion of drones, and drones were were merely an example of inconsistency. I don't believe he actually has a background in journalism. He's a political scientist specializing in political risk. His perspective would be on the consequences of inconsistency.
Right. But he didn't explain how. Or rather he hinged everything on the notion that they were unilateral actions that violated the sovereignty of other countries, which, for the vast majority of our drone strikes, hasn't been the case. He is pointing to only a handful of strikes in Pakistan in a sample size of hundreds, and he wasn't just talking about that small sample either, he was incorrectly making the accusation against the entire program (hence his death figures).
As far as I know, he wasn't discussing his own opinion of drones, and drones were were merely an example of inconsistency. I don't believe he actually has a background in journalism. He's a political scientist specializing in political risk. His perspective would be on the consequences of inconsistency.
Umair127,
I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
On drones, it's no secret Obama has massively increased the operation, getting into sovereignty violations even Bush was leery of doing.I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
On the rest, you seem to be suggesting a conservative bias from the author. I don't think that's accurate. It was a short newspaper article that I pointed out in advance was thin. If you really want to see the fleshed out versions, I imagine his books would supply that. He seems to be well respected.
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'm stubborn as shit, I know how this works.
Umair127,
I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
On drones, it's no secret Obama has massively increased the operation, getting into sovereignty violations even Bush was leery of doing.I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
On the rest, you seem to be suggesting a conservative bias from the author. I don't think that's accurate. It was a short newspaper article that I pointed out in advance was thin. If you really want to see the fleshed out versions, I imagine his books would supply that. He seems to be well respected.
Umair127,
I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
I can certainly understand that, and thank you for the article. Concerning its contents I had a few qualms. Regarding some of the main points for President Obama's lack of foreign policy:
1.) Drones
The article points to President Obama's use of drones first. A good target to pick given how they've been used, especially in Pakistan. But a couple of things to point out here: 1.) Drone usage was well under way in multiple countries under the Bush administration, it was merely a secret program back then, one which was largely revealed via wikileaks (particularly our drone program in Yemen). Prior to this, the host countries usually took credit for them publicly which makes early drone data highly underestimated. That being said President Obama has escalated the program, and has had to do so publicly unlike his predecessor. But the author suggests that this has all been done unilaterally, which hasn't been the case at all. In fact, in order to carry out drone operations we count on, on the ground local support for the program and most of the time, on governmental support as well.
In Yemen, the government used to take direct responsibility for our strikes and we require Yemeni intelligence reportings to track and pick targets. In Somalia we've had troops on the ground for years assisting, have worked closely with a much stronger Somali government (unlike Bush) and more closely with Kenya (in particular we made sure that pirates could be tried in Kenyan courts), and all done in support of a broader AU mission (AMISOM). Nothing unilateral about that. In Mali we utilized them amidst an international coalition, particularly strong with France but also with the AU (also unheard of during the Bush Administration).
The big shift has been in Pakistan. Through most of our drone operations there we have depended on US paid tribal militias and the support of the Pakistani government; a situation which has only recently changed. But that also comes from a more nuanced understanding of Al Qaeda's roots and a new targeting of the Haqqani Network. We've certainly cut back our drone campaign since then though, especially in Pakistan (which is where most of our drone actions had taken place anyway), much to the criticism of realists, war hawks, neocons, and general conservatives. so far this year we've only carried out seven strikes in Pakistan (compared to our peak of 117 in 2010). At the moment, our primary theater for drone strikes has been in Yemen which has the support of the Yemeni government.
2.) Iraq
The author states that Iraq exposes President Obama's hypocritical foreign policy the best. It's another good area to jab at him, but I disagree with the overall assessment by the author. Or rather, I disagree in the face of a lack of argument from the author. There is no supporting evidence provided by him when it comes to why he finds President Obama's stance on Iraq contradictory and non-existent. He just throws the soundbyte out there like Fox News does.
The only clue he offers is that we "aren't doing enough in the face of vitally threatened US interests). But he never details what those are. As we discussed earlier in another thread when I talked of a containment policy that stemmed from the reality that the ISIS isn't a direct threat to the US or to main US interests at the moment; not as long as it can be contained and that's exactly what President Obama has been doing with our airstrikes and multilateral efforts to support the Kurds while simultaneously working with Gulf States to cut off the group's funding and with Iran to pressure a regime change away from Maliki (which has just taken place). The author simply doesn't provide anything here to suggest what he finds contradictory with this policy, and I haven't heard anyone else formulate an argument for it either.
3.) China:
The only other thing the article talks about is China, but not really in the context of US foreign policy (but I've already mentioned our response to the South Sea disputes and our Pivot Towards Asia).
So in the end the article bases it's entire argument on pretty much only one aspect of President Obama's foreign policy platform: his use of drones; which, even if one were inclined to ignore what I mentioned about them above, it would still account for only a very small fraction of President Obama's foreign policy platform which wouldn't be nearly enough to render him "inconsistent" overall, let alone "non-existent".
Interestingly enough concerning these conservative soundbytes, the single strongest and most obvious example of a contradictory and realist general foreign policy within the Obama Administration is our policy towards Israel. After an initial rocky start with the country when we tried a peace process, we've switched over to a majorly realist and conservative one. It is one of the most unilateral and globally alienating policy platforms that we have, and yet when conservative commentaries seek to point to President Obama's 'contradictory' nature they almost never point to our Israel policy unless it is to criticize him for not being supportive of Israel enough (which is laughable, especially relative to other US administrations). This to me seems to indicate that they are less interested in an actual honest analysis of President Obama's foreign policy styles and his consistency and more interested in simply bashing him because it is popular among viewers.
Ironically enough, I stumbled across an article on president Obama's foreign policy and realism while reading through Foreign Policy:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...gin_redirect=0
I agree with much of what the author says concerning realism with Israel, and China; I thought he made a good point concerning the initiation of the events in Ukraine and western alignment of Ukraine closer to the EU (which would be a pretty realist move, though it is also somewhat standard US policy to support such protests), and disagree somewhat with his labeling the ISIS response a full on realist approach (which I think would be better embodied by the opinions of politicians like John McCain). I'd be more inclined to see it more closely linked to President Obama's favoring of limited engagement over large scale unilateral action, even with this limited engagement he has been coalition building with Germany, France, Turkey, and the UK.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...gin_redirect=0
I agree with much of what the author says concerning realism with Israel, and China; I thought he made a good point concerning the initiation of the events in Ukraine and western alignment of Ukraine closer to the EU (which would be a pretty realist move, though it is also somewhat standard US policy to support such protests), and disagree somewhat with his labeling the ISIS response a full on realist approach (which I think would be better embodied by the opinions of politicians like John McCain). I'd be more inclined to see it more closely linked to President Obama's favoring of limited engagement over large scale unilateral action, even with this limited engagement he has been coalition building with Germany, France, Turkey, and the UK.
Quote
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.)
I think that Secretary Kerry pretty much summed it up when he asserted that he thought that the US was exceptional, but that he recognized that others felt the same way about their country. I also don't understand the need to feel particularly exceptional to the point of pissing everyone else off / talking down to them. I'm not so insecure in myself or my country that I feel the need to put ego stroking ahead of the physical interests of my state and ahead of my own well being. We're already obviously a major superpower and global player, do we really need to feel like we are imposing Pax Americana on the rest of the world on top of that? Quote
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.
The "weakness" and "leading from behind" lines have been pretty popular among realists / conservatives as ways to attack President Obama. I'm fine with criticism of President Obama's foreign policy, there are some areas where I am highly critical as well; but these two lines are pretty generic, and they have never really included any specifics. That is to say, they have never been accompanied by a detailed examination of President Obama's foreign policy. Like the lines that I addressed in my first post, they are mostly just thrown out there with rather shallow commentary because they sounds nice and appeal to viewers, but they don't really mean much.The truth is that President Obama has been tougher on many states than even more hawkish presidents have been. President Obama was FAR tougher on Libya and Gaddafi than Reagan was (and more successful too) yet there President Obama was accused of "leading from behind". We've been far tougher on North Korea as I already mentioned, and on Iran through our sanctions regime, and tougher with China in the South Sea disputes.
Being tough can be useful, but it is completely wasted and downright destructive if that is your only tactic. I'd point to Bush in Iraq as an example, we went in crushed Saddam and then disbanded the Iraqi military and their civil society and forbade Saddam party men from holding office. Tough, but incredibly stupid, and it was at that moment that we lost Iraq. We are still fighting those people and it was the wedge that allowed people like Maliki to create Shia hegemony and groups like the AQI grow and encourage sectarianism. We only saw that get significantly better under a more neo-liberal approach (the surge followed by the Awakening).
The other main "weakness" argument ties into our dealings with Russia and I think it is simply silly. The conservative notion put forth through venues like Fox News, was that Russia saw that we were weak under Obama and took the opportunity to invade another country knowing he didn't have to fear our response. A very realist attitude / bias, and one that completely ignores the fact that Russia did the exact same thing under a very aggressive and "strong" US president: George W. Bush when it attacked Georgia and occupied South Ossetia. And in the current Ukraine scenario we have been much tougher on Russia than any US president since the Cold war.
The evidence for the weakness argument simply isn't there, or at least I have never seen anyone able to actually provide it. Neo-liberalism and constructivism requires a stronger understanding of other international actors in order to understand what is going on (which isn't popular in our media since they prefer to reduce things to sound bytes that viewers are hungry for). So unless you pay close attention I can understand why it might look like "weakness", but if you actually examine the issues in detail I find two things: 1.) Sometimes success and progress is more important than simply acting tough and hawkish. 2.) Neo-liberal approaches can be just as tough, if not tougher (since it tends to be able to utilize a wider range of pressure points) than realist approaches.
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.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.
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.)
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.
#BringOurGirlsBack
An excellent social media campaign that brought attention to a situation that had been grossly under-reported on for years and one that has lead to a couple of new military operations against Boko Haram and to a region wide coalition between English and French speaking states against the group.
An excellent social media campaign that brought attention to a situation that had been grossly under-reported on for years and one that has lead to a couple of new military operations against Boko Haram and to a region wide coalition between English and French speaking states against the group.
Why does Obama take a realist approach towards Israel and Egypt policy, vs a neolib mentality everywhere else?
That's a good question. I think some of it has to do with domestic political interests. We may not agree with Israel's approach in its international dealings, but it's Israel and US political realities has meant that publicly at least we have to support it. Other parts have to do with our security and interests overseas which both countries play a role in (though I would argue less so in Israel's case). Egypt has a lot of strategic interest for us so we are more inclined towards a realpolitik approach there (not the same thing as realism, but one is generally associated with the other). It seems everything in politics generally, not just foreign policy, is about interest, not justice or ethics.
Nobody want to be involved in any world crisis if there is no benefit to gain like petrol reserve in Iraq for example.
Nobody really cares about simple human suffering and life.
Because of such selfish policy none of the biggest world conflicts are not solved until now (Middle east conflict, south and north Korea, Former USSR area etc.)
It's obvious that President Obama is not different from other politicians.
First interest, and long after that justice and help.
Why does Obama take a realist approach towards Israel and Egypt policy, vs a neolib mentality everywhere else?
That's a good question. I think some of it has to do with domestic political interests. We may not agree with Israel's approach in its international dealings, but it's Israel and US political realities has meant that publicly at least we have to support it. Other parts have to do with our security and interests overseas which both countries play a role in (though I would argue less so in Israel's case). Egypt has a lot of strategic interest for us so we are more inclined towards a realpolitik approach there (not the same thing as realism, but one is generally associated with the other). It seems everything in politics generally, not just foreign policy, is about interest, not justice or ethics.
Nobody want to be involved in any world crisis if there is no benefit to gain like petrol reserve in Iraq for example.
Nobody really cares about simple human suffering and life.
Because of such selfish policy none of the biggest world conflicts are not solved until now (Middle east conflict, south and north Korea, Former USSR area etc.)
It's obvious that President Obama is not different from other politicians.
First interest, and long after that justice and help.
To be fair to realists, it HAS been the dominantly employed tactic throughout much of history; I would argue that it has rapidly lost value though as an overarching policy guide with the development of better communications technology, the development of strengthening international institutions, more inter-connectivity through economic cooperation (which makes those international institutions necessary), and the emergence of powerful non-state actors. It has been diminishing over time, with its last big boost in the US being the result of the Cold War and embodied in the Neo-Conservative US political movement and subsequently made incredibly unpopular again via President George W. Bush. Kissinger and Nixon are perhaps a couple of the better US examples of active realism within foreign policy. Reagan as well, and even George HW.
Why does Obama take a realist approach towards Israel and Egypt policy, vs a neolib mentality everywhere else?
That's a good question. I think some of it has to do with domestic political interests. We may not agree with Israel's approach in its international dealings, but it's Israel and US political realities has meant that publicly at least we have to support it. Other parts have to do with our security and interests overseas which both countries play a role in (though I would argue less so in Israel's case). Egypt has a lot of strategic interest for us so we are more inclined towards a realpolitik approach there (not the same thing as realism, but one is generally associated with the other). Jump to: