How Did The Wheels Come Off Obama's Foreign Policy?

BuilderPlumber

In fairness, Obama has achieved a lot of positives with his foreign policy. Improved relations with Cuba and Iran will lead to improved conditions in these and foster a less paranoid environment between the US and these. As well as this, Obama inherited a mess when he came into office and for sure, the Middle East was a very unstable place to say the least.

It would be the easy option to say 'of course Obama didn't cause all this, it was Bush2'. It is not as simple as that. Certainly, Bush2 has a lot to do with it and the Iraq war was not necessary and only ushered in expanded versions of al Qaeda, new al Qaeda offshoots and al Qaeda copycats. 9/11 however reminds us that this hatred dated back much further than Bush2. Al Qaeda had attacked US interests throughout Clinton's time.

Others may say it is all the Israel v Palestine and Lebanon war issues. However, groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who rose out of these conflicts concentrated on local enemies (Israel, Israeli-backed factions) and shared a common enemy with the West in groups like al Qaeda and ISIS.

Al Qaeda stated that US troops based in Saudi Arabia in 1991 was the start of this wheels coming off of US foreign policy that lead to 9/11 and ISIS? Saddam had invaded Kuwait and the US and most of the world opposed it and a war was waged to liberate Kuwait. Saddam had good relations with the West up until then. But the hatred was still there between many 'Islamic' and 'Arab nationalist' factions and the West.

Looking back further, we have the Iran-Iraq war and the Iranian revolution. Iran's leaders fell out with the US after the US refused to hand back the Shah to the new authorities. Awful atrocities were committed by all sides in the ensuing Iran-Iraq war and the West engineered a lot of it for devious needs. Yet, Iran (whose population suffered a lot) has a more pro-West population than other countries, is Shia and has not produced any of the top dangerous terrorists.

Going back to the same time, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan is where I think the first hints of the type of fanatic Sunni anti-West groups came about. They came from Saudi Arabia, practiced intolerant and violent forms of Sunni Islam called Salafism and Wahabism and were determined to spread it. The US needed them for their proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan and Afghanistan became the world's first true terrorist state by 1996. Savagery like we have seen from 9/11 to date targeted at the West was done onto the Soviets in the 1979-88 period and against moderate Afghans in the 1989-2001 period. This breed of Sunni fanatics also attacked Iranian and post-Soviet Russian interests and even fought against Serbs in Kosovo. All of this was considered either ok or irrelevant by the West. The West created and funded this monster and then dropped it. It became angry and egotistical at the same time (we bet the USSR, let's go after the USA).

US policy for years is what has caused the wheels to come off its foreign policy. Vietnam, Korea, Central America, Africa, etc. were more places many mistakes were made but the Middle East has at present proven the most disasterous (Africa could well overtake it in the future with lawless terror states forming in Libya right across from Europe).

US policy to use Sunni Islamic extremism as a counterweight to Russia, Iran or Arab nationalism has been the biggest mistake. Russia, Iran and Arab nationalist states ALL are logical, will do deals and are states that want to survive. Sunni Islamic extremism like Salafism and Wahabism are not logical and do not care about initiating wars and daring terror attack. They should be the real enemy of the West and the West should cooperate with Russia, Iran and Arab nationalist states like Syria to deal with this common and very dangerous enemy.

Obama as said did some good things. But like all recent US president, he has made blunders. His main one was to encourage the 'Arab Spring' and help oust Colonel Gaddafi. That was the very same as Bush getting rid of Saddam. As with Iraq, the war hardened fanatics were waiting to take over yet another Sunni Arab state.

Thomas998

There's a saying: "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't", which proves true time and again. Saddam, Gaddafi - all were tyrants, but all created stability.

It's why I believe Assad should be backed.

Thomas998

Though the idea of Russia bombing the Kurds admittedly repulses me.

Amerika

Call the 1980's and see if we can get our foreign policy.back.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

Call the 1980's and see if we can get our foreign policy.back.

So, what will the USA do instead of Iran-CONTRA and funding the mujhadeen? :pac:

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

So, what will the USA do instead of Iran-CONTRA and funding the mujhadeen? :pac:

]We can start with doing more than just providing blankets to Ukraine. Restart the missile defense in Czech Republic and Poland. Protect our allies in Syria. Kill the Iran deal and impose even tougher sanctions. And commit to support Israel if they need to stop Iranian nuke development.

Skylinehead

Amerika wrote: »

]We can start with doing more than just providing blankets to Ukraine. Restart the missile defense in Czech Republic and Poland. Protect our allies in Syria. Kill the Iran deal and impose even tougher sanctions. And commit to support Israel if they need to stop Iranian nuke development.

Yay for illegal invasions of Carribean countries and supporting apartheid (not that that's changed much since in fairness)!

josephryan1989

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The problem with wanting to change these countries is that they need to want it too

Germany and Japan didn't want to 70 years ago.
They were made to.
Why can't the Middle East?

, and make an effort to accomplish those goals.

If all else fails force often works.

That commitment has been sorely lacking in Afghanistan and Iraq to varying degrees, with an over reliance on American intervention playing a large part in that.They've been given the tools and shown how to use them, at this point it should be up to them to make it succeed or not.

While they are not up to it they need someone standing over them until they are up to it.

Comparisons to post war Europe and Japan are false equivalencies, due to the more developed nature of the societies and the demands placed upon the Allies by the geopolitical realities of the time.

The only difference I can see is the job is harder.
The job has to be done regardless.

The Middle East in in the the grip of a Cold War-esque between Saudi Arabia and Iran that's been going on for decades. Additionally, you have the current economic battle being waged by the Saudis against the US and Russia in the oil production market, which helps to explain Russia's friendliness towards Iran and their intervention in Syria. Global powers have been meddling since the get go to influence events to their favor. The emergence of ISIS is simply a new flavor to that.

You can't be less ruthless than the opposition simply because your government's 'policy' is benevolent, can you now?

AbusesToilets

It's doesn't have to be done. There is no pressing urgency on the part of the US to continue to pump money into these countries. They can continue to effectively dominate the region through investment in other countries. If anything the emergence of ISIS has been a useful tool, in that it has focused the attentions of those countries on the issue of Sunni extremism, prompting many of them to tackle it in a more direct manner than they have done previously. It's also a boon for arms sales.

BoJack Horseman

I think Barry's tenure has been a mixed bag.... Its not at all fair to consider it a failure.

Looking at it overall (my impressions at least)
- Relations with Europe have been chilly, what with their constant spying on European leaders & citizens.
- Relations with Africa remain as normal, governments tacking islamic extremism are grateful for what little help is afforded from AFRICOM.
- Middle east.... mixed, but not disastrous.
- India.... amiable & progressing fine, no major issues.
- China.... The US has made efforts to improve relations but China has been barely amiable in reciprocation.
- Pacific/SE Asia.... stronger than ever in part due to an increasingly aggressive China.
- Russia.... As Czar Vlad embarks on USSR v2.0, relations have all but collapsed.... This isn't Obama's fault in the least..... but perhaps a riposte could be achieved by finally completing & even expanding 'Aegis ashore'.

AbusesToilets

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

I think Barry's tenure has been a mixed bag.... Its not at all fair to consider it a failure.

Looking at it overall (my impressions at least)
- Relations with Europe have been chilly, what with their constant spying on European leaders & citizens.
- Relations with Africa remain as normal, governments tacking islamic extremism are grateful for what little help is afforded from AFRICOM.
- Middle east.... mixed, but not disastrous.
- India.... amiable & progressing fine, no major issues.
- China.... The US has made efforts to improve relations but China has been barely amiable in reciprocation.
- Pacific/SE Asia.... stronger than ever in part due to an increasingly aggressive China.
- Russia.... As Czar Vlad embarks on USSR v2.0, relations have all but collapsed.... This isn't Obama's fault in the least..... but perhaps a riposte could be achieved by finally completing & even expanding 'Aegis ashore'.

I think the problems related to the spying issue is case of all involved publicly wringing their hands and just getting on with things. Every country is at it and knows the rest are too.

Burdened as he has been by sequestration, I feel the Administration has done a poor job with the military. Authored some terrible decisions relating to acquisition programs (F-22 production cancelled, F-35 ongoing shambles, Ford class carrier issues). Overseen a massive draw down of forces in a most ham fisted fashion, that has seen thousands of combat vets getting the shaft over petty administrative reasons. The forced integration of women into combat arms, over the objections of every combat branch and against the findings of their own testing.

The Administration has been very indecisive in relation to events like the Ukraine and Syria. Talk of red lines being crossed and then failing to take any action. I wouldn't be in favor of committing troops into Syria, failing to take any action after making those statements is not a great way to show resolve. The US completely dithered while Russian troops rolled into the Crimea and later Eastern Ukraine.

Thomas998

I cannot understand how the military, the ultimate meritocracy, requires forced integration of females. Or, for that matter, lower qualifying standards for them. War isn't like that.

BoJack Horseman

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think the problems related to the spying issue is case of all involved publicly wringing their hands and just getting on with things. Every country is at it and knows the rest are too.

Sure, it will not threaten trans-atlantic relationships to a great extent.
However it did indeed shake trust.
And its not fair to say that everyone is at it.
Most countries at a pan-national summit don't have either the inclination or the means to bug their colleagues from other governments in the way America did.

So, yeah, it wasn't an massive deal, but certainly a mistake by the administration and its intelligence services.

I feel the Administration has done a poor job with the military. Authored some terrible decisions relating to acquisition programs (F-22 production cancelled, F-35 ongoing shambles, Ford class carrier issues). Overseen a massive draw down of forces in a most ham fisted fashion, that has seen thousands of combat vets getting the shaft over petty administrative reasons.

Agreed there....
I think sequestration will cost more in the long run than it saved.
Yes, Obama cancelling the F-22 programme just when it was starting to achieve significant unit cost reductions will probably be the worst decision to afflict the airforce for a generation. (the F35 issues started before Obama tbf).
Barak has also defunded the Tomahawk cruise missile from 2016 onwards. (which might surprise some people)

While I'm unsure how much of it is down to Obama vs Congress... the reduction in force strength will also imo prove to be foolish.

Fun fact.... by 2020 the US army will have shrunk to the same overall size as Russia's...(450,000) with fewer deployable combat brigades. (30 vs 40).

While many will see little issue with this, the amount of work Obama expects from his military has not slackened off...

So while making the US militarily weaker, the ability of the US to reinforce its foreign policy decisions also diminishes.

The Administration has been very indecisive in relation to events like the Ukraine and Syria.

I'm not sure I can hold this against him.
He promised greater disengagement and he delivered on it.

WRT Ukraine; he had no technical or legal obligation to do anything.
At last years NATO summit, the big 4 leaders took the decision to allow Germany & France to lead talks with Russia.
The US (& UK) disengagement from this process was actually deliberate in the hope that it would placate Russia to an extent.
The result was predictably the opposite of course with Merkel/Hollande doing their best Neville Chamberlain & Russian forces continued thair war in Ukraine almost without resistance.

I think before casting hindsight over his decisions, its important to consider the alternative.

So while, personally I would have been stronger on Ukraine.... I also wouldn't have gone 'all in' either.

AbusesToilets

I'd agree with you there WRT the Ukraine, as the many posts in previous threads would attest to. It continues to vexatious issue, and I think the general tack that the Western governments have struck is the right one re: economic sanctions etc. I do feel that there was scope to act quicker perhaps in countering Russia efforts and certainly in engaging more effectively in the media sphere to counter Russian misinformation.

In regards to the military and budget as a whole, this decade will go down as one of the most abysmal periods of governance in history. I think Obama cops a lot of flak for Congress's intransigence, but he was the one to push Sequestration forward, admittedly to try and spur Congressional action. I don't think that the defunding of the military can continue, as you said, the demand has not decreased and eventually the butcher's bill will have to be paid. There is a drastic need for a shake up in the Pentagon though. Acquisition programs are a joke, leadership is terrible with no penalty for mediocrity and poor performance. That's deserving of a thread in itself

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

]We can start with doing more than just providing blankets to Ukraine. Restart the missile defense in Czech Republic and Poland. Protect our allies in Syria. Kill the Iran deal and impose even tougher sanctions. And commit to support Israel if they need to stop Iranian nuke development.

Bring back those charming death squads that slaughtered thousands in El Salvador and Honduras.

Amerika

asherbassad wrote: »

Bring back those charming death squads that slaughtered thousands in El Salvador and Honduras.

What in the world are you going on about?

Overheal

Thomas998 wrote: »

I cannot understand how the military, the ultimate meritocracy, requires forced integration of females. Or, for that matter, lower qualifying standards for them. War isn't like that.

Isn't it? A lot of other countries don't even have an age restriction...

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

What in the world are you going on about?

I think he might be referring to the "Contras" that Reagan backed.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I think he might be referring to the "Contras" that Reagan backed.

I don’t think so. The Contras was in Nicaragua and involved the US financial backing of the rebels fighting the Sandinista government, who’s motto seem to be “I never met a human right law that I didn’t violate.”

PopePalpatine

Well, the US did back the military junta of El Salvador during their civil war (1979-92). In the same period they provided training to the Honduran army, and Honduras served as a base for Contra rebels.

Manic Moran

Thomas998 wrote: »

I cannot understand how the military, the ultimate meritocracy, requires forced integration of females. Or, for that matter, lower qualifying standards for them. War isn't like that.

The latter is because, generally speaking, women are not physically as capable as men. For whatever reason, it was decided that they would like to have about as many females, as a percentage, pass the physical tests as men, as a percentage. You can argue the merits of that one, but as long as they're out of the heavy-lifting front-line roles, requiring the same effort doesn't seem unreasonable. The overall merit of this differing standard has been repeatedly questioned, especially as the push to integrate women continues.

The former is simply because we haven't yet run out of men willing and capable of doing the job, so what's the benefit to the military as opposed to the downsides? It's not simply the physical capabiity. There is, unfortunately, a distinct problem in interpersonal actions between young folks in good physical condition who are, coincidentally, at their sexual peaks. I don't know any commander of an integrated unit who has not had to deal with the troubles this causes. And then, of course, you have the privacy issues. The US is unfortunately a very prudish country, and is not currently ready for 'starship-troopers' type integration, and still relies on separated habitation and sanitary facilities. This is of limited availability in a line unit. "Girls and boys, strip. We're going to inspect your genitals and your ass for ticks" (A not unusual problem in places like Fort Knox or Fort Benning) is just asking for a sexual harassment claim to occur.

Three major military organisations have recently studied the matter. The UK took a look at it last year, again. (Two previous studies, 2002 and 2010 both concluded it would be detremental to combat effectivness). The 2014 study looked at 21 combat effectiveness factors, and concluded one would be improved, seven more or less stay the same, eleven would be worse, and two they couldn't really judge.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/389575/20141218_WGCC_Findings_Paper_Final.pdf

The Israelis also had another look at it in May of this year, with two particularly unique background factors. Firstly, they -are- running out of men willing to do the job. Secondly, they've had females operating in the tasks outside of combat unts (eg female tankers in training units) as well as having some limited practical experience of females in front-line roles. This study was based on tankers only, not infantry, and concluded that the armored force should remain a male-only environment.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4658372,00.html

Finally, the US Marines released the results of their year-long assessment in September. They also concluded that it would be detremental. Secretary of the Navy is overruling the Corps.

http://www.npr.org/2015/09/10/439246978/marine-corps-release-results-of-study-on-women-in-combat-units

Of the sixteen odd industrialised countries which allow women in combat roles to one extent or another (including Canada, Romania, France, Germany, Netherlands, Denmark, Ireland, Israel, Poland, New Zealand, Australia, Sweden), some still have limitations (eg Israel already mentioned, Netherlands Marines), some didn't have a choice in the matter (European Court of Justice rules on law, not on capability), and most of the rest are more known for their peace keeping duties than for high-intensity combat.

The writing is on the wall. Should I ever be given command of another unit, I expect it will have females in it. I don't like it, indeed, I don't know anyone in a combat arms unit who actively wants it. I will deal with all the issues which show up as best I can, but the point is that I would have enough problems without adding to them. Unless a change improves the ability of the US military to defeat its enemies in combat, the change should not be made. Experiences of the last ten years are not indicative of this, they have not been high-intensity combat situations.I'll follow orders and policy, but if you want to know why it's being forced on us, that's why. We don't believe it's in the military's best interests and would like a better reason than "Because it's not fair to women that they can't serve in combat"

Overheal

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

Women don't fight? What world do you live in? :pac:

two wheels good

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, the US did back the military junta of El Salvador during their civil war (1979-92). In the same period they provided training to the Honduran army, and Honduras served as a base for Contra rebels.

The USA trained many henchmen and death-squads who stomped all over CA and SA. Especially from the US School of the Americas, Fort Benning Georgia - now renamed, probabably partly due to its notorious reputation.

Death squads, for example, that killed Oscar Romero, also 6 Jesuits and 2 women in Salvador in the 80's

two wheels good

Overheal wrote: »

If we had more (good) women in politics maybe there'd be less fighting for the menfolk to do :pac:

I read/heard similar comments more than once in the aftermath of the banking crisis. Less testosterone in the boardroom might have produced more rational decisions. Maybe fewer sociopaths too - who knows!

Amerika

two wheels good wrote: »

The USA trained many henchmen and death-squads who stomped all over CA and SA. Especially from the US School of the Americas, Fort Benning Georgia - now renamed, probabably partly due to its notorious reputation.

Death squads, for example, that killed Oscar Romero, also 6 Jesuits and 2 women in Salvador in the 80's

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

Manach

The current President's policy seems to be more hands off with the velvet glove than his immediate predessors and more inclined to used technology (drones)where the iron fist fist required. This level of disengagement has left a vacuum were emerging and former great powers are stepping in to fill the void. Historically the marginised areas outside the empire's metropole have bourne a measure of active intervention to impose control, but in many circumstances the lack of any clear hegomon leads to even greater levels of conflict. Hopefully this will not be the long term legacy of President Obama.

two wheels good

Amerika wrote: »

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

You can choose any euphemism you like. My previous link will lead you to plenty of sources. The killing of the Jesuits and 2 women is a good example - the killers were some elite military battalion.
Many other examples of the terror inflicted on the populations in Nicaragua and El salvador - and other countries too.

BTW I see there's a demonstraiton coming up next month at Fort Benning on the anniversary of that killing.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

I know there were US trained counterinsurgency battalions. But please show me from some reputable source where they trained the units to become “death-squads.”

"Death Panels" #checkmate

Amerika

two wheels good wrote: »

You can choose any euphemism you like. My previous link will lead you to plenty of sources. The killing of the Jesuits and 2 women is a good example - the killers were some elite military battalion.
Many other examples of the terror inflicted on the populations in Nicaragua and El salvador - and other countries too.

BTW I see there's a demonstraiton coming up next month at Fort Benning on the anniversary of that killing.

None I saw indicated they were done or sanctioned by the US.