Obama's sadder but wiser foreign policy

[n2doc]

When he entered the White House in 2009, Barack Obama had grand ambitions in foreign policy. He planned to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, build a better relationship with Russia, broker peace between Israel and the Palestinians and offer a hand of friendship to Iran and the Muslim world.

Six years later, the president, and the rest of us, are sadder but wiser. American troops are still in Afghanistan and back in Iraq, although in much smaller numbers and not in ground combat. The "reset" with Russia and prospects for peace in the Middle East are little more than wistful memories.

So when the White House published the second-term edition of its national security strategy last week, one of its goals was simply to catch up with those new realities, and to reassert that the United States has no choice but to stay engaged.

"The question is never whether America should lead, but how we lead," the president wrote in his preface to the 29-page manifesto.


more

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-mcmanus-obama-foreign-policy-20150211-column.html

I for one think the President has wised up to the war profiteers and war mongers who want to keep the 'good times rolling'. I think how Libya turned out shocked him. He is fighting strong head winds on this

[CJCRANE]

2. Perhaps. But not for the reasons we've been told.

There'll probably be an article about what really happened in the NYT in a decade's time.

[pampango]

3. Idealistic and well-intentioned (at least as described in the OP) but yes a failure.

I suppose republicans are happy to see his foreign policy fail.

[randome]

4. How is it a failure? He's not responsible for Putin returning to power.

He's not responsible for Iraq or Afghanistan. Are you faulting him for not bringing peace to the Middle East? Ha!

And he has made inroads with Iran, not an easy deal to broker.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]I'm always right. When I'm wrong I admit it.
So then I'm right about being wrong.[/center][/font][hr]

[pampango]

8. His foreign policy has been light years better than his predecessors but

it has not achieved the goals set out in the OP. Obviously the achievement of foreign policy goals depends on much more than the president's actions - any president at any time.

Some events are always outside a president's control - Assad, ISIS, Putin, etc. Only a republican would blame him for things that others are responsible for. He has responded well and reasonably to the crises he has been faced with. Who knows what McCain or Romney would have done with Ukraine or Assad.

[sabrina 1]

7. I don't think it 'failed'. The more I see the more I think it has been UNDERMINED by

the warmongers. See the Iran plot exposure eg. They were caught outright working to undermine his policies in Iran, which are to resolve the issue peacefully. Neocons Netanyahu/Dermer, were plotting behind the scenes to use our Congress to UNDERMINE those policies. They were caught, this time. But how often has that happened in the past?

Ukraine comes to mind. Where they were also caught backing a coup there. Was the president even aware of these neocons actions there until after they were exposed?

[pampango]

11. I doubt the president was caught napping concerning neocon actions in Ukraine.

Where they were also caught backing a coup there.

There was no 'coup'. There were large scale protests of a major policy reversal (not exactly an unheard of phenomenon in democratic countries) that lasted for months through a cold Ukrainian winter. To deescalate the protests Yanukovich eventually agreed to remain in power, use the security forces to protect government buildings and hold early elections no later than 10 months in the future.

What did he do the next day? Pack his bags, collect his billions and fled to Russia which, perhaps not coincidentally, annexed Crimea a month later.

[sabrina 1]

5. I don't think it would have been. I think he has been totally undermined by the Neocons and they

appear to have amassed an enormous amount of power in our government.

See what they tried to do to his Iran Policies. Netanyahu and his right wing, neocon, warmongering cohort, Dermer sent as Ambassador to the US apparently to do exactly that, help undermine the President's stated policies.

Their plot was exposed, but it gave ME a different perspective on why the President seemed to have 'caved' on his policies.

I see how angry the WH is over this. I wonder how many other plots, see McCain and Nuland among others backing the coup in Ukraine eg, were hatched and carried out against his wishes?

The neocons knew he wanted to work for peaceful solutions in Ukr, in Iran, Syria and even in Libya initially. This was not what THEY had planned.

And when people on the Left go along with the neocon propaganda, see Libya, Iran and Ukraine, they are not helping the President imo.

The president is working with Russia eg, on Iran. Makes me wonder if the anger of the neocons towards those policies, and Russia's support for them, wasn't behind their attempt to demonize Russia and alienate them from the US, causing them to drop their support for a peaceful solution to Iran, 'the Prize' we were told long ago, of the Neocons.

[sabrina 1]

9. Far from being someone who wasn't aware of the threat of the neocons, he spoke openly, naming

names, like Wolfowitz, Rove et al, back in 2002 calling their rush to war 'stupid'.

And from what I can see on the surface, and I know that is very little, he and Kerry have been fighting the neocons on, eg, Syria, and on Libya, now on Iran and I think on Ukr.

It is possible however that he did not know the extent of the power they have within the Govt. Remember Cheney going around the media calling him 'weak', I believe on Libya, or maybe Syria eg.

And then there is the Military. It's possible he thought once in the WH, he could 'negotiate' with those who still supported the Neocon policies of War forever.

And then he has members of his own party who are essentially neocons also.

And WE tend to fall for the propaganda also. Though not all of us.

No matter how smart you are, and I believe he is very smart, when you are facing the US Military, the Far Right, Neocons and their global network of warmongering profiteers, and a Congress that supports them, including some in your own party, it would be difficult to deal with.

The Netanyahu/Boeher affair caused ME at least, to slightly change my views regarding his policies changing and wonder if they were not CHANGED for him?

[sabrina 1]

13. Just trying to figure things out that never made sense. And I guess recent events did

cause me to wonder how much we DON'T know. Remember Kerry being caught on an open mic criticizing policies in Syria eg? I don't have a link right now, but I was thrilled at the time, hoping this was how they Admins was thinking and would act accordingly. Russia intervened in that situation and made it unnecessary for Obama to go any further with the allegations against Assad. I thought that was a relief to him.

And all the more reason for the Neocons to hate Putin, he helped foil their Syria plans and is helping foil their Iran plans. And doing with Obama.

Note the knee jerk responses here re Russia/Ukraine from a 'few' posters? I see similar propaganda on Twitter, almost word for word.

But in reality, Obama still is depending on the support of Russia and China, along with France, Germany and the UK, to avoid any military conflict with Iran, while the neocons are doing all they can to undermine those efforts.

[Rex]

10. He has to fight against the ownership society and that is next to impossible.

When Carlyle Group wants to profit from endless wars, they do so at the cost of American lives. Obama has to fight those groups and at the same time work with them, because they are the ones that sell our fighter jets and other military hardware. Groups like that love war profits.