Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: urtax$@work; gusopol3
You need to take into account that the article author is a NeoCon so there is some neocon mis-info in the article. Such as the troop withdrawal from Iraq. Obama is not setting the withdrawal schedule for Iraq. He is strictly following the schedule established by the Status of Forces agreement that Bush negotiated with Iraq and signed before he left office. Only Iraq can change that schedule.

But the author is correct to identify the Realists relation ship with Obama because Obama campaigned on Realist foreign policies against McCain who campaigned on NeoCon foreign policies.

And thru-out 09 and 10, Obama has faithfully followed the Realists. It has only been in 2011 that Obama has drifted towards Liberal Interventionist policies.

Many GOPers and freepers mistakingly take great glee when the NeoCons criticize Obama's forign policies but they ought to be listening to complaints from Kissinger, Brzezenski, Scowcroft, and other prominent Realists.

The reality is that Obama, like all dem presidents, has a foreign policy team composed of Realists and Liberal Interventionists. And as is most often the case, Obama has a Liberal Interventionist as Sec of State(Hillary), a Realist as NSA(first Gen Jones replaced by Donolon), and a Realist as SecDef(Republican Realist Gates who will be replaced by Dem Realist Panetta).

6 posted on 06/04/2011 7:02:24 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: Ben Ficklin
He is strictly following the schedule established by the Status of Forces agreement that Bush negotiated with Iraq...

Under constant pressure from the Democrats for a "timeline" and an "exit strategy" while things were progressing but were still too unstable to determine such properly.

I blame Bush for caving in to the Dems on that, but the Dems are far from being blameless in this themselves.

9 posted on 06/04/2011 12:07:12 PM PDT by Allegra (Hey! Stop looking at my tagline like that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: Ben Ficklin
It was thus remarkable that, in his last policy speech, Gates acknowledged a potentially big payoff of the American labor in Iraq: a residual U.S. military presence in that country as a way of monitoring the Iranian regime next door.

I can't parse the stripes the way you do, but this is realism to me. Not that it has to be a US presence in Iraq, but a viable counter-weight to Iran is essential, which Saddam's increasingly decrepit military obviously no longer was. Scowcroft, Odom and the rest of them are the Ramsay Clarks, Daniel Elsbergs and Philip Berrigans of their generation to me-- they probably would take that as a compliment.

11 posted on 06/04/2011 3:02:53 PM PDT by gusopol3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson