Skip to comments.The Pax Americana is Dead
Posted on 08/12/2014 9:11:17 AM PDT by Mariner
Thomas Friedman, the respected New York Times columnist, tried to do a beleaguered President Barack Obama a favor by publishing a summary of an extended interview between the two men, which was grandly entitled Obama on the World. Friedman tried to present the President in a positive light, by calling his weak responses feisty. Yet there is no denying that Obamas rudderless foreign policy has been a disaster. The international order has rapidly deteriorated since Obama entered the Oval Office. The current situation is so perilous that so long as Obama remains President, the phrase presidential leadership will continue to be an oxymoron.
The President suffers from two fundamental flaws. The first is that he is unwilling to make decisions. He much prefers to play the role of a disinterested observer who comments on a set of adverse events that he regards himself as powerless to shape, of which Assads carnage in Syria is the prime example. The second is that he fundamentally misunderstands the use of force in international affairs. He handicaps himself fatally by imposing unwise limitations on the use of American force, such as his repeated declarations that he will not send ground troops back into Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at hoover.org ...
Lots of discussion about when to oppose the use of force by others, and the feckless weak POTUS.
But no mention of limited US interventions to areas when the US have a vital interest.
Iraq was ALWAYS within the realm of Strategic US Interests. Without regard to the human tragedy.
It is not failing. Obama has wanted a diminished US for at least 6 years. He said it over and over. Only he is not going to have the unicorn world he envisioned.
The POTUS has no idea what he's supposed to be doing. I've never seen such a clueless human being. He actually reminds me of the movie "Catch Me If You Can" where DeCaprio was impersonating a physician, but had no idea what he was doing.
Reminds me more of the movie “Being There”
Obama on the World.
The title lacks a verb; not sure whether it’s “spits” or something that rhymes with it.
De Caprio was better at impersonating a physician than this empty suit is at impersonating a President.
The thing is that he knows exactly what he is doing and why. He only seems so "clueless" because he is concentrating on his agenda and purposely missing what he should be doing as president.
He told us that he would stick with the muslims no matter how the winds shifted.
He is a man of his word.
There is an Obama foreign doctrine, and no one is willing yet to say it: Withdrawal.
Military, ideological, and forward deployed withdrawal.
His doctrine is to willingly surrender the field to whomever wants it.
I’m am fairly certain he’d cede back to Mexico those regions that used to be old Mexico, if he thought he could get away with it.
Look at 0bama’s actions (not words) in: Iraq, Egypt, Libya, Gaza, Syria and Afghanistan, and the overt to covert support of Sunni jihadis against those who oppose them.
The reason I suspect is that 0bama “sympathizes” with the goals of the jihadis and identifies with their grievances; however, he also thinks that governing an actual state will somehow “domesticate” them. And that such a policy will be a complete and utter disaster for US interests is a pretty good outcome in 0bama's reckoning too.
However, it's apparent everyone wants it to be about Obama.
“The POTUS has no idea what he’s supposed to be doing.”
As regarding foreign affairs/policy, its not so much that he doesn’t know what he is supposed to do, but he and his administration don’t care. They view foreign affairs/policy at best as a nuisance.
“I had hoped this thread would be more about WHEN and under what circumstances the US should use military power.”
When and I would add how much military power should be used.
Whenever military power is justified, it should be enough to get the job done conclusively.
I don't subscribe to the "Proportionality" doctrine of Just War Theory.
Get it done with the minimal losses to our side.
Turns out that overthrowing stable govs that protected their minorities was a real bad idea. Why? Those that disrupted the gov for the US haven't been willing to cede power once they had it. Why would they?
Because it's centered in EMOTION rather than legitimate interests.
And this thread is about when and why, not who.
I'll just remind myself to avoid commenting on your threads in the future.
We can’t fix America by fixing the world. ENOUGH!
Can such a problem be fixed, when a POTUS acts contrary to the best interest of the nation internationally?
I think only by removing him from office via impeachment conviction or other means.
BTW, I agree with you that they are OBJECTIVES.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.