Stumbling through history: How did U.S. foreign policy end up in such disarray?

Politico ^ | Joe Scarborough

[trebb]

This article is a testimony that sometimes “hindsight” means “the initial view one gets as he pulls his head partway out of his behind”.

[bert]

Real historians will remember W as the conqueror of Baghdad and Barack Obama as the black President that defamed the race

[SMARTY]

But...but...he got the Nobel prize?

Well, that means the next time you go to by toilet paler, there should be Nobel Prizes sitting next to the Charmin!! :)

[Sicon]

Boomers that never grew up are now running the asylum.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!

[Cronos]

I think the problem started with George Bush Senior on many counts:

1. He went after Saddam hussein -- Saddam was an evil dictator, but he was a secular evil dictator who was the enemy of the Irani Ayatollahs and Al-Qaeda and he threatened Saudi Arabia (the latter reason is why he is out), but if we let him keep Kuwait he would by now be killing off jihadis and have knocked out the ayatollahs and cowed the Saudis and Qataris
2. He didn't do more to engage the Russians after the fall of communism

And this was continued and exacerbated by Clintoon

1. He didn't fully engage with Russia -- when it was floundering under Yeltsin that owuld have been the time to be the magnanimous winner and made it our ally, like we did at the end of WWII with Germany and Japan
2. He gave too much to China andhelped fuel their rise
3. He didn't knock off the Taliban when he had the chance

[Cronos]

That doesn’t exonerate Obama, but GW played the cards he was dealt and Obama made a bad hand worse...

[securityman]

John kasich was his best friend. They both left office at the same time and both were best friends with Gary condit. Shame that poor woman was murded to cover up an affair with one of those 3 gentlemen.

[Verginius Rufus]

Don’t forget Jimmy Carter’s role in assisting the overthrow of the shah of Iran.

[Cronos]

About that I don't know too much. But I do know that the Iranian revolution was, like the 1917 Russian revolution, a revolution of many different groups -- some antithetical to each other -- for instance there were liberals who allied with the Ayatollah to get a broad coalition against the Shah. And then the Ayatollah turned against them. The same thing happened with the Bolsheviks and during the Egyptian overthrow of Mubarak (lesson: never tie up with crazies, they'll cause more problems than what you are overthrowing)

Anyway, the Shah had a lot of people against him and would have fallen one way or the other I think (but I don't know). I think the Shah's position was more tenuous than Ghaddafis