Replies

In the sense that leaving Iraq created a vacuum, USA did mess up but that would only apply to Iraq who doesn’t have as many refugees. There are a lot of refugees from countries we did not meddle with. Syria, Nigeria, Iran, yes, there are refugees from Iran too, Pakistan, Bangladesh and so on.

With Libya, it seems that action opened up more illegal immigration from Africa. Why would people be traveling across Libya if it were so dangerous?

Libya is Clinton’s war (and I suppose McCain’s etc.). I don’t like Clinton but I get mixed signals on how it is over there, maps say Jihadists control a lot now but I heard one Libyan claim it isn’t so bad now.

"Libya is Clinton's war(and I suppose McCain's etc)."

You can use individual names like Clinton and McCain but it was the groups.

The NeoCon republicans(led by McCain) were the first to agitate for intervening in Libya. But the Realists(R&D), led by Bob Gates opposed. Then the Liberal Interventionists(led by Clinton, Powers, and Rice) worked up the multilateral agreement and Obama would go in based on the multilateral agreement. Obama is a big fan of multilateralism but opposes unilateralism.

NeoCons(R) and Liberal Interventionists(D) both subscribe to a Idealistic Foreign Policy and support humanitarianism and nation building as part of US foreign policy. NeoCons(R) are unilateralists and are willing to intervene alone but the Liberal Interventionists(D) say the US should intervene only multilaterally. The Realists are opposed to an idealistic foreign policy and say the US should intervene only if it is the US's interest.

So after Obama agreed to intervene in Libya the NeoCons praised Obama. Bill Kristol proclaimed Obama to be a "Born Again NeoCon", but also they criticized Obama saying multilateralism was "leading from behind". The Realists were not happy about the Libya intervention so Henry Kissinger and James Baker published an editorial warning that Libya was a mistake and would probably blow up in our face, which it did(Benghazi).

Syria was the same. When events began to unfold there the NeoCons and Liberal Interventionists wanted to intervene but the Realists and Obama were opposed. But slowly the Realists shifted to supporting intervention.

In the spring of 2013 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted(15-3) to arm the Syrian Rebels. The two antiwar dems and isolationist Rand Paul voted no. Obama worked up a plan for the CIA to train and supply weapons to the Syrian rebels and got congress to approve it but Obama would give them only anti-tank weapons saying no to anti-aircraft weapons because those might be used against the Israeli air force.

The rebels were glad to get the weapons but complained that they needed anti-aircraft weapons and the pace of training was very slow. So in 2014 Congress would appropriate larger sums of money for weapons and shift the duty of training from CIA to the US military and begin to train more rebels. Somehow we could arm/train certain rebels to fight both ISIS and Assad.

Later in 2014, because of Assad's use of chemical weapons, Obama said he wanted to bomb Assad's forces but would do so only if Congress approved it. But they found a solution with Putin to take Assad's chem weapons. But eventually the Senate Foreign Relations Committee did approve bombing Assad but it was only a 10-8 vote.

Its all a big mess. If you help the rebels against Assad, you might help ISIS. If you help Assad against ISIS, you hurt the "good" rebels. And now Turkey and Russia are getting involved. And Iran is going to get their "sanctions money" that they will give part of it to Assad.

Congress is the real problem. They clearly have a responsibility but refuse to step up because they don't want to be blamed if fit hits the shan. There are problems between dems and GOP. There are problems between Realists, NeoCons, and interventionists. There are problems between military hawks and budget hawks.

Whereas foreign policies may be a pressing issue, funding for Planned Parenthood is the key issue in Congress.