What's the worst foreign policy/national security mistake that Barack Obama has made? By "worst" I mean the one with the most important consequences, so I'd also like to know what you think it has major effects.
(And technically: I'm asking for the worst mistake by the US government, or at least the presidency/exec branch, during the Obama presidency. It's always difficult to know, especially in this realm, which are presidential decisions and which are not. But the shorthand is okay most of the time).
I think the vacillating and inaction in Syria has been disastrous. Simply because of the carnage involved, I'd probably put that as the #1 concern. One could also make the argument that the indecision during the "Green Revolution" sort of laid a marker that was the "father" of all the other flaws.
ReplyDeleteI'm also irked that with all the blood and treasure spilled in Iraq, this Administration seems to have washed its hands of it. I realize most folks on here (and probably nationwide) think Iraq was a mistake, but we lost how many lives there (over 4,000?) and how much money was spent? I just can't fathom letting that all go to waste.
Buddy, those lives and treasures are already wasted, and nothing we do now is going to change that. I want to make the argument that it's worth risking more of both in exchange for... (I don't know, trying to make the Iraqi suddenly decide to love us somehow, or promoting Democracy at the barrel of the gun, or whatever)... then you should make that argument. Appealing to the memories of dead soldiers as a reason to endanger more soldiers is no help to either group of soldiers.
DeleteBeginning of the second sentence, "I want to make..." should have read "If you want to make..." sorry
DeleteBeginning of the second sentence, "I want to make..." should have read "If you want to make..." sorry
DeleteI can't help but noticed that in none of these cases did Chris clearly state what good would come from (further) US involvement.
ReplyDeleteWhat good could come from US intervention in Syria? Whose side are we supposed to be on? What's the end goal and how does military intervention get us there?
What could we have done to help the Green Revolution in Iran? The mullahs always claimed the revolutionaries were puppets of outside agitators. How could the Greens retain popular support if we (more or less) proved the mullahs right?
What could we have accomplished by staying in Iraq that we were unable to accomplish in all the years we spent there? How would we have accomplished it? Surely you can see how many would view your strategy as "keep throwing more and more blood and treasure at the problem until it eventually solves itself somehow". That's not only politically unsustainable, it's also not much of a strategy.
(BTW, I hope I'm not breaking the rules by responding in this thread even though I'm not a conservative"
Yes.
DeleteFurthermore, our presence in these countries becomes the rallying effort; fight the infidels. It's a distraction from the efforts to self-governance. It's rather like much of the GOP seems today; no-Obama instead of governing.
Perhaps that's why it seems like an attractive option to the GOP; but it's all about the negative space, not about building anything lasting.
I agree that it's not wise to "implant" democracy in other countries, but that's not what happened in Egypt. For the US to keep supporting Mubarak would be to actively *oppose* democracy in Egypt.
ReplyDeleteIs that what you support? When the US supported dictators over democratically elected leaders in Iran and Libya in the 20th Century, we ended up feeling some serious negative consequences as a result (and the dictators didn't do so well either). I'm not wild about sowing more seeds of discontent.
Benghazi. The GOP's over-the-top hyperventilation about it obscured the fact that it was a pretty serious fuck-up. Syria? Not a mistake, but a problem with no satisfactory solution. Libya? A rousing success, relatively speaking. Israel/Palestine? Again, not sure if any mistakes were made, it's just an intractable situation.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly was the serious fuck-up? Obviously the seriously bad result was that US diplomats were killed - no question there. But what was the Obama administration mistake that led to it?
Delete(not saying there wasn't one; just looking for specifics)
To put my answer in context, I think the aim of American FP is preserving our access to international markets and resources, so as to enhance American prosperity. This leads to two goals: preventing a single power from becoming as powerful in the Eastern Hemisphere as we are in the West, and tamping down threats to international stability (ie terrorists and rogue states).
ReplyDeleteStart by noting that Middle Eastern oil is not as important to the United States as it once was, thanks to increased production in North America and advances in energy efficiency in the US. Therefore, the primary American interest in the ME is thwarting Iran's nuclear ambitions. Were it not for Iran, I think the President would rightly prefer to shift his focus to the long-term task of building a network of alliances in the Pacific capable of checking China, as he presaged with the "pivot to Asia" talk.
The President had tried a somewhat Nixonian strategy of withdrawal from ME conflict: work with regional partners and moderate Islamists (like in Turkey) to reduce America's exposure to the region's chaos while nudging countries in a more democratic, moderate Islamist direction. But the Arab Spring upset the strategy. The President seemed to want an offshore balancing type role for the US in the context of shifting focus to Asia, but this requires stable onshore partners. By siding against Mubarak, our relationship with the Egyptian military has deteriorated and allies such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Jordan have been ticked off. This will effect our ability to fight terrorists in the region and to strike against Iran in an attempt to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapons capability, if the time comes.
Additionally, the inability to fully execute the plan to distance ourselves from internal ME dynamics means that we're somewhat short-handed and distracted from the larger, longer-term goal of keeping China from dominating Asia. Our "pivot" was a signal to China that we take their rise not entirely positively, and that we will be acting to constrain them. Allies in Asia have rising expectations. We face the prospect of rising commitments in Asia AND the Middle East, instead of shifting focus as originally planned. I think we're setting ourselves up for failure on both counts.
Benghazi.
ReplyDeleteJust kidding. For me it would have top be the continued predator drone attacks in Af-Pak region. They are helping to destabilize Pakistan, which is a country that actually has nukes, and a collapse of that government, coupled with a Taliban like regime could trigger a nuclear confrontation with India.