Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Apr 2017, 2:01 pm

Well, if we switched over to being a dictatorship I'm sure we could solve that inconsistency problem...

It's difficult to have a seamless foreign policy when presidents change, congress changes, people's opinions change. And sometimes events (like 9-11) force changes in foreign policy. We fight a war, people don't like the costs of war, we become isolationist. Then maybe the costs of isolationism become too great and we want to intervene in the world. A president may have his own inclinations on foreign policy but they are balanced by the views of Congress, the feelings of the electorate, and events.

But the Trump situation is different because we have a president radically changing his foreign policy overnight without any real major events that would have forced a reappraisal. And that is unsettling. There is no there...there in the sense of knowing where the epicenter of Trump is with regard to foreign policy.

Btw I think our foreign policy was somewhat consistent from about 1948-1990 during the Cold War.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Apr 2017, 5:24 am

freeman3 wrote:
But the Trump situation is different because we have a president radically changing his foreign policy overnight without any real major events that would have forced a reappraisal. And that is unsettling. There is no there...there in the sense of knowing where the epicenter of Trump is with regard to foreign policy.



It's truly astounding how many reversals there have been:

1. I will have my Treasury secretary label China a currency manipulator on day 1. Never mind.
2. Nato is obsolete. Not any more.
3. Just like us, Russia is fighting ISIS and Islamic terrorism. Wait, there is a good chance they are complicit in chemical weapons use.
4. Focus on America 1st. But we must prevent chemical weapons use abroad. (and our U.S. ambassador is calling for regime change.)
5. I will fight China on trade; unless they help solve N. Korea.
6. U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's Capital on day 1. Not yet.

And that's just on the international arena. Overall I'm happy about these changes (except #6), but it truly is astounding how POTUS has no real ideological core.
Last edited by Ray Jay on 14 Apr 2017, 11:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Apr 2017, 9:32 am

rayjay
And that's just on the international arena. Overall I'm happy about these changes (except #6), but it truly is astounding how POTUS has no real ideological core


Or intellectual curiosity. Or basic knowledge.
- Examples?
After a 10 minute conversation with the Chinese President Xi Jinping he discovers that China intervening in North Korea is complicated...
After the failure to replace the ACA ... "Nobody knew how complicated health care could be..."
He's flipped flopped back and forth on the use of torture... Now claiming it works according to experts he won;t name ...

Historical comparisons seem rare. But he seems as unprepared and unfit for his job as Kaiser Wilhelm when he took the throne in prewar I Germany... And he seems to be surrounding himself more and more with military leaders, just as Wilhelm did.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Apr 2017, 11:06 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
And that's just on the international arena. Overall I'm happy about these changes (except #6), but it truly is astounding how POTUS has no real ideological core


Or intellectual curiosity. Or basic knowledge.
- Examples?
After a 10 minute conversation with the Chinese President Xi Jinping he discovers that China intervening in North Korea is complicated...
After the failure to replace the ACA ... "Nobody knew how complicated health care could be..."
He's flipped flopped back and forth on the use of torture... Now claiming it works according to experts he won;t name ...

Historical comparisons seem rare. But he seems as unprepared and unfit for his job as Kaiser Wilhelm when he took the throne in prewar I Germany... And he seems to be surrounding himself more and more with military leaders, just as Wilhelm did.


I agree with you that Obama is a much deeper thinker, unusually well equipped to handle subtleties and ambiguities in language and thought. However, his instincts were often poor. Had Obama taken a tougher line in Syria 4 years ago, many would be better off. By Obama not enforcing his red line, Assad was able to operate more freely. He slowly gained the upper hand, especially with Russian (who were not afraid of US responses), Iranian, and Hezbollah support. As a result, the refugee crisis became much worse resulting in a lot of instability in Europe. The Brexit vote was close, and this may have tipped the balance. For all his intelligence, Obama blew it on this one.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Apr 2017, 11:25 am

Sometimes less intelligent leaders who don't worry too much about the consequences of actions, who see things in black and white terms do a better job in foreign policy than leaders of a more more intellectual bent who runs through all the consequences and possibilities, make cost benefits analyzes, who worry too much about the downsides of action even if of low probability. Red line crossed=must respond; not what if Assad regime falls, what if we Russia reacts, what if ISIS gets stronger, what if get drawn into a larger war in Syria...

That being said, I hope Trump (or his advisors) shows some nuance in dealing with North Korea. But he seems to have gotten China on board, which is a good start.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 17 Apr 2017, 8:14 am

rayjay
Had Obama taken a tougher line in Syria 4 years ago, many would be better off. By Obama not enforcing his red line, Assad was able to operate more freely. He slowly gained the upper hand, especially with Russian (who were not afraid of US responses), Iranian, and Hezbollah support. As a result, the refugee crisis became much worse resulting in a lot of instability in Europe. The Brexit vote was close, and this may have tipped the balance. For all his intelligence, Obama blew it on this one.

Maybe... Except that if he had struck Assad in Syria in 2013, he would have been going against Congress (who were unwilling to support his request for authority to act, and against the popular opinion of the American people at the time.) And the option he chose, co-opting the Russians to remove chemical weapons seemed to be a reasonable alternative at the time, according to all but the Hawks (Graham, McCain).
Trump acted on an impulse, with little deliberation. And at the end of the day there's still no strategy in Syria.

freeman3
Sometimes less intelligent leaders who don't worry too much about the consequences of actions, who see things in black and white terms do a better job in foreign policy than leaders of a more more intellectual bent who runs through all the consequences and possibilities, make cost benefits analyzes, who worry too much about the downsides of action even if of low probability

And do you have any historical comparisons to offer here? Particularly American?
Democratic leaders often make foreign policy decisions based upon domestic politics. Particularly american Presidents.
Obama made his because there was no genuine domestic appetite for serious military action in Syria.
Trump appears to have made his because it gave him a chance to appear Presidential for a few days... (Wag the Dog) when domestically he's getting rolled.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 1111
Joined: 26 Mar 2011, 8:04 pm

Post 18 Apr 2017, 2:11 am

Be that as it may, Ricky, if he had done it in 2013 what happened two weeks ago would not have done so. Because Assad wouldn't be there. We were already making airstrikes against Ghaddafi, remember. Not too many Americans complained about that. Our feelings were "good f***** riddance" in short.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Apr 2017, 9:32 am

freeman3 wrote:That being said, I hope Trump (or his advisors) shows some nuance in dealing with North Korea. But he seems to have gotten China on board, which is a good start.


In part, that may be because he's backed off the "currency manipulator" thing. He has said so much. Basically, he said, "Why would I do that when they are helping us with North Korea."

That is realpolitik, not "smart power."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 18 Apr 2017, 10:23 am

Well, Ricky, I think Reagan was not that bright and there was not a lot of nuance in dealing with Russia and maybe he got lucky to a certain extent...but it worked. A massive improvement in the world due to mostly ridding the world of Communism.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 7:58 am

hacker
Be that as it may, Ricky, if he had done it in 2013 what happened two weeks ago would not have done so. Because Assad wouldn't be there. We were already making airstrikes against Ghaddafi, remember. Not too many Americans complained about that. Our feelings were "good f***** riddance" in short.

Actually all the evidence you point to suggests that airstrikes against Assad wouldn't have had the effect of ridding Syria of Assad...
Reagans airstrikes against Libya didn't get rid of Ghaddaffi. That didn't happen until 2011, when NATO intervened. In that action there were 19 countries involved, including Arab countries that provided troops on the ground to help the Transitional Council.
If Obama had wanted to get rid of Assad it would have involved a lot more than bombing an airfield...
Now if he had gone after Assad personally, and he had been killed... then what would have happened in Syria? Would ISIS have succeeded in taking over? Would Assad have been replaced by someone just as brutal? We don't really know...
In Libya, the lack of a NATO force on the ground, and the lack of an occupying force, ended up in Libya reverting to a tribal nature, and chaos... Not some marvelous democracy.
Syria? Who knows.
I would support going after Assad on the principle that the criminal should pay personally for his war crimes. I have no idea what the end result would be, but I suspect chaos would ensue for a while.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 8:07 am

freeman3
Well, Ricky, I think Reagan was not that bright and there was not a lot of nuance in dealing with Russia and maybe he got lucky to a certain extent...but it worked. A massive improvement in the world due to mostly ridding the world of Communism.

Reagan was continuing the post war strategy against Communism... He gets massive credit for being in charge when it imploded and for maintaining the strategy that accelerated its implosion.
Trump may end up continuing the foreign policies of his predecessors .... as he learns how complex the world actually is ... He at least seems to have flopped on a lot of things.
But what should worry you is that where Reagan was a man of some humility ... Trump is the antithesis.
As David Frum said on the weekend, "If there is a conflict between the President and the Secretary of Defense, it isn't the President who ends up resigning..."
The adults in his administration may have some influence, but he still has executive control. And he is not all there.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 9:41 am

rickyp wrote:Reagans airstrikes against Libya didn't get rid of Ghaddaffi.


It did cool his passion for terrorism.

That didn't happen until 2011, when NATO intervened. In that action there were 19 countries involved, including Arab countries that provided troops on the ground to help the Transitional Council.


19 "involved?"

:laugh: :laugh:

Read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_mili ... _committed

Some flew by and waved and were counted as "involved." Some of the nations lent little more than moral support.

If Obama had wanted to get rid of Assad it would have involved a lot more than bombing an airfield...


Right, probably rhetoric. How many times did he and his government say "Assad's days are numbered?"

Consider the whole "rationale" for taking out Qaddafi was to save lives. How many hundreds of thousands have died after Obama drew his imaginary "red line?"

Now if he had gone after Assad personally, and he had been killed... then what would have happened in Syria? Would ISIS have succeeded in taking over? Would Assad have been replaced by someone just as brutal? We don't really know...


Oh, given the "strength" of Obama's diplomacy, the Russians and Iranians would have put a puppet in charge in no time.

In Libya, the lack of a NATO force on the ground, and the lack of an occupying force, ended up in Libya reverting to a tribal nature, and chaos... Not some marvelous democracy.


Maybe Obama should have considered that? If Bush wasn't ready for "the day after" in Iraq, and Obama had the advantage of hindsight, He also had the debacle in Egypt. So, Libya is even more inexplicable.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 12:06 pm

fate
Maybe Obama should have considered that? If Bush wasn't ready for "the day after" in Iraq, and Obama had the advantage of hindsight, He also had the debacle in Egypt. So, Libya is even more inexplicable
.
I'm sure he did. The pleading from both NATO and Arab League nations to gt involved, and from supporters in the US Congress helped to overcome his reservations.
And I'm sure it was part of the consideration for asking for Congressional support before he did anything in Syria. And the lack of any substantial Congressional support was the major reason why he didn't do anything in Syria

To date, in Syria, nothing has substantially changed since Trumps great missile adventure.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 19 Apr 2017, 1:02 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
Maybe Obama should have considered that? If Bush wasn't ready for "the day after" in Iraq, and Obama had the advantage of hindsight, He also had the debacle in Egypt. So, Libya is even more inexplicable
.
I'm sure he did.


You are a hoot, as my grandmother used to say.

Not only do you glide over the clarity I brought to your ridiculous "19 nation" claim, you also manage to try to make this seem like Obama did the right thing . . . in creating chaos. He learned nothing from Iraq or Egypt, yet you think this was some kind of prudent move.

The pleading from both NATO and Arab League nations to gt involved, and from supporters in the US Congress helped to overcome his reservations.


Yes, with no plan for what would come after. Brilliant. :uhoh:

And I'm sure it was part of the consideration for asking for Congressional support before he did anything in Syria. And the lack of any substantial Congressional support was the major reason why he didn't do anything in Syria


Nice try. I've already dealt with that myth. Yes, he went to Congress--to try and get out of his red line and to spread the blame. Many Democrats didn't want to get involved either. So, he wound up looking like a spineless fool--pretty fitting.

To date, in Syria, nothing has substantially changed since Trumps great missile adventure.


Not quite true. Syria is hiding its air force. Further, has there been another chemical strike by Assad? Let me know when that happens. Actually, you won't have to since Assad will either be dead or some major component of his government or forces will be in flames.

You loved Obama's foreign policy. Oddly, so did tyrants and terrorists. Huh. Weird.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 20 Apr 2017, 8:48 am

Ricky:
To date, in Syria, nothing has substantially changed since Trumps great missile adventure.


Certainly Assad is being much more cautious about using chemical weapons. Israel intelligence is reporting that he still has a few tons of the stuff. No one expects that he will use it since it would risk his air bases or his life. I realize that Syria is still a mess, but can't you concede it is better that poor defenseless children aren't being gassed to death?