Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - A Delusional Failure

[maxparrish]

Proto ISIS terrorists, Al Qaeda and other terrorists existed before 2001.

ISIS has almost nothing to do with Al Qaida. Their emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War and their finding it incredibly easy to salvage leftover military material, expertise and resources from the crumbling mess that was Iraq's failure. Put a failed state with a huge military next to a civil war where one of the combatants is a collection of psychotic whackjobs; that right there is a recipe for disaster.

Thank you for inadvertently adding to my point; ISIS "emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War". They arose because Iraq was, in 2009 a place where these 'whackjobs' could not survive. The Arab Spring uprising created the fertile ground for Islamic whackjobs.

He let ISIS rise from the ashes and take over the opposition to Assad.

Obama was never in charge of the opposition to Assad; he had no influence over them whatsoever. To say that Obama "let" ISIS rise to power in Syria is a bit like saying Andrea Merkel allowed George Bush to win a second term in office.

Lame. When you intentionally fail to take action and let A do B, you are responsible.

Chamberlain let Germany take over Czechoslovakia. Obama let ISIS grow, then relentlessly let them erode much of the opposition. He failed to act with force to prevent ISIS from attaining this level of power. Your disingenuous babble about Obama being 'not in charge' (AWOL) of anything is not only undisputed, it is also the point.

He failed to listen to Clinton and others.

That's because Clinton thought -- and I believe still thinks -- that ISIS was a surprisingly well organized al Qaeda offshoot and therefore their actions would follow the usual pattern. She was wrong, and she wasn't the only one.

Non-sequitur, irrelevant and unsupported. Last time I checked, the same bullets and bombs kill all sorts of terrorists, including those belonging to ISIS.

Obama's belated approval of killing Bin Laden...

... was not "belated", at all and was, in fact, a DIRECT ORDER given by the President for a program he was directly overseeing from the beginning of his administration.

Wrong. It was a belated approval. Obama was initially presented the findings and attack option many months before he acted; but Obama wanted to see if they could confirm with absolute certainty that the targeted compound was that of Bin Laden. It was belated and foolish in that he was willing to risk losing Bin Laden, rather than risking an error and raiding a non-target.

So no, Bush does NOT get credit for killing bin Laden. Nice try though.

Correct, Bush and Obama do not 'get credit'. The men and women of the interrogators, the intelligence community, and the special forces get the credit.

 

[dismal]

But surely killing Bin Laden is just the sort of things that pisses off the terrorists?

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.

Well, let's hope the French rock concert goers stop doing that to the Belgians then.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But surely killing Bin Laden is just the sort of things that pisses off the terrorists?

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

So no, Bush does NOT get credit for killing bin Laden. Nice try though.

But surely killing Bin Laden is just the sort of things that pisses off the terrorists?

LOTS of things piss off the terrorists. That doesn't concern me.

What concerns me is the things our government does that piss off REGULAR PEOPLE and generate sympathy for the terrorists that oppose us. It's not even so much that our foreign policies CREATE new terrorists (which to a certain extent, they do). It's that our policies alienate us from the very people we claim to be fighting to protect, from the people the terrorists depend on for their day-to-day survival, and without whose support we have no chance whatsoever of victory.

 

[untermensche]

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.

What creates terrorists is those with deep pockets (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Iran) pouring money into funding terrorism. Large scale terrorism never exists without such funding.

You need funding but if you have many people that have had their lives destroyed or sympathize with people who have their lives destroyed it is easier.

Terrorism is many times a reaction to gross injustice as is the case in Israel and in ISIS.

Money alone may be enough like when the US funded a terrorist army and attacked Nicaragua and other places with it. But money and a lot of people who have suffered gross injustice makes terrorism easier.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

ISIS has almost nothing to do with Al Qaida. Their emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War and their finding it incredibly easy to salvage leftover military material, expertise and resources from the crumbling mess that was Iraq's failure. Put a failed state with a huge military next to a civil war where one of the combatants is a collection of psychotic whackjobs; that right there is a recipe for disaster.

Thank you for inadvertently adding to my point; ISIS "emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War". They arose because Iraq was, in 2009 a place where these 'whackjobs' could not survive.

They could (and did) survive there just fine. It's just that most the crazy assholes running around in Iraq at that time were Sadrists and Shi'ite Hegemonists and a few of them (opposing them) were Al Qaida offshoots.

You also seem to be forgetting that ISIS first emerged in Syria, not Iraq. 2009 Syria was INDEED the kind of place where the nutters who went on to form ISIS didn't have a chance in hell of success.

The Arab Spring uprising created the fertile ground for Islamic whackjobs.

Well no... the Arab Spring set the stage for the pro-democracy movements that eventually triggered the Syrian Civil War. Neither of which, again, actually started in Iraq.

Lame. When you intentionally fail to take action and let A do B, you are responsible.

Right. Andrea Merkel intentionally failed to take action and let George W. Bush win a second term. Because Chamberlain.

He failed to act with force to prevent ISIS from attaining this level of power.

ISIS had already obtained their current level of power before anyone knew who they actually WERE. The frustrating thing of which is U.S. observers STILL aren't entirely sure who ISIS is or where they came from; primarily this is because ISIS' leaders claim their movement is an amalgamation of several different Islamist groups -- including, most particularly, the original Al Qaida in Iraq -- and yet the leaders of the movements they describe all deny that any such merger has taken place (partially but not entirely because ISIS troops keep shooting at them).

The likely truth is that ISIS is a chimera of splinter factions that all merged under one banner. They even recruited elements of the Free Syrian Army, much to the ongoing chagrin of John McCain.

More to the point: ISIS' "current level of power" isn't actually that impressive, which is a big part of the reason Obama "failed to prevent" them from reaching it. They are militarily superior to the half-assed boyscouts of the U.S. trained Iraqi Army and the witless insurgents of the FSA, but still not quite a match for Kurdish Hillbillies or Assad's regular military.

Your disingenuous babble about Obama being 'not in charge' (AWOL) of anything is not only undisputed, it is also the point.

The point of WHAT? Obama is the President of the UNITED STATES, not Syria. I'm still not understanding why you think a political leader in an unrelated country has any responsibility for what happens on the other side of the planet.

Obama was initially presented the findings and attack option many months before he acted; but Obama wanted to see if they could confirm with absolute certainty that the targeted compound was that of Bin Laden.

That's not "belated approval." That's "Make sure it's really him and not a decoy like the last time."

 

[untermensche]

But what creates new terrorists is blowing up women and children and rounding up innocent people in the middle of the night and taking them away to be tortured.

Well, let's hope the French rock concert goers stop doing that to the Belgians then.

You seem too confused to engage with.

Once terrorists are created by massive acts of terrorism like the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people there is no way to know what they will do.

You blaming the victims of US created terrorism is just insanity.

 

[iolo]

Well, let's hope the French rock concert goers stop doing that to the Belgians then.

You seem too confused to engage with.

Once terrorists are created by massive acts of terrorism like the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people there is no way to know what they will do.

You blaming the victims of US created terrorism is just insanity.

And the only answer the rightwing nutters can come up with, ever or anywhere, is to murder lots more people, so that the bloody business goes on forever.

 

[dismal]

Well, let's hope the French rock concert goers stop doing that to the Belgians then.

You seem too confused to engage with.

Once terrorists are created by massive acts of terrorism like the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people there is no way to know what they will do.

You blaming the victims of US created terrorism is just insanity.

What's insanity is you think I'm the one who blames the victims.

 

[untermensche]

You seem too confused to engage with.

Once terrorists are created by massive acts of terrorism like the US terrorist attack of the Iraqi people there is no way to know what they will do.

You blaming the victims of US created terrorism is just insanity.

What's insanity is you think I'm the one who blames the victims.

I blame the terrorists for their crimes and the US for it's huge crime that created so many terrorists and gave them trained military leadership and weapons.

You somehow think the US invasion of Iraq had no residual effects.

The Iraqi people absorbed a decade of terror and torture and then said; "thank you".

 

[dismal]

What's insanity is you think I'm the one who blames the victims.

I blame the terrorists for their crimes

See, basic communication tip: if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop right there.

All the stuff that comes after where you blame others tends to undermine your claim.

If you must engage in apologetics, at least try to tailor it to why Belgians are killing French rock concert goers.

 

[RVonse]

Obama is a President without strategic vision or goals - he is merely a risk-averse bad tactician. And today he stubbornly clings to a losing and disastrous ISIS policy.

No. The difference is that Obama has more of a libertarian stance believing we should quit trying to run the rest of the world. Whereas you and the rest of the neocons believe the US should dominate all of the world. And if anybody still cares, the executive branch is not the branch that is supposed to declare wars on other countries anyway.

As you have pointed out (correctly) in other threads the US is deeply in debt so much to the point it may likely not survive a currency crises. And now you think Obama is bad because he is not running the world the way you think he should. For a moment lets say the neocon position is the correct one. It should even occur to you guys that the US can not be the master of the world unless it has the economic means to do so. With no manufacturing at home the US has no economic means anymore.

So quit blaming Obama for nixing plans he had no business making in the first place. No, he is not delusional he is practical with what the US and world are today.

 

[untermensche]

I blame the terrorists for their crimes

See, basic communication tip: if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop right there.

All the stuff that comes after where you blame others tends to undermine your claim.

If you must engage in apologetics, at least try to tailor it to why Belgians are killing French rock concert goers.

Only if I think like a third grader and imagine things just happen because the gods will it or something like that.

Actions have consequences.

The immoral look away from the actions that cause the consequences and only focus on the consequences.

 

[dismal]

See, basic communication tip: if you want to be taken seriously you need to stop right there.

All the stuff that comes after where you blame others tends to undermine your claim.

If you must engage in apologetics, at least try to tailor it to why Belgians are killing French rock concert goers.

Only if I think like a third grader and imagine things just happen because the gods will it or something like that.

Actions have consequences.

The immoral look away from the actions that cause the consequences and only focus on the consequences.

You don't get to act all preachy about morality of actions while engaging in bizarre apologetics for the actions of Belgians who massacre French concert goers.

 

[untermensche]

Only if I think like a third grader and imagine things just happen because the gods will it or something like that.

Actions have consequences.

The immoral look away from the actions that cause the consequences and only focus on the consequences.

You don't get to act all preachy about morality of actions while engaging in bizarre apologetics for the actions of Belgians who massacre French concert goers.

Are you claiming the US had nothing to do with the formation of ISIS?

Are you claiming the US had nothing to do with the level of religious fanaticism in the ME, with it's support of the Saudi dictatorship, it's destruction of the Iranian democracy, it's nation building in Afghanistan spilling into Pakistan, and it's destruction of Iraqi civil society and it's replacement with sectarian violence? Not to mention supplying ISIS with military leadership and weapons.

Spare me your phony tears over the French.

You don't get to cry tears over the French unless you cried tears over the Iraqi and Afghani innocents killed on a regular basis by US weapons.

 

[ksen]

Only if I think like a third grader and imagine things just happen because the gods will it or something like that.

Actions have consequences.

The immoral look away from the actions that cause the consequences and only focus on the consequences.

You don't get to act all preachy about morality of actions while engaging in bizarre apologetics for the actions of Belgians who massacre French concert goers.

 

[arkirk]

Obama is quite the buffoon when it comes to foreign affairs.

Yeah, he's had almost 8 years and hasn't even managed to get us into even one major land offensive yet. Even that dummy Bush managed to get us into two.

Actually his failure was that he failed to get us out of the land offensives Dubbiya started. Our leadership appears to have no finesse and only uses a hammer. Obama and Clinton share some of the blame for this with Dubbiya, because all three of these leaders have a Kissingeresque view of the world and they accept corruption (even their own corruption) as part of some divine plan for world domination by the RIGHT PEOPLE.

 

[arkirk]

You don't get to act all preachy about morality of actions while engaging in bizarre apologetics for the actions of Belgians who massacre French concert goers.

Are you claiming the US had nothing to do with the formation of ISIS?

Are you claiming the US had nothing to do with the level of religious fanaticism in the ME, with it's support of the Saudi dictatorship, it's destruction of the Iranian democracy, it's nation building in Afghanistan spilling into Pakistan, and it's destruction of Iraqi civil society and it's replacement with sectarian violence? Not to mention supplying ISIS with military leadership and weapons.

Spare me your phony tears over the French.

You don't get to cry tears over the French unless you cried tears over the Iraqi and Afghani innocents killed on a regular basis by US weapons.

Our national leadership ignored the causative factors (what ISIS claims is its motivation for committing these atrocities) until these killings took place. Now, our leadership is doubling down on the bombing and arming of people to fight for western domination in the ME. These conflicts and differences between religious notions and governance notions and profit notions tend to sharpen when the only medicine either side sees for the problem is MORE VIOLENCE. I agree with untermensche that dismal is very near sighted when it comes to analysis of causality of conflicts. The real problem is that all those in power on all sides remain near sighted and just keep hammering away. Meanwhile these conflicts are growing. The reason we have more killing today is that we did more killing yesterday. Get it?

 

[untermensche]

Two kinds of terrorists. Those that value human life and those that don't.

Those that value human life are like the terrorists that killed in France. They deliberately killed and knew it would cause incredible misery because they recognized the human value of the victims. They ignored that human value but it played into their thinking.

Those terrorists that don't value human life know their actions are going to kill many innocents but don't care. The misery for the victims is still there but it is completely ignored, and called collateral damage.

 

[arkirk]

Two kinds of terrorists. Those that value human life and those that don't.

Those that value human life are like the terrorists that killed in France. They deliberately killed and knew it would cause incredible misery because they recognized the human value of the victims. They ignored that human value but it played into their thinking.

Those terrorists that don't value human life know their actions are going to kill many innocents but don't care. The misery for the victims is still there but it is completely ignored, and called collateral damage.

I honestly think both sides have to put down their hammers. This Islamic State bullshit is just that. Pure unadulterated hatred and hammer wielding. Both sides have the same attitude and do the same kinds of things to each other. They both need a good scolding for being so shallow and violent. I feel a lot of the problem is that this conflict is fed with AIR CAMPAIGNS and requests for those in the areas they are bombing to join the flyboys on the notion that destruction of their homes and infrastructure somehow leaves an environment where the right people will win. That is pure sickness and I feel it is in some small measure a part of Obama and Hillary and Hollande's thinking. This comes straight from the likes of Kissinger and Cheney. All the good these people could do is countered by their weapons based thinking.