Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy - A Delusional Failure

[ksen]

 

[arkirk]

This guy gave up a perfectly good dental practice to run Syria's affairs. That was what his daddy wanted him to do. I have seen him interviewed several times and his arguments for what he does are similar to what you would expect from Dubbiya or Cheney. It is funny how many years it appeared that Syria was a place without a lot of conflict. That is because there really is not a lot of oil involved. It is a fair thing to say that Assad's record was far from the worst in the ME before the CIA and possibly Mossad decided to put him in the gun sights. None of these people, including our own are very "nice" people. They are all burdened with the results of their violence. Somehow we can't seem to see that outside forces infiltrated his country with weapons and fighters. Where they come from is anybody's guess, but a lot of it has CIA written all over it. CIA you know is the army that is SUPPOSED TO BE A SPY OUTFIT. It works for corporate U.S. interests, not necessarily U.S. interests. I have known a number of Syrians who were very nice people (not at all fanatical). I think we need to quit supplying the world with weapons and instead focus on alternative energy and the likes for ourselves. What we offer the rest of the world should be something of value, not simply more exploitation through investment. Our aid should always be direct and without threat to the people of the country we are aiding.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

We aren't confused, we just don't agree with your ideologically-based view of the world.

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Only the first kind can accurately be described as terrorism.

 

[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.

Only the first kind can accurately be described as terrorism.

Bullshit.

They are both terrorism.

When you don't care about the people you kill intentions mean nothing.

When you kill without caring you are a terrorist.

 

[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.

We aren't confused, we just don't agree with your ideologically-based view of the world.

Yes my crazy ideologically-based view of a single standard for unjustified violence and killing.

I don't defend it when some people do it and cry to the heavens when others I don't like do it.

Like some do.

 

[Jayjay]

Only the first kind can accurately be described as terrorism.

Bullshit.

They are both terrorism.

When you don't care about the people you kill intentions mean nothing.

When you kill without caring you are a terrorist.

A hurricane doesn't care how many victims it kills either. Does it mean hurricanes are terrorists? What you are doing is making "terrorist" a completely meaningless word. It seems you only want to call US terrorism because you think "terrorism = bad" and "USA = bad" and therefore "USA = terrorist".

If there is no intent to terrorize, it's not terrorism.

 

[maxparrish]

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.

Crazy E, I have no interest in arguing over tangential factuals and irrelevant nuances for the sake of arguing - I agreed with your observation that ISIS "emergence primarily stems from the instability of the Syrian Civil War". And when I wrote that the Arab Spring uprising did create fertile ground for the whack-jobs, it was because, as you then quibbled, it "set the stage" that triggered the Syrian Civil War.".

I have no idea what your intended point was (if there was a point) but I will repeat mine:

In 2009, the beginning of the Obama administration, the "whacko elements" (the AQI) that would later go on to rebuild in Syria as ISIS had been decimated by the Bush surge strategy, the Iraqi forces, and the US-backed Sunni Awakening (or Sons of Iraq).

I assume you know that AQI (Al Qaeda of Iraq) was later rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq and then after that, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). I am also assuming you know that the 2011 uprising and civil war in Syria created opportunities for AQI-ISIS to re-group and re-emerge as a serious fighting force in Syria. And finally, I assume you know that the Zawahiri run Al Qaeda (Bin Laden's) ruptured with ISIS (AQI) after the start of Syria’s uprising - in part because Al Qaeda told ISIS to keep its nose out of Syria.

ALL OF WHICH is background my point - Obama inherited a strategic success in Iraq and he fumbled; his feckless choices and indifferent behavior contributed to the current disaster.

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.

Merkel intentionally "failed" because she had neither the desire nor or ability to interfere with the outcome of the 2004 US elections. She didn't "let" it happen, she had no choice in the matter.

In stark contrast, Obama had a choice. He had the means to check ISIS. But he let the Free Syrian Army be bashed into a minor role, and ISIS to grow and dominate, because Obama lacked any serious desire or will to stop them. That has been self-evident to just about any observer.

He could have, and should have, done otherwise.

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).

Wrong. The NYTimes recently highlighted intelligence reports in 2012 warning of the ISIS threat, reports that the Obama administration repeatedly ignored. In 2013 Congress was warned by the DIA about al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) after it rebranded as Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS). It warned of its spreading in western Iraq after the withdrawal of American troops. It was that warning, combined with ISIS victories in Fallujah and other Iraqi cities, that prompted Barack Obama’s infamous “jayvee team” comment about the terrorist group even as it began breaking out of its sanctuaries. Other links at:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/...rned-obama-administration-about-isis-in-2012/

The likely truth is that SIS 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.

Gee...I wonder why elements of the FSA have given up on serious Western support from Obama and joined ISIS? Why would someone join the winning dog on the block? What da u dink?

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.

So unimpressive that the best Obama could do is announce after 15 months of bombing strikes (just before Paris) that ISIS was now "contained" from further expansion? So Obama won't defeat or destroy this "unimpressive" enemy?

Sounds like what I've been telling you (repeatedly).

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.

POTUS has a responsibility and duty to protect US national interests. The point has been that it is in the US (and allied) interest to not let ISIS operate as a state; it is not in US interest to let it topple adjacent states; nor it is in US interest to let ISIS contribute to world-wide terrorism.

So yes, Obama failed to take action when he should have...and he is still failing.

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."

Delayed approval is belated approval. The approval was belated because it came later than should have. If a leader is not sure, he can best resolve his uncertainty by launching the mission ASAP. If you hesitate, you can lose your quarry (e.g. Tora Bora).

The only reason Obama dithered is he did not have the courage to take a political risk.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

They are both terrorism.

When you don't care about the people you kill intentions mean nothing.

When you kill without caring you are a terrorist.

A hurricane doesn't care how many victims it kills either. Does it mean hurricanes are terrorists? What you are doing is making "terrorist" a completely meaningless word. It seems you only want to call US terrorism because you think "terrorism = bad" and "USA = bad" and therefore "USA = terrorist".

If there is no intent to terrorize, it's not terrorism.

If you terrorize and kill innocents but you don't care that you are terrorizing and killing innocents it is worse than if you care.

Intentions are the last refuge of scoundrels.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

The causative factor for ISIS doing this is that we won't let them have their caliphate.

Since Islamists states are always expansionist we don't really have a choice--we will have to fight them sometime, the smaller they are the easier the fight will be.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

And if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle.

They're not going to put down their hammers until we blow those hammers to bits.

- - - Updated - - -

Only the first kind can accurately be described as terrorism.

Bullshit.

They are both terrorism.

When you don't care about the people you kill intentions mean nothing.

When you kill without caring you are a terrorist.

You don't get to redefine words to meet your fantasies.

The essence of terrorism is terror--the objective is to scare people into doing what you want.

Collateral damage has no such objective.

 

[untermensche]

Bullshit.

They are both terrorism.

When you don't care about the people you kill intentions mean nothing.

When you kill without caring you are a terrorist.

You don't get to redefine words to meet your fantasies.

The essence of terrorism is terror--the objective is to scare people into doing what you want.

Collateral damage has no such objective.

The invasion of Iraq was "shock and awe".

It was terrorism if there ever was terrorism.

A deliberate attack where no attack was necessary on such a scale that the attacker knew many innocents would be killed and millions would be terrorized.

You don't get to define words so they are stripped of all meaning.

If deliberately attacking for no good reason with such force that you know many innocents will die isn't terrorism then nothing is.

 

[barbos]

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

most american politicians (presidents included) are.

 

[barbos]

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.

You forgot Ukraine, pretty major offensive if you ask me.
and Lybia, you (and I) forgot about Libya.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

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.

You forgot Ukraine, pretty major offensive if you ask me.

But not if he asks someone who knows what he's talking about.

 

[barbos]

Yes I think Obama is awfully inadequate when it comes to Foreign Policy and I think he knows it himself this is why he delegated it to other people like Victoria Nuland who is a protege of, wait for it ...., wait for it ..... Dick Cheney

 

[Crazy Eddie]

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.

Crazy E, I have no interest in arguing over tangential factuals and irrelevant nuances for the sake of arguing

Irrelevant nuances? You're criticizing Obama's foreign policy by attributing actions to the wrong countries and implying negligence for failing to stop things that never actually happened. That's not "irrelevant nuance." That's called "knowing what you're talking about."

I have no idea what your intended point was (if there was a point) but I will repeat mine:

In 2009, the beginning of the Obama administration, the "whacko elements" (the AQI) that would later go on to rebuild in Syria as ISIS had been decimated by the Bush surge strategy, the Iraqi forces, and the US-backed Sunni Awakening (or Sons of Iraq).

And the intended point, which you clearly missed, was that AQI had little or nothing to do with the emergence of ISIS; this happened because of the Arab Spring and the Syrian Civil War. If anything, ISIS later absorbed what was left of Al Qaida in Iraq when they expanded out of the Syrian War Zone; your claim is almost the exact opposite of reality.

I assume you know that AQI (Al Qaeda of Iraq) was later rebranded as the Islamic State of Iraq and then after that, the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS)

No I don't know that, because it's not actually true. YOU don't know that either, you simply googled it and are repeating it from a badly-written Wikipedia article.

I DO know, however, that ISIS was originally named "The Islamic State in Syria" and there was (and still is) some confusion as to what extent this organization was derived from Syria's salafist/wahabbist movement or was something new altogether. Most indications are that they formed from the union of semi-independent militias aligned with the Free Syrian Army and other rebel groups. Some of those groups were basically proto-ISIS in behavior if not in ideology; for example, Abu Sakkar slicing open an enemy soldier and eating his heart.

The Islamic State in Iraq was essentially a paper tiger from the very beginning and was, in any case, FAR from the most prolific or even most dangerous militia group even during the "surge." (That dubious honor, again, goes to the Sadrists). The Islamic State in Syria, on the other hand, wasn't a result of organized jihadism so much as a result of the Syrian rebels being fucking crazy. Even the Free Syrian Army -- such as it is -- has been going increasingly off the rails in its latter years and have taken to massacring alawite and Christian villages that don't openly support them.

Now I don't know where this new version of events (which you are uncritically quoting from Wikipedia) is coming from, or who is peddling this version or for what purpose. It IS, however, bullshit. As is your pretending said bullshit is somehow common knowledge like everyone in the world ought to know it.

In stark contrast, Obama had a choice. He had the means to check ISIS.

Bullshit. He didn't even know who ISIS was at the time; NOBODY in his administration did. By the time the Islamic State in Syria was even recognized as a thing, half the Free Syrian Army was already working for them.

Besides which, what makes you think a massive military intervention on behalf of the FSA would IN ANY WAY have the effect of reducing ISIS' ultimate power instead of, you know, doing the exact opposite of that? It's not as if we haven't tried that exact same strategy a dozen times before in a dozen other countries; it doesn't always (or even USUALLY) work the way we expect it to.

Other links at:

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/11/...rned-obama-administration-about-isis-in-2012/

Ah, so THAT'S where this bullshit is coming from. "ISIS is just Al Qaida in Iraq with a new name" is evidently a new Republican talking point being shopped around for traction.

No, Max, ISI is NOT a "transitional acronym between AQI and ISIS." They are not the same organization, nor did the latter spring from the former.

ISIS formed independently during the civil war from a combination of Islamist groups that had already demonstrated an alarming capacity for recruitment. It came to a head mid 2013 when several large fighting groups from the FSA, ISI and Jabhat al Nusra all defected huddled together around new leadership and formed what we now understand to be ISIS (technically ISIL, but nobody calls it "the Levant" anymore and they're still technically based on Syria).

All of those organizations -- including al Qaida in Iraq -- STILL EXIST separate from ISIS. That the Islamic State successfully recruited a huge number of their personnel and supporters away from them doesn't mean it is an OFFSHOOT of them. If anything, they're a competitor.

Gee...I wonder why elements of the FSA have given up on serious Western support from Obama and joined ISIS?

I assume the same reason why elements of the NYPD gave up on serious Saudi Arabian support and joined the U.S. Marine Corps after 9/11.

Why in the hell would you expect me to depend on the support of a foreign government that has been screwing me for decades instead of a local militia that actively supports everything I care about AND is offering me free sex slaves as a signing bonus? That's kind of a no-brainer...

So unimpressive that the best Obama could do is announce after 15 months of bombing strikes (just before Paris) that ISIS was now "contained" from further expansion?

Yes. And he was correct. They haven't been able to expand ever since. Hence their change in tactics away from conventional military expansion (which will no longer work) towards terrorism and theatrics.

The Paris attack, bad as it was, is militarily irrelevant. ISIS claimed no territory, gained no resources, and caused no meaningful damage to France, its economy or its military. They actually would have been more effective if they snuck into a military base and stole everyone's left shoe.

Randomly gunning down innocent people isn't actually hard to do (it has somehow become America's favorite spectator sport) and does not require one iota of military prowess. Which is exactly why ISIS has now adopted it as their primary tactic: they literally haven't got anything better to do.

POTUS has a responsibility and duty to protect US national interests...

The United States has no interests WHATSOEVER in the Syrian Civil War. We have an at most PERIPHERAL interest in preventing global terrorism inasmuch as we support law enforcement programs that seek to pursue and detain terrorists across international lines.

As for whether ISIS claims to operate as a state, a rebellion, a rock band, or a giant religious theme park with an adult section in the back, U.S. interests are limited purely to the extent to which ISIS is able to break our stuff.

The fact of the matter is, ISIS is still less of a threat to U.S. interests and U.S. lives than Volkswagen's shady business practices. Keeping them contained until their general lack of competence causes their laughable excuse for a "State" to collapse from within is probably the only play least likely to backfire and make things even worse.

Delayed approval is belated approval.

Uh hu... like how Holly Holm "delayed" knocking out Rhonda Rousey until halfway into the second round.

What was she waiting for? Why dither?

 

[iolo]

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.

Well said!

 

[maxparrish]

More Obama Follies In his Patty-Cake War with ISIS:

Jack Keane, a retired four-star U.S. general, agreed with Royce’s assessment of the administration’s policy and blamed President Barack Obama for issuing orders that severely constrain the U.S. military from combatting terror forces.

“This has been an absurdity from the beginning,” Keane said in response to questions from Royce. “The president personally made a statement that has driven air power from the inception.”

“When we agreed we were going to do airpower and the military said, this is how it would work, he [Obama] said, ‘No, I do not want any civilian casualties,’” Keane explained. “And the response was, ‘But there’s always some civilian casualties. We have the best capability in the world to protect from civilians casualties.’”

However, Obama’s response was, “No, you don’t understand. I want no civilian casualties. Zero,’” Keane continued. “So that has driven our so-called rules of engagement to a degree we have never had in any previous air campaign from desert storm to the present.”

This is likely the reason that U.S. pilots are being told to back down when Islamic State targets are in site, Keane said, citing statistics published earlier this year by U.S. Central Command showing that pilots return from sorties in Iraq with about 75 percent of their ordnance unexpended.

“Believe me,” Keane added, “the French are in there not using the restrictions we have imposed on our pilots.”

http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...bama-admin-blocks-75-percent-of-isis-strikes/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not wanting to kill civilians. Obama is such a fucking psychopath. The asshole probably also gets pissed off when his police officers kill unarmed civilians.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I know, right? It's not as if the civilians are going to blame US for all of that collateral damage in the end, or as if ISIS won't simply use the death toll from the bombings for propaganda value that far exceeds their military value, or even that the concept of callous use of overwhelming military force with utter disregard to innocent life would't simply generate solidarity between ISIS and the civilian population they depend on for their survival.

It's almost as if Obama doesn't believe that airstrikes are the solution to all of the world's problems. What an asshole!