The Obama Doctrine - A detailed insight into US foreign policy under Obama's leadership

[sanahtlig]

If you care anything about US foreign policy this is a must-read.  Dispensing with the usual political bickering and the oversimplification of very complex issues, this lengthy editorial provides a thoughtful insight into the complicated problem of deciding when and where the US should intervene in foreign affairs.  It provides a startling contrast to the depressingly low level of political discussion we're currently seeing on the campaign trail.

The Atlantic: The Obama Doctrine

[solidbatman]

inb4 thread turns into US hate thread.

Last time politics were brought up on the forums, we lost an admin. 

[Down]

1 minute ago, solidbatman said:

inb4 thread turns into US hate thread.

Last time politics were brought up on the forums, we lost an admin. 

No risk, nobody will finish the article anyway. This shit is so long, it's basically a book. I started reading it but I'll need another day of no supervisors around at work to read it fully, I think.

 

With that said the last book I read was by some dude named Chomsky so if someone wants to bring up US imperialist interventionism I'm certainly not gonna oppose them

[sanahtlig]

24 minutes ago, Down said:

No risk, nobody will finish the article anyway. This shit is so long, it's basically a book. I started reading it but I'll need another day of no supervisors around at work to read it fully, I think.

With that said the last book I read was by some dude named Chomsky so if someone wants to bring up US imperialist interventionism I'm certainly not gonna oppose them

It took me several hours to get through.  It is indeed very long.

Actually, The Obama Doctrine describes Obama's alternative to typical American interventionism, and indeed he specifically describes himself as a "realist" rather than as an interventionist.

[Down]

10 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

Actually, The Obama Doctrine describes Obama's alternative to typical American interventionism, and indeed he specifically describes himself as a "realist" rather than as an interventionist.

I'm automatically suspicious of anyone who describes himself as a realist. It's more than often a way to hide one's own ideologies and pass them as indisputable truths =p

As far as my following of the news goes it does seem like Obama calmed down on interventionism a fair bit but stuff like the drones killings, snowden leaks, blind bombings etc don't lead me to believe things are that different in the end. I'll admit my lack of knowledge on the topic though.

[Darklord Rooke]

40 minutes ago, solidbatman said:

Last time politics were brought up on the forums, we lost an admin. 

Which Admin was that, and why didn't people just close the thread before it got that far? :S However, I can totally understand why 'politics' is a 'close thread on sight' rule for a fair few forums.

The article doesn't really touch much on my interests, mostly on the inner stuff of the Obama administration. However the article commented on Syria and Obama's reluctance to go into Syria, and with America in trillions of debt due to Iraq & Afghanistan (and lower Bush taxes,) and the fatigue of war 'on the ground' in America, it was probably a popular decision. However, it did provide a (tragic? engrossing?) example of the future?

People have been commenting for a while now that although America has done some suspect shit overseas (like going into Iraq and so on,) the only reason the world hasn’t collapsed into a third world war was because super-duper powerful America was there to police it. Countries may not have liked them, but they respected their strength and feared them. That’s starting to go, America’s waning and trying to pull back, China’s rising, Russia’s trying to rise, and Europe is quickly fading.

Syria is a perfect example, the Syrian war threatened to escalate into hell because so many vested interests and no clear dominant side. Turkey and Saudi Arabia desperately wanted Sunni leadership, Russia wanted to keep its strategic navy thingy, the Kurds have their own interests, and of course ISIL.

Russia came in to prop up the Assad regime because it can’t let them fall. Turkey desperately wanted them to fall. Threats of an all out war happened. Saudi wanted to join in also, but Iran laughed, pointed at Yemen, then laughed some more. Saudi never did send those ground troops, sparing Iran from more fits of laughter.

Obama didn’t go into Syria and the result was a snapshot of the world without Big Brother America to police things. 

[Valmore]

To be fair, America's debt goes much further back than W. Make no mistake, we were still in debt under Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, etc. Clinton and the Republican Congress (that actually worked with him sometimes, a novel concept these days) managed to balance the national budget, but it didn't magically make the debt disappear. I mean, we've been in the trillions deficit since the 80's - W made it higher, but he didn't get us into the trillions.

[sanahtlig]

22 minutes ago, Rooke said:

Syria is a perfect example, the Syrian war threatened to escalate into hell because so many vested interests and no clear dominant side. Turkey and Saudi Arabia desperately wanted Sunni leadership, Russia wanted to keep its strategic navy thingy, the Kurds have their own interests, and of course ISIL.

Russia came in to prop up the Assad regime because it can’t let them fall. Turkey desperately wanted them to fall. Threats of an all out war happened. Saudi wanted to join in also, but Iran laughed, pointed at Yemen, then laughed some more. Saudi never did send those ground troops, sparing Iran from more fits of laughter.

Obama didn’t go into Syria and the result was a snapshot of the world without Big Brother America to police things. 

Obama has commented that the war in Syria is a war that America can't win.  I'm inclined to agree.  Europe is blaming the US for standing on the sidelines and allowing the refugee crisis to persist.  Well, if they have a problem with how the war is going, why don't they do something about it?  If this is a problem that can and should be solved with military power, why don't they send in their armies and topple the Assad regime or enforce a ceasefire with military might?

I don't understand why world leaders insist that nothing of importance can be accomplished without the leadership of the US.  If Syria is more important to Europe than it is to the US, then it's time Europe do something about it rather than wait on the US to act on their behalf.

[Down]

10 minutes ago, Rooke said:

Which Admin was that, and why didn't people just close the thread before it got that far? :S However, I can totally understand why 'politics' is a 'close thread on sight' rule for a fair few forums.

Ryoji. I believe he immediately closed a thread about politics, much to the opposition of some mods back then, including me (I didn't really see why we wouldn't be able to talk about politics. I don't think he left the forums because of that though (he had health issues), but I might have missed a behind-closed-doors episode that batman knows about.

Nowadays I'd be much more careful when it comes to discussing politics though. My policy is simply to not talk about politics with people with whom I know I will strongly disagree with and end up in a time and energy-consuming debate that might end up with both of us not talking with each others for months.

Hence why I'll probably never discuss politics with you or batman, for example

[Valmore]

3 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

Obama has commented that the war in Syria is a war that America can't win.  I'm inclined to agree.  Europe is blaming the US for standing on the sidelines and allowing the refugee crisis to persist.  Well, if they have a problem with how the war is going, why don't they do something about it?  Why don't they send in their armies and topple the Assad regime or enforce a ceasefire with military might?  Europe is perfectly capable of doing this unilaterally without the assistance of the US.

I don't understand why world leaders insist that nothing of importance can be accomplished without the leadership of the US.  If Syria is more important to Europe than it is to the US, then it's time Europe do something about it rather than wait on the US to act on their behalf.

It's not that America *can't* win - it just would cost a lot more than what it's worth. Sure, we could send in troops, bomb the hell out of Damascus and topple the regime, and what would we get for our efforts? More hatred, another Iraq-like state in the same damn area and probably the same foreign countries telling us how horrible we are for intervening. America is damned if we do, fucked if we don't. Could England do it? Probably. France? Probably. Germany? Probably. Will they? Of course not - because they know the same damned truth about it. Hell, they saw the blueprint in Iraq. It's a lot easier to bitch and moan at someone else for not doing something instead of doing it yourself.

[sanahtlig]

9 minutes ago, Valmore said:

It's not that America *can't* win - it just would cost a lot more than what it's worth. Sure, we could send in troops, bomb the hell out of Damascus and topple the regime, and what would we get for our efforts? More hatred, another Iraq-like state in the same damn area and probably the same foreign countries telling us how horrible we are for intervening.

Toppling a regime constitutes a tactical but not a strategic victory.  If the end result is worse than doing nothing, that's a strategic defeat.  The Gulf War of the 1990's was a strategic victory.  The Iraq War that toppled Hussein was a strategic defeat.  Obama calculates that there is no long-term victory to be had in Syria through American military power.  I agree.  The problem in Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East is rooted in religious fundamentalism and its tribalist offshoots (in Obama's words).  Until these social problems fueling the chaos are surmounted, no lasting victory can be achieved.

[Clephas]

lol, I just finished the article... and it was interesting.  However, it is mostly just food for thought.  I'm a pragmatist myself, and I have honestly never seen why we wasted resources and lives intervening there in any case, hahaha. 

[Darklord Rooke]

17 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

Europe is blaming the US for standing on the sidelines and allowing the refugee crisis to persist.  Well, if they have a problem with how the war is going, why don't they do something about it?  

Let me put the almighty power of the European (+UK) militaries into perspective. During the Falkland war, if Argentina's bombs had actually exploded, instead of being duds, England would have lost the Falklands in the 80s like everybody expected them to. If England, one of the mightier armies in Europe, will struggle with Argentina, how much can they actually do? *insert chortles here*

I think France is probably the mightiest military force in Europe, probably around equal to England (which suck) and they're already in there. They won't send ground troops in there because they'll be decimated but they have a fair number of planes over there, bombing stuff. You're not likely to hear much about it because not much damage is being done, though. Let's be frank, in terms of military power you have 'America', then  after that comes various forms of 'suck'. Because they all suck  And America is still the only country on Earth that can 'project' force at other countries with any degree of consistency due to their carrier battle groups (although there shouldn't be much problem for Europe cause Syria's right next door ...)

[sanahtlig]

3 minutes ago, Rooke said:

Let me put the almighty power of the European (+UK) militaries into perspective. During the Falkland war, if Argentina's bombs had actually exploded, instead of being duds, England would have lost the Falklands in the 80s like everybody expected them to. If England, one of the mightier armies in Europe, will struggle with Argentina, how much can they actually do? *insert chortles here*

I read about the Falklands conflict and I was under the impression that the UK did not bring their full military might to bear on this regional and inconsequential conflict.  It's of sort of like imagining a modern Russian invasion of Poland and saying America "sucks" because the small force they have stationed there would get initially steamrolled by the Russians.

[Darklord Rooke]

23 minutes ago, Down said:

Hence why I'll probably never discuss politics with you or batman, for example

That's no fun ...  

[Darklord Rooke]

13 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

I read about the Falklands conflict and I was under the impression that the UK did not bring their full military might to bear on this regional and inconsequential conflict.  It's of sort of like imagining a modern Russian invasion of Poland and saying America "sucks" because the small force they have stationed there would get initially steamrolled by the Russians.

It wasn't an inconsequential conflict. Argentina were trying to take something they regard as their own but is (at the present) British and Thatcher got incredibly angry. Tensions survive to this day. It's like if some country had a historic claim to Hawaii, and tried to take it off America. I doubt you'd call it inconsequential.

The UK would never be able to bring their full military might to bear due to Britain's inability to field that force in a sensible way many thousands of miles from home. England were desperately lucky in that war, Argentina made some bad decisions, had some faulty gear, and employed some dodgy strategies. America had expected England to lose, like most countries did, not because it was inconsequential but because they don't really have the military it. 

If Argentina and England fought today over the Falklands, and England sent over an invasion force, they would most likely lose. 

[Darklord Rooke]

Also the oil and fishing, because Britain has an Economic Exclusion Zone that extends 200NM, the oil which comes from the Falklands provides a semi-substantial, economic boost (if you ignore the ‘territory is territory’ argument.)

I suppose, in this regard, it’s a bit similar to the disputed islands off Japan? Where Japan, China, SK are all scrabbling for it.

[sanahtlig]

9 minutes ago, Rooke said:

If Argentina and England fought today over the Falklands, and England sent over an invasion force, they would most likely lose. 

If Britain deemed Argentina an existential threat to them, I feel confident that Argentina would end up a smoking ruin.  Just because Argentina could win a limited conflict doesn't mean they could wage total war against Britain and win.

[Darklord Rooke]

23 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

If Britain deemed Argentina an existential threat to them, I feel confident that Argentina would end up a smoking ruin.  Just because Argentina could win a limited conflict doesn't mean they could wage total war against Britain and win.

England don't even have an air craft carrier atm. How would they get the planes over there?

EDIT: In comparison, Britain have 0 carriers, 5 destroyers. When the Falklands were fought, Britain had 2 carriers and over 10 destroyers. Argentina similarly has no carrier, which goes some way to show how incapable these countries would be trying to invade another country a long way away

[sanahtlig]

19 minutes ago, Rooke said:

England don't even have an air craft carrier atm. How would they get the planes over there?

Wait, what?

*investigates the relevant wiki page*

I wasn't aware that Britain had decided to become an American protectorate.  You win this round.

[Deep Blue]

Saw the thread and you guys talking about Malvinas so I better leave quickly before I say something and get myself banned 

[OriginalRen]

7 hours ago, Down said:

Ryoji. I believe he immediately closed a thread about politics, much to the opposition of some mods back then, including me (I didn't really see why we wouldn't be able to talk about politics. I don't think he left the forums because of that though (he had health issues), but I might have missed a behind-closed-doors episode that batman knows about.

Nowadays I'd be much more careful when it comes to discussing politics though. My policy is simply to not talk about politics with people with whom I know I will strongly disagree with and end up in a time and energy-consuming debate that might end up with both of us not talking with each others for months.

Hence why I'll probably never discuss politics with you or batman, for example

Down, you and I need to have a political discussion about your English ability. We may not talk for months.

[Orcka]

Freedom of speech can go only so far. As an Anarchist I feel that if I open my mouth about the topic at hand, I will get banned. This place isn't exactly a platform for political debates, after all it's where introverts like us hang out and try to heal our depression with VNs (well I guess that is just me ). 

[babiker]

Would like to see a summation of the article's points tho, if one would be so kind.

As far as the Syrian conflict is concerned, I've always wanted to yell at America to pick on someone their own size. The only reason the conflict has lasted so long is because of world powers supporting their own interests, be it Russia, China or Iran etc. Intervening directly and supporting your own faction is clearly wrong and the current leaders seem to agree on that, but how about stopping other countries from doing what they like? It seems to me like the US is ready to jump on most Middle Eastern countries without much hesitation, but shies away when there's a big country like Russia involved.

All things considered tho I liked Obama's approach a lot, maybe mainly because my only comparison was between him and his predecessor. With Trump being Trump and America being America right now, I think I'll look back to this age, the age where America wasn't the dickiest country in the world, as a golden age of sorts

[Clephas]

1 minute ago, babiker said:

 

 

As far as the Syrian conflict is concerned, I've always wanted to yell at America to pick on someone their own size. The only reason the conflict has lasted so long is because of world powers supporting their own interests, be Russia, China or Iran etc. Intervening directly and supporting your own faction is clearly wrong and the current leaders seem to agree on that, but how about stopping other countries from doing what they like? It seems to me like the US is ready to jump on most Middle Eastern countries without much hesitation, but shies away when there's a big country like Russia involved.

There are so many countries involved in Syria, its scary.   Russia, Saudia Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, the EU, and the US... to be honest, I've always counted Syria as one of the primary reasons the so-called 'Arab Spring' was a premonition of doom.  I mean, if there was one thing we should have learned from Iraq, it was that removing an autocrat in the Middle East just results in religious, ethnic, and tribal conflict tearing ever-larger parts of the region apart.