This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
For most of the post Vietnam era the siren cry of what I'll call the Pilger/Chomsky/Corbyn/Hooker "left" has been that the US and it's Western allies have been the source of evil: that they have no right to claim the moral high ground and therefore no right to act as the "global policeman". Their interventions in crisis areas from Latin America, to the Balkans to the Middle East have been almost uniformly bad, both morally and practically. Without such interventions the world would be a better place.
In a watered down way Obama has embraced that view. Most conspicuously, he has withdrawn US troops from Iraq and minimised direct involvement in Syria.
The world now watches the horrors of Aleppo and the rest of the region, the rise of Iranian aggression against the Arab world, the reemergence of Russia as the major external player in the region, and the likely victory of the dictator Assad.
So, has Obama failed?
Or was the alternative (a possible direct conflict between the US and Russia/Iran) ?
worse?
Or, whatever the outcome, should the US and the West regard it as "not their problem" and retreat to the sidelines (as effectively they have done)?
1
6
In reply to Postmanpat:
Nature abhors a vacuum - and so does global politics. If we, the West, do not step in, then Russia and/or China will - and we probably won't see the outcome that we would have liked.
The problem with intervention is that without a long term plan and troops on the ground, intervention will often only lead to ugly messes - look at Libya - and there is limited appetite for sending in ground troops amongst the populace. We also went into the Middle-East without much understanding of the tensions in the region that were held at bay by the local strongmen - to our and the region's detriment.
Obama has failed because he didn't persuade the population that action was necessary. A direct conflict between the US and Russia was highly unlikely - unless we had gone in after the Russians had committed.
Nature abhors a vacuum - and so does global politics. If we, the West, do not step in, then Russia and/or China will - and we probably won't see the outcome that we would have liked.
The problem with intervention is that without a long term plan and troops on the ground, intervention will often only lead to ugly messes - look at Libya - and there is limited appetite for sending in ground troops amongst the populace. We also went into the Middle-East without much understanding of the tensions in the region that were held at bay by the local strongmen - to our and the region's detriment.
Obama has failed because he didn't persuade the population that action was necessary. A direct conflict between the US and Russia was highly unlikely - unless we had gone in after the Russians had committed.
4
In reply to whenry:
well Obama wanted to put a no fly zone around Syria, but needed the support of UK etc. Parliament had a vote and voted no.So Obama decided it was a no go without our support.
My view is that the UK is becoming isolationist.
well Obama wanted to put a no fly zone around Syria, but needed the support of UK etc. Parliament had a vote and voted no.So Obama decided it was a no go without our support.
My view is that the UK is becoming isolationist.
7
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Has he failed? That really rather depends on what his aim was. Do you think the Arab Spring was inevitable? If the US had got (more) involved in Syria should they have picked a side? Which one? Or try to stand in the middle? If so, the middle of what?
Has he failed? That really rather depends on what his aim was. Do you think the Arab Spring was inevitable? If the US had got (more) involved in Syria should they have picked a side? Which one? Or try to stand in the middle? If so, the middle of what?
3
In reply to Postmanpat: in Syria you can make that argument, but the appetite was low for intervention so handwringing now is just ineffective guff. That applies to the UK as well - George Osborne made an excellent speech Tuesday. I don't recall your posts from that time on the subject - were you in favour personally of intervention? Arming rebels? Refugees?
I thing he has done ok with China, Cuba and Iran. They are also ahead of the U.K. With criticism of Saudi Arabias campaign in Yemen.
Mixed record
I thing he has done ok with China, Cuba and Iran. They are also ahead of the U.K. With criticism of Saudi Arabias campaign in Yemen.
Mixed record
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
What was the correct response?
Troops on the ground - like Iraq?
Effective no fly zone leading to regime change - like Libya?
Meddling prolonging the war - like Syria?
Or reinstate a military strongman against the democratic will - like Egypt?
I'm pretty sure the least bloody of these was the last.
Anyway, throughout the post war era, the US has avoided direct involvement in many of the bloodiest wars; Congo, Iran-Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Angola, Cambodia
What was the correct response?
Troops on the ground - like Iraq?
Effective no fly zone leading to regime change - like Libya?
Meddling prolonging the war - like Syria?
Or reinstate a military strongman against the democratic will - like Egypt?
I'm pretty sure the least bloody of these was the last.
Anyway, throughout the post war era, the US has avoided direct involvement in many of the bloodiest wars; Congo, Iran-Iraq, Rwanda, Sudan, Angola, Cambodia
In reply to Postmanpat:
The 'West' routinely regard human rights abuses as not their problem. Nobody gives a shit in the woods about the genocide in PNG nor the pseudo-genocide in the Philiphines from their dictator. Given these examples and many more, e.g. the Congo, Sudan Civil War (when's the last time you heard about that on the news?) - it's clear to me that we have always picked our interventions based primarily on something other than human rights.
Secondly I don't think it's fair to only single out Iran for increased aggression. Saudi Arabia (direct funders of huge amounts of terrorism, such as Al-qaeda and ISIS) has repeatedly provoked Iran, and due to their US alliance and heavy amount of weapons imports right on their doorstep (as well as secret comments to the US such as that by King Abdullah 'who privately urged the United States to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake"') - could be argued are merely defensively posturing.
> Or, whatever the outcome, should the US and the West regard it as "not their problem" and retreat to the sidelines (as effectively they have done)?
The 'West' routinely regard human rights abuses as not their problem. Nobody gives a shit in the woods about the genocide in PNG nor the pseudo-genocide in the Philiphines from their dictator. Given these examples and many more, e.g. the Congo, Sudan Civil War (when's the last time you heard about that on the news?) - it's clear to me that we have always picked our interventions based primarily on something other than human rights.
Secondly I don't think it's fair to only single out Iran for increased aggression. Saudi Arabia (direct funders of huge amounts of terrorism, such as Al-qaeda and ISIS) has repeatedly provoked Iran, and due to their US alliance and heavy amount of weapons imports right on their doorstep (as well as secret comments to the US such as that by King Abdullah 'who privately urged the United States to attack Iran and "cut off the head of the snake"') - could be argued are merely defensively posturing.
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
You can't draw a straight line between criticism of US intervention and Obama's foreign policy without mentioning the Bush years and the invasion of Iraq which lost the US and the West so much credibility internationally and at home. I don't think he was embracing Pilger / (Bruce?) Hooker's view that US interventions have been universally bad, so much as reacting to the very real observation that intervention in Iraq was a disaster.
> For most of the post Vietnam era the siren cry of what I'll call the Pilger/Chomsky/Corbyn/Hooker "left" has been that the US and it's Western allies have been the source of evil: that they have no right to claim the moral high ground and therefore no right to act as the "global policeman". Their interventions in crisis areas from Latin America, to the Balkans to the Middle East have been almost uniformly bad, both morally and practically. Without such interventions the world would be a better place.
> In a watered down way Obama has embraced that view. Most conspicuously, he has withdrawn US troops from Iraq and minimised direct involvement in Syria.
You can't draw a straight line between criticism of US intervention and Obama's foreign policy without mentioning the Bush years and the invasion of Iraq which lost the US and the West so much credibility internationally and at home. I don't think he was embracing Pilger / (Bruce?) Hooker's view that US interventions have been universally bad, so much as reacting to the very real observation that intervention in Iraq was a disaster.
9
In reply to Postmanpat:
Isn't the reduction of US in power in the Pacific (despite apparently a "pivot"), and the failure to contain China either economically or increasingly militarily more of a failure than turf wars in the middle East?
Isn't the reduction of US in power in the Pacific (despite apparently a "pivot"), and the failure to contain China either economically or increasingly militarily more of a failure than turf wars in the middle East?
2
In reply to Postmanpat:
I didn't think he'd have much moral capital to spend in his time. That was the awful thing about the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions - knowing that more justifiable interventions in the future wouldn't take place because we'd squandered our morals on invasion and, in the case of Iraq, a war of aggression. Not only did it weaken the West morally, the aftermath was so bloody and expensive in lives and effort that there was little stomach left
I didn't think he'd have much moral capital to spend in his time. That was the awful thing about the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions - knowing that more justifiable interventions in the future wouldn't take place because we'd squandered our morals on invasion and, in the case of Iraq, a war of aggression. Not only did it weaken the West morally, the aftermath was so bloody and expensive in lives and effort that there was little stomach left
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
If US had intervened in Syria, when such action had been vetoed by both Russia and China at the UN, it would have lead to the collapse of that institution. Maybe there would be fewer dead, who knows.
Obama has succeeded as the first black president by not screwing up, and by so doing making it easier for many more.
If US had intervened in Syria, when such action had been vetoed by both Russia and China at the UN, it would have lead to the collapse of that institution. Maybe there would be fewer dead, who knows.
Obama has succeeded as the first black president by not screwing up, and by so doing making it easier for many more.
1
2
In reply to wercat:
Iraq was the worst case of "crying wolf" I have seen in my lifetime. Obama inherited a US with greatly diminished political capital to do anything much in the Middle East, except withdraw.
Iraq was the worst case of "crying wolf" I have seen in my lifetime. Obama inherited a US with greatly diminished political capital to do anything much in the Middle East, except withdraw.
3
In reply to Postmanpat:
you are asking if Obama failed, but that depends on the opinion of what defines his success as president. He is the elect of the USA not planet earth.
so did he defend US interests ? in a way yes, but in another way no.
he saved US soldiers lives by not getting involved, but paved the way to a future conflict that was very predictable.
it was clear that the US would not give up its global power, but by seeking a path of non conflict with Russia and trying to 'liberalize' the Arab world he placed the USA on a path to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran via the Syrian war.
so in an ideal world (where Humans are 'good') he is the ideal president, but not in our world unfortunately.
i don;t know what is next but I think nothing positive. Russia and Iran are high on 'success' , the Shia militias may very well target Israel next as they will have free movement after their victory.
you are asking if Obama failed, but that depends on the opinion of what defines his success as president. He is the elect of the USA not planet earth.
so did he defend US interests ? in a way yes, but in another way no.
he saved US soldiers lives by not getting involved, but paved the way to a future conflict that was very predictable.
it was clear that the US would not give up its global power, but by seeking a path of non conflict with Russia and trying to 'liberalize' the Arab world he placed the USA on a path to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran via the Syrian war.
so in an ideal world (where Humans are 'good') he is the ideal president, but not in our world unfortunately.
i don;t know what is next but I think nothing positive. Russia and Iran are high on 'success' , the Shia militias may very well target Israel next as they will have free movement after their victory.
In reply to Postmanpat:
I guess, and it is only a guess, is that the ultimate priority of the US remains a free democratic world with the US as its major player. Short of that it wants a free democratic US and in the Middle East at least stability and preferably US dominated stability.
A lot of the answers above imply that, given the complexities of the region, and given the undermining of US credibilty (abroad and domestically) resulting from the Iraq debacle, pretty much any of the above outcomes were and remain impossible.
Personally I think that a third Bush administration would have pressed on the the Middle East (pure supposition of course) but realistically the very best outcome they could have hoped for was to topple Assad but end up simply with an Iraqi + crisis, a still very ,unstable region and a huge terrorist backlash in the West. And that's if the Russians and/or Iranians
didn't fight back.
The other option for Obama would have been to do just enough to dissuade the Russians from getting involved, but without boots on the ground, which could have resulted in being dragged into an endless civil war, unclear who the US were allied with or who they were fightingnagainst.
So maybe Obama took the least bad option?
I guess, and it is only a guess, is that the ultimate priority of the US remains a free democratic world with the US as its major player. Short of that it wants a free democratic US and in the Middle East at least stability and preferably US dominated stability.
A lot of the answers above imply that, given the complexities of the region, and given the undermining of US credibilty (abroad and domestically) resulting from the Iraq debacle, pretty much any of the above outcomes were and remain impossible.
Personally I think that a third Bush administration would have pressed on the the Middle East (pure supposition of course) but realistically the very best outcome they could have hoped for was to topple Assad but end up simply with an Iraqi + crisis, a still very ,unstable region and a huge terrorist backlash in the West. And that's if the Russians and/or Iranians
didn't fight back.
The other option for Obama would have been to do just enough to dissuade the Russians from getting involved, but without boots on the ground, which could have resulted in being dragged into an endless civil war, unclear who the US were allied with or who they were fightingnagainst.
So maybe Obama took the least bad option?
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Slightly off track, I watched some of that BBC2 progamme on Muslims this week. 10 off them in a house. You only had to watch the personal conflict between Sunni and Shia in that house to see the amplified mess in the Middle East.
At least we in the West seemed to have mellowed in our crass religious wars.
Slightly off track, I watched some of that BBC2 progamme on Muslims this week. 10 off them in a house. You only had to watch the personal conflict between Sunni and Shia in that house to see the amplified mess in the Middle East.
At least we in the West seemed to have mellowed in our crass religious wars.
2
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
We cannot say he has failed on the basis of not wading into Syria. Syria was complicated when the Ottomans were in there, not at all helped by the French during the mandate (now there's a foreign policy fail!), and we sat on our well-upholstered 4r5es for decades letting the Assads keep the lid on it.
We cannot say he has failed on the basis of not wading into Syria. Syria was complicated when the Ottomans were in there, not at all helped by the French during the mandate (now there's a foreign policy fail!), and we sat on our well-upholstered 4r5es for decades letting the Assads keep the lid on it.
In reply to Postmanpat: Although this is a simplistic response, I wonder how things would now be different in Syria if the west had dealt forcefully with the Syrian regime (under Bashar's dad) after they brought down the PanAm flight over Lockerbie instead of blaming it on Gadaffi.
In reply to Postmanpat:
The "free democratic world" I think is pushing it.
Whilst I am sure some US politicians would like that it would tend to come secondary to interests.
Hence the support in the past for some rather unpleasant right wing regimes in South America and currently for Saudi Arabia amongst others.
Its also worth noting that various right wing politicans in the USA have pushed the isolationist stance in the past. Trump for example sort of did but sort of didnt in his normal confused way. GW Bush did have a very strong isolationist position as part of his campaign.
> I guess, and it is only a guess, is that the ultimate priority of the US remains a free democratic world with the US as its major player.
The "free democratic world" I think is pushing it.
Whilst I am sure some US politicians would like that it would tend to come secondary to interests.
Hence the support in the past for some rather unpleasant right wing regimes in South America and currently for Saudi Arabia amongst others.
Its also worth noting that various right wing politicans in the USA have pushed the isolationist stance in the past. Trump for example sort of did but sort of didnt in his normal confused way. GW Bush did have a very strong isolationist position as part of his campaign.
1
1
In reply to KevinD:
I don't think Trump is too interested in democracy, unless it results in him winning. Nor for that matter freedom. His henchmen seem similar unimpressed with the idea
I don't think Trump is too interested in democracy, unless it results in him winning. Nor for that matter freedom. His henchmen seem similar unimpressed with the idea
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
Yes i think so. While i wouldn't take the position that the US is the root of all evil, I think it is fair to say that their foreign interventions - and foreign interventions generally - don't have a great record. I can only think of three which (the Balkans, Sierra Leone (which as the UK) and the first Iraq war) which are generally considered to have been a success. There are plenty that have been huge, horrible disasters.
I think Obama fumbled the whole chemical weapons / red-line thing. But whether or not he should have committed to an active presence is a much murkier question.
> So maybe Obama took the least bad option?
Yes i think so. While i wouldn't take the position that the US is the root of all evil, I think it is fair to say that their foreign interventions - and foreign interventions generally - don't have a great record. I can only think of three which (the Balkans, Sierra Leone (which as the UK) and the first Iraq war) which are generally considered to have been a success. There are plenty that have been huge, horrible disasters.
I think Obama fumbled the whole chemical weapons / red-line thing. But whether or not he should have committed to an active presence is a much murkier question.
In reply to MG:
true but part of his sales pitch was not to get involved overseas although not sure how that goes with the whats the point of nukes if you dont use them and the go kill "terrorists" line.
Ignoring him though.
The US position has been far more complicated than the two simplistic views Postpatman provides of the US being interested in a free democratic world vs the root of all evils.
> I don't think Trump is too interested in democracy
true but part of his sales pitch was not to get involved overseas although not sure how that goes with the whats the point of nukes if you dont use them and the go kill "terrorists" line.
Ignoring him though.
The US position has been far more complicated than the two simplistic views Postpatman provides of the US being interested in a free democratic world vs the root of all evils.
1
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
>Short of that it wants a free democratic US and in the Middle East at least stability and preferably US dominated stability.
I wonder if the middle east will diminish in political importance, as renewable sources become more mainstream. Oil will always be important, but gas and electric are becoming more prevalent as primary power sources. The shale gas revolution in the US will come back online now the prices are going up, and it will be followed by similar initiatives around the world.
>but realistically the very best outcome they could have hoped for was to topple Assad but end up simply with an Iraqi + crisis, a still very ,unstable region and a huge terrorist backlash in the West.
The Iraq crisis was very much a self inflicted wound. Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving hundreds of thousands of troops unemployed, skint and with ready access to lots of weapons. This is the same army that stepped aside, as instructed by the west, when the war kicked off. If we had payed them to stay in barracks, rebuild the country or even sweep the streets, the outcome would have been different.
>Short of that it wants a free democratic US and in the Middle East at least stability and preferably US dominated stability.
I wonder if the middle east will diminish in political importance, as renewable sources become more mainstream. Oil will always be important, but gas and electric are becoming more prevalent as primary power sources. The shale gas revolution in the US will come back online now the prices are going up, and it will be followed by similar initiatives around the world.
>but realistically the very best outcome they could have hoped for was to topple Assad but end up simply with an Iraqi + crisis, a still very ,unstable region and a huge terrorist backlash in the West.
The Iraq crisis was very much a self inflicted wound. Paul Bremer disbanded the Iraqi army, leaving hundreds of thousands of troops unemployed, skint and with ready access to lots of weapons. This is the same army that stepped aside, as instructed by the west, when the war kicked off. If we had payed them to stay in barracks, rebuild the country or even sweep the streets, the outcome would have been different.
Post edited at 16:25
1
In reply to Postmanpat:
I think he was in a lose lose situation
Leave and we had what happened
Stay and US troops would have died.
I'm not sure there was any way to come out of this well.
TBH this withdrawal and training was probably about the best he could.
I think he was in a lose lose situation
Leave and we had what happened
Stay and US troops would have died.
I'm not sure there was any way to come out of this well.
TBH this withdrawal and training was probably about the best he could.
In reply to neilh:
And who were all these people who voted no - a number of them are now wringing their hands and saying we should look after the refugees.
If they'd voted the other way Assad would have been defeated and the whole thing would be over by now - it isn't, and hundreds (or thousands) are dying each week, leave alone the refugees.
> well Obama wanted to put a no fly zone around Syria, but needed the support of UK etc. Parliament had a vote and voted no.So Obama decided it was a no go without our support.
And who were all these people who voted no - a number of them are now wringing their hands and saying we should look after the refugees.
If they'd voted the other way Assad would have been defeated and the whole thing would be over by now - it isn't, and hundreds (or thousands) are dying each week, leave alone the refugees.
1
In reply to Frank the Husky:
Wasn't that the Iranians, in retaliation for the airliner the US Navy shot down (in error) a little while before?
> they brought down the PanAm flight over Lockerbie instead of blaming it on Gadaffi.
Wasn't that the Iranians, in retaliation for the airliner the US Navy shot down (in error) a little while before?
In reply to fred99:
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Timing was never in Obama's favour either but he did make fatal mistakes in encouraging the uprising in some senses - spring hadn't really turned to winter early on of course - but then never really backing it. With every harsh word which went unsupported by action the regime must have felt they had a greater chance to survive. Probably the key was calling the red line without being certain of a physical response if crossed. And of course, as time went on the likelihood of the rebels remaining either moderate or united dropped. As leader of the free world and a man with a conscience I'm sure he will spend the rest of his life reflecting and feeling much pain, however the next phase of middle eastern history plays out.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Timing was never in Obama's favour either but he did make fatal mistakes in encouraging the uprising in some senses - spring hadn't really turned to winter early on of course - but then never really backing it. With every harsh word which went unsupported by action the regime must have felt they had a greater chance to survive. Probably the key was calling the red line without being certain of a physical response if crossed. And of course, as time went on the likelihood of the rebels remaining either moderate or united dropped. As leader of the free world and a man with a conscience I'm sure he will spend the rest of his life reflecting and feeling much pain, however the next phase of middle eastern history plays out.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...