Greg Krehbiel
The mystery of Obama’s foreign policy
by Greg Krehbiel on 25 January 2012
This is a good article about the amateur president’s foreign policy and whether it will cause lasting damage to the country.
The Perils of Obama’s Foreign Policy
2012-01-25 » Greg Krehbiel
25 January 2012 @ 11:32 am
What, if any, important differences are there between Obama’s foreign policy and Bush’s?
Iraq and Afghanistan? Still there.
Gitmo? Still holding prisoners without due process.
Torture? May or my not still be doing it, but haven’t prosecuted anyone, even those who admit to (and even brag about ) committing war crimes.
25 January 2012 @ 12:13 pm
Did you read the article? He pointed out several, such as …
+ the naive view that America’s troubles in the world were a result of Bush’s style, and that a new style would make everything better.
(That’s significant because if you believe your magic personality will solve things, you won’t do the things that actually will.)
+ Obama tried to reach out to Assad and to Iran and made a mess.
+ He exceeded his “U.N. mandate” in Libya and ignored War Powers restrictions.
You’re right that he has continued a lot of Bush foreign policy decisions, although his rhetoric hasn’t matched his actions (which is also a foreign policy problem).
And since energy is also a foreign policy issue, his crew-ups in that area are also noteworthy.
25 January 2012 @ 4:05 pm
Boo!!! What an amateur!!!
It takes professionals like Bush, Vader, and Rummy to spend a trillion dollars, kill 4,500 soldiers, wound over 30,00 soldiers, inflict PTSD on over 200,000 soldiers, and kill over 100,000 innocent Iraqi civilians over a war we never needed to fight and which might have destabilized the area. Yeah, we need professionals…
25 January 2012 @ 4:11 pm
On behalf of the Commonwealth and all her members, bloody ‘ell there’s a big difference between Obama and Bush’s foreign policy. Many of us find it difficult to believe the degree to which he’s taken every possible opportunity to anger his allies on matters large and small. He seems particularly resentful toward the British, for which I have a plausible-to-me psychohistorical theory, but then I can barely understand my own motivations, much less anyone else’s.
I do know that when you show more deference to your enemies than respect to your friends, something’s gone terribly wrong.
25 January 2012 @ 4:12 pm
SM — I’m also critical of Bush’s approach to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, as I posted earlier. But a reasonable case can be made that Obama’s foreign policy was based on very naive assumptions. He also may preside over the advent of a nuclear Iran. And if they shut the strait of hormuz, that will be a big mess too.
26 January 2012 @ 11:56 am
The “professional” Gingrich:
26 January 2012 @ 12:07 pm
Are you sure he was expressing distrust in Reagan? Remember that Mr. Beaver said Aslan was dangerous.
But if we are going to start holding Gingrich accountable for what he said in 1985, should we do the same for Obama?
What’s the statute of limitations on political comments?
26 January 2012 @ 2:54 pm
And further, to call something dangerous is not to call its participants dangerous. It’s dangerous for a fireman to run into a burning building. That doesn’t mean you don’t trust the fireman, it means you don’t like what the fire might do. It’s dangerous for a policeman to walk into a hostage situation; not because the policeman is a danger, but because the situation is fraught.
I have no idea if this, or something else, is what Gingrich meant. There’s really not enough to go on.