Road to the White House 2016

[Zoraptor]

Soaring rhetoric can get you a long way towards popularity though, even if it achieves nothing. Despite agreeing with the vast majority of those points and examples I have to agree with Bruce on the overall picture, if not the detail. In places where the US is generally liked it is liked more now than under Bush, in places where it was disliked under Bush it is generally disliked less under Obama. There are exceptions of course, but I'd say that holds true in general.

 

Partly it's because Obama has made popular decisions, though practically speaking a lot hasn't been 'good' but more along the lines of "well, McCain probably would have been worse, and Bush was worse" in amongst some stuff which has worked OK; his follow up to everything has been almost always terrible, but that is not usually what sits in the mind of people in general. There's also an element of him being inherently different and special through being the first black president, that represents a lot to many people. Plus, much of the world either hated Bush or feared what stupidity he'd visit next on the world and saw McCain/ Romney as Bush 2.1- so Obama did not so much have a mountain to climb to world popularity but a precipitous ravine to climb out of.

 

I certainly don't think Obama has been particularly competent though, just relatively popular.

[Hurlshort]

You can probably throw Cuba out as a solid foreign relations gain. Although like everything, I wonder if a Republican would have done differently in the post Fidel era.

[Calax]

 

The thing about Graham is that the minute he wins the primary, the Republican party has lost it's general election. He's known for being pro "murder the crap out of everyone who disagrees" and the nation in general isn't exactly ready to support his ideal of "Team America! World Police". Rubio could work because of his appeal to minorities but at the same time, if he wants to appeal to the genera population he has to cut back on a few of his harsher policies about the US financial situation.

 

But are you really sure? I'm sure there's a lot of people who disagree with Graham, but I think most of those who do vote Democratic anyway. Maybe you're right though. But I still think his opinions are perfect for winning the nomination - if John McCain could win the nomination in 2008, Graham can win it now. By the time he has won the nomination, he will tone down this aspect of his policies and just pray he can just sail into office as a "compassionate conservative". VP would be Carly Fiorina, probably.

 

Why did John Bolton step down after announcing his interest in a candidacy? Maybe he is eyeing a post in the cabinet of some other candidate.

 

The thing is though, When McCain ran there wasn't a question of opening up a new warfront RIGHT where we left our old front. Obama honored the treaty that Bush made to pull forces by 2015(?) and right now the hawks in congress, led by Graham, are calling for us to send those people who we JUST got back from Iraq, back to Iraq is going to make people a touch angry. From what I've seen, his entire speech thus far has just been "hey, let's go fight somebody so we don't appear weak!"

 

As to Obama, I think a lot of his internal policies go over well internationally. The initial concept of Obama care is something most Europeans I know can't fathom as not being the norm (not the strange Frankenstein pig we got). His pulling back/out of Iraq, and general "let's not send soldiers all over" is seen as a good thing, although his drone program isn't well liked. Also the fact that under his administration gay marriage and service in the military is a thing that can happen. I'm sure if the Patriot Act dies this week (or whenever) it'll be seen as a gain by the Democratic party, while the republican candidates will get flack domestically and internationally for allowing the NSA to spy on it's own people without warrants.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

You claimed "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better."  I'm asking you to provide examples to back up that claim.    The onus is on YOU to back up your assertion.  I mean didn't you claim some time ago that you liked to debate on facts?  So provide some. 

 

 

As I said I support his foreign policy decisions, all of them. And if people don't like the USA because of them thats there issue, the decisions were correct

 

So pulling out of Iraq, not attacking Iran and Syria, the ISIS bombing campaign and the killing of Bin Laden to name a few 

 

 

 

Killing Bin Laden was a covert military action.   Doing so without consulting the Pakistani government first and violating Pakistani territory was a policy decision.  

 

 

Before I begin remember that you asked this:  "give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more " 

 

Just remember that this is about what the global community believes and not necessarily my personal opinions, lord knows there are enough things in the US I can take shots at Obama about.

 

You asked for three?  Here's more than a dozen .... (apologies for the wall of text)

 

 1.  Ignored the UNSC resolutions in Libya that justified NATO military intervention by repeatedly calling for Qaddafi's overthrow when the resolutions provided for no such thing.  The unintended consequences was that China and Russia as well as the emerging powers on the Security Council (Brazil, India, and South Africa), are no longer willing to countenance UN Security Council resolutions that could lead to military interventions to overthrow regimes elsewhere in the Arab world. At the very least that made it more difficult for Obama to isolate the Assad regime. 

  

 2.  Ignored calls for increased security at the Benghazi embassy leading to the death of Stevens et al and then tried to cover it up.   (Okay this is really an internal US reaction but the US is part of the global community.)

 

 3.  Promised a secure and stable Iraq after the troop withdrawals.   How did that work out?    Obama didn't even make an effort to negotiate a SOFA extension.  By reducing the proposed troop contingent from the 20,000 man force recommended by the US military to 3,000 he virtually guaranteed that there would be no SOFA.  This despite the fact that Maliki was willing to agree to a smaller 8000 man commitment.  Obama seriously overestimate the combat readiness of Iraq's military.  And he's about to repeat the same mistake in Afghanistan.   The current bombing of ISIS a direct result of Obama's overconfidence in the Iraqi military; it is simply an attempt to correct a massive ****-up of Obama's creation.  

 

 4.  Yemen's government collapsed despite massive US support and the US is now directly involved in the Yemen-Saudi War.  The US is providing targetting information, intelligence and aerial refueling of Saudi airstrikes.  “American military planners are using live intelligence feeds from surveillance flights over Yemen to help Saudi Arabia decide what and where to bomb, U.S. officials said.” These video feeds are being provided via U.S. drones, because American manned aircraft are reportedly not presently flying over Yemeni airspace. In 2011, Hillary Clinton said Washington had "rebalanced" its spending priorities to help create a "unified, stable, democratic and prosperous Yemen where civil society has room to operate but al-Qaeda does not."   Really?  Tell that to the Houthi.   

Source: ForeignPolicy

 

 5.  Obama already-gasping Middle East peace process went from simply being on life support to being declared DOA for the remainder of Obama’s presidency.    Obama pressured Israel for a settlement freeze as a necessary concession for peace and downplayed Palestinian terror, anti-Israel incitement and the terror group Hamas’ role in Palestinian government as impediments to it.   The increasing frustration between the two countries has resulted in US/Israel relations being at an all time low.  So bad in fact, that the US has threatened to abandon Israel at the UN and Israel has threatened unilateral action against Iran if the nuclear talks break down.   

 

 6.  Obama's claims of no boots on the ground are BS.   Obama and JSOC have run thousands of covert operations using Seal Team 6 or CIA/Seal Team 6 joint ops in foreign countries, often without the permission of the host countries.  They are now the go-to force whenever Obama wants to flex his military muscle.   He overuses the force to the extent that the unit had to be tripled in size to accommodate all of the requests for its use.  

(Source: NYTimes)

 

 7.  Ran a world wide program that eavesdropped on the governments of Brazil and Germany (among others) with almost universal condemnation from those leaders.  Then he compounded the issue by failing to adequately secure the information to prevent it from being leaked. 

 

 8.  Issued a red line in the sand ultimatum to Syria with no clear plan to follow it up.  Although he managed to secure destruction of the Syria WMD with Russian help, oh wait he didn't since Assad has used chlorine gas against the Syrian civilian population.  The civil war is still raging and please ask the Jordanians how they are doing coping with the massive refugee influx. 

 

  9. Obama’s plan to pull out all U.S. combat forces from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 after the massive troop surge makes little sense. Afghanistan has just navigated a difficult democratic transition of power (Iraq spring to mind here at all?)  . But it also deprives the United States of operational bases from which to carry out possible strikes against future Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other extremist targets in South Asia. There is no viable alternative location from which to monitor and if necessary attack America’s enemies throughout the Afghan-Pakistani Pashtun belt. 

 

10. Obama has failed to establish a consistent strategy for Pakistan, alternating between embrace and embarrassment in ways that often make our policy as inconsistent and frustrating as the Pakistanis are themselves. It’s hard to figure out even what our stated policy is, much less to implement it.   China is now viewed as Pakistan's greatest ally and not the US.

 

11. Obama's wavering between the Muslim Brotherhood and General Sisi's government have left both feeling betrayed.  Egypt's most powerful man, Gen. Abdel Fatah al-Sissi, has said, "You [the U.S.] left the Egyptians; you turned your back on the Egyptians, and they won't forget that." 

 

12. One of Obama's stated goals was resetting the U.S. relationship with the Muslim communities around the world.  Given the failures in Palestine, Syria, Libya, Egypt and Yemen, how do you think that's working out?  The entire middle east is a complete mess.   

 

13. For all of Obama’s success using drones, and he has massively ramped up their use, they are not viewed favorably around the world.   Many feel that the precedents the United States is setting with drone attacks will come back to haunt us. Now is the time to begin to develop an international consensus around rules governing drones and other means of individualized 21st-century warfare.   Opposition to Obama's use of drone strikes appears to be the most significant driver of his drop in worldwide popularity. The United States is the only nation among the 22 surveyed that showed majority support (62 percent) for the use of drone aircraft to strike at targets in the war on terrorism.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/global-opinion-of-obama-falls-due-to-use-of-drone-strikes-76610/

 

14.  The IRAN nuclear deal has not yet been finalized and may never be.  As part of the tentative agreement reached in April in Switzerland, Iran was to implement a so-called Additional Protocol giving the IAEA more intrusive access to facilities in Iran. Iranian officials have been giving conflicting messages about what kind of access would be granted to crucial military sites.  Iran is stalling.   Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear capability will lead to reciprocal action by the Saudi government. After all, Saudi Arabia’s long-term financial support for Pakistan’s nuclear program has never been just about Islamic beneficence. Instead, that funding was a down payment for future opportunity.  

 

Source:  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418410/obamas-ludicrous-middle-east-policy-tom-rogan

 

15.  Only 19% of Turks and 12% of Jordanians offer a favorable opinion of the U.S., and at 10% Egypt gives the U.S. its lowest rating in the survey.

 

  http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/07/14/global-opposition-to-u-s-surveillance-and-drones-but-limited-harm-to-americas-image/

 

Obama's foreign policy is one of soaring rhetoric and undelivered results.   It's a total failure.  

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2015/05/06/obamas-foreign-policy-realism-has-left-the-middle-east-an-unstable-mess

 

I appreciate the effort you have put into this response but some of those points you have confused with "   personally I  think this is bad  foreign policy decision "  as opposed with "  this is a bad foreign policy decision for the USA "

 

For example the decision to not attack Syria is because of the UNSC Veto, so if you think this was a mistake you need to ask yourself what the global community would have felt about the USA if it had ignored the UNSC veto?

 

Then you have given several examples that have led to the Middle East disliking the USA. Lets be honest, most of the ME dislikes the USA for one reason or another. Or rather the citizens of certain countries dislike the USA, this animosity is trenchant and historical and there is very little the USA can do to change this. So we shouldn't base the global view of the USA on the perception of the USA from the ME

 

Then the USA does have real enemies and real threats it needs to address, so the deployment of special force soldiers ( not the same as boots on the ground ) and drone strikes is part of the military  strategy to deal with extremism and this needs to continue. For example when Bin Laden was killed this was very unpopular within Pakistan because they saw this as an attack on there sovereign territory. So you could argue that the USA shouldn't have done this as it would have angered the Pakistanis..yet this was the right decision. So sometimes foreign policy decisions will occur that will always anger certain countries and make the USA unpopular, I just ask people to consider what would be the consequences of acting a certain way or not acting a certain  way when juxtaposed to the  circumstances. So if the USA had informed the Pakistan government about there intentions to kll Bin Laden what would have happened? Permission for the attack could have been refused or Bin Laden might have been warned and he would have fled.

 

Then we have the Israel\USA relationship. In summary the Israelis are angry because the USA hasn't agreed with them and bombed Iran....this is the real contention between Israel and the USA. And once again I support the USA in this decision, negotiations are still a better route ( even if they fail ) than just attacking Iran. Especially considering the fact that Iran wants to negotiate because of the crippling impact of the sanctions. I'm not sure if you really believe that bombing Iran is the most effect strategy to get them to stop enriching Uranium?

 

Soaring rhetoric can get you a long way towards popularity though, even if it achieves nothing. Despite agreeing with the vast majority of those points and examples I have to agree with Bruce on the overall picture, if not the detail. In places where the US is generally liked it is liked more now than under Bush, in places where it was disliked under Bush it is generally disliked less under Obama. There are exceptions of course, but I'd say that holds true in general.

 

Partly it's because Obama has made popular decisions, though practically speaking a lot hasn't been 'good' but more along the lines of "well, McCain probably would have been worse, and Bush was worse" in amongst some stuff which has worked OK; his follow up to everything has been almost always terrible, but that is not usually what sits in the mind of people in general. There's also an element of him being inherently different and special through being the first black president, that represents a lot to many people. Plus, much of the world either hated Bush or feared what stupidity he'd visit next on the world and saw McCain/ Romney as Bush 2.1- so Obama did not so much have a mountain to climb to world popularity but a precipitous ravine to climb out of.

 

I certainly don't think Obama has been particularly competent though, just relatively popular.

 

Yes I agree, the  efforts that the Obama presidency has done to attempt to change the perception of the USA  is more good than bad. Of course not all USA foreign policy decisions are ideal but I never claimed they were 

[Meshugger]

For me, it's not an issue on whether i agree or disagree with the foreign policy, since it hasn't really changed since the Bush doctrine. Neither do i take an issue with questionable or evil stuff by themselves of Obama, since they are also part of the human condition. No, what i do have an issue with is the hypocrisy that what he does is somehow righteous or morally good (the fault of others for beliving that) and i would be quite worried if he believes himself to be a good person, because that means that all decisions are done in good conscience.

 

Some examples:

- It is better to kill Bin Laden in a strike mission than to capture him and have him stand trial

- Killing over 2000 innocent people in drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen is acceptable collateral damage. The deaths are carried out by JSOC and requires a presidential approval before each attack, which means he is personally responsible for each one.

- Continues the war on drugs despite smoking dope himself

[Varana]

To be fair, Obama could probably have seriously improved the international image of the US just by doing nothing. After the abysmal international relationships disaster that was the years of Bush II, doing better wasn't really that hard.

 

Out of kgambit's list - Libya was not Obama alone. In fact, it was a joint effort of several NATO allies who then didn't have the capabilities to do it without the US. That particular Benghazi incident is, tragic as it was, something very few people outside the US care about. A lot of people died in Libya during that time. Pressuring Israel to abandon its settlement policy is almost universally seen as positive - not to give up support for Israel, but specifically its settlement program.

People usually remember who got the US into Iraq in the first place, and did a rather terrible job at nation-building there. Seeing continued military occupation as the solution, is a quite American point of view that isn't necessarily shared elsewhere. Also, the surveillance program: While not shutting it down has been widely criticised, its establishment wasn't really Obama's fault.

 

As Calax said, trying to pass some form of universal healthcare is considered a sign of reason and responsibility in politics, outside of the US. Promising to close Guantánamo was a major bonus, initially - and that he didn't get to do it, symptomatic for his presidency. And so on.

 

Of course, Obama did things which didn't go over well in some parts of the world, and probably made some large errors along the way. As has virtually every American president (or other world leader), and this return to what's usual after Bush II has improved America's international image quite a bit (though it certainly hasn't recovered completely).

[kgambit]

To be fair, Obama could probably have seriously improved the international image of the US just by doing nothing. After the abysmal international relationships disaster that was the years of Bush II, doing better wasn't really that hard.

 

 

I agree.  Obama got a free popularity boost after the 2008 election simply because (a) he was a "novelty" and (b) he wasn't Bush.  Had Hillary been elected there would have been a similar (not identical but similar) increase in US popularity - "WOW the US elected it's first woman president And she's not George Bush!"  In fact, it's likely that an increase in popularity would have occurred to one degree or another no matter who was elected as long as it wasn't Bush or "Bush 2.1".    So imo the 2009 boost in US popularity is a function of Obama being in the right place at the right time in 2008/09.  

 

But  look what happened once he took office.  From that point, opinion of US policy steadily declined and in the ME it has actually dropped below Bush's level. 

 

Out of kgambit's list - Libya was not Obama alone. In fact, it was a joint effort of several NATO allies who then didn't have the capabilities to do it without the US. That particular Benghazi incident is, tragic as it was, something very few people outside the US care about. A lot of people died in Libya during that time. Pressuring Israel to abandon its settlement policy is almost universally seen as positive - not to give up support for Israel, but specifically its settlement program.

People usually remember who got the US into Iraq in the first place, and did a rather terrible job at nation-building there. Seeing continued military occupation as the solution, is a quite American point of view that isn't necessarily shared elsewhere. Also, the surveillance program: While not shutting it down has been widely criticised, its establishment wasn't really Obama's fault.

 

As Calax said, trying to pass some form of universal healthcare is considered a sign of reason and responsibility in politics, outside of the US. Promising to close Guantánamo was a major bonus, initially - and that he didn't get to do it, symptomatic for his presidency. And so on.

 

 

 

Just a couple of quick notes:

 

Libya - I agreed that Libya was not solely of Obama's making but for better or worse, Libya was seen in many circles as a US driven operation.  Obama's call for Qaddafi to step down only reinforced that view.  My focus was how he acted outside the UN mandate and how that was viewed by several countries.   

 

Benghazi - Agreed - That was mostly a personal opinion - I should have left that one out.   

 

Iraq - Maliki and the US and Iraqi commanders all agreed that the Iraqi army was undertrained (it was basically being rebuilt from scratch) and needed a US backstop.     Subsequent events with ISIS confirmed that analysis.  The Iraqi army crumpling like origami in a hurricane when ISIS made it's initial push is ample proof.  Obama's blind insistence on withdrawing US troops and his lack of effort in negotiating a SOFA extension despite the Iraqi government's repeated requests for a sizeable stay behind force was a mistake.    I realize that Obama would have taken considerable heat here and abroad over a decision to extend a US troop presence but sometimes the right decision isn't necessarily the popular one.      

 

Calling it an occupation is a stretch  but I can see how it would be viewed that way by some.  SOFAs are SOP.   

 

Surveillance - True.  The NSA programs didn't originate under Obama's watch but they did continue and the leaks occurred under his watch.   He's responsible for the fallout.   

Edited June 9, 2015 by kgambit

[kgambit]

 

I appreciate the effort you have put into this response but some of those points you have confused with "   personally I  think this is bad  foreign policy decision "  as opposed with "  this is a bad foreign policy decision for the USA "

 

 

 

As opposed to you saying "I agree with all of his [Obama's] decisions" or "I think this was a good decision"?  

 

Originally you asked this: "If you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have been wrong and have made people think less of the USA can you give 3 examples of things you would have done differently" 

 

And then you asked for:  "give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more." 

 

 

Maybe if you were actually clear about what you were asking for we wouldn't have to go thru this song and dance of continual re-explanation every time a debate begins.   I'm beginning to think you do this deliberately to give yourself an out later to claim, "Oh you obviously misunderstood me."  or "No this is what I said."  

 

And you still haven't provided a single link to back up any of your assertions about how he is or might be viewed globally.    So much for your claim that you like to debate from facts.  

 

I'm going to condense the rest of my reply as much as possible because this is simply a pointless exercise. 

 

you need to ask yourself what the global community would have felt about the USA if it had ignored the UNSC veto?

 

 

No, if you want to debate "might have beens" fine let's open a new thread or better still let's open an astral link to the spirit of Nostradamus and ask him.         I thought we were  talking specifically about how world viewed the decisions that were actually made and not speculating about how they might view decisions that weren't made.         

 

deployment of special force soldiers ( not the same as boots on the ground )

 

 

It most certainly is the same thing.     Try telling the Afghan civilians in Ghazi Khan that it isn't.   Oh wait ..... 

 

Then you have given several examples that have led to the Middle East disliking the USA. Lets be honest, most of the ME dislikes the USA for one reason or another. Or rather the citizens of certain countries dislike the USA, this animosity is trenchant and historical and there is very little the USA can do to change this. So we shouldn't base the global view of the USA on the perception of the USA from the ME

 

 

And now you move the goal posts.   I'm sorry but I didn't get the memo that the ME wasn't a part of the global community any longer.         You want to dismiss the Middle East entirely because Muslim opinions generally getting worse runs counter to your argument re: world view of Obama.  So you find some dodge to dismiss the area out of hand.    Maybe you should have qualified "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better" to read  "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better but only in the areas Bruce deems important".    Is there anyone else you want to exclude?      How about Russia?    

 

I will remind you again that Obama made the Middle East a keystone of his foreign policy and in that regard he has failed.  Attempting to Ignore or dismiss that won't change the facts Bruce.  You might as well rename Obama's ME policy:  Operation Charlie Foxtrot. 

 

From the PEW Center, Global Opinion of Obama Foreign policy in Muslim countries dropped from 25% favorable in 2009 to 15% in 2012 (no 2008 figures available).    Opinion ratings in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan, dropped from 22%, 15%, 51% and 19% in 2008 to  10%, 12%, 41% and 14% in 2014 respectively. 

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

 

And no not all of the opinions dropped but I never claimed that they did. 

 

For example when Bin Laden was killed this was very unpopular within Pakistan because they saw this as an attack on there sovereign territory. So you could argue that the USA shouldn't have done this as it would have angered the Pakistanis..yet this was the right decision. So sometimes foreign policy decisions will occur that will always anger certain countries and make the USA unpopular

 

 

It was unpopular in a lot of places not just Pakistan.  I happen to agree it was the right decision but the entire point is not what you and I think personally but how the global community viewed that decision.  Pakistan was severely pissed off and the Abbottabad commission called it an "act of war".  Other countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike were incensed over the US violation of Pakistani territory.  The very thing that the US accused Putin of doing in Ukraine/Crimea if you remember (albeit on a much smaller scale).   Others felt that capturing Bin Laden was preferable to killing him.  And still others praised Obama's tough action.  And others claimed that it was all a hoax.    

  

 

I'm not sure if you really believe that bombing Iran is the most effect strategy to get them to stop enriching Uranium?

 

 

I simply stated that Israel has threatened to take unilateral action -  I never advocated bombing Iran.  You can stop attempting to put words in my mouth any time now.   That's beneath you.      I'm tired of this BS. 

Edited June 9, 2015 by kgambit

[Varana]

But  look what happened once he took office.  From that point, opinion of US policy steadily declined and in the ME it has actually dropped below Bush's level. 

 

...

 

Iraq - Maliki and the US and Iraqi commanders all agreed that the Iraqi army was undertrained (it was basically being rebuilt from scratch) and needed a US backstop.     Subsequent events with ISIS confirmed that analysis.  The Iraqi army crumpling like origami in a hurricane when ISIS made it's initial push is ample proof.  Obama's blind insistence on withdrawing US troops and his lack of effort in negotiating a SOFA extension despite the Iraqi government's repeated requests for a sizeable stay behind force was a mistake.    I realize that Obama would have taken considerable heat here and abroad over a decision to extend a US troop presence but sometimes the right decision isn't necessarily the popular one.      

 

Yes, Obama's election fuelled absurdly high hopes which have been disappointed quite systematically. Granted, Obama had to fight with a highly polarised Congress, but even without that his actions would never have been able to meet the expectations. But it hasn't been a failure all along.

It's hard to say how a McCain administration would have played out. (When he ran, I quite liked him. My opinion of him has deteriorated quite substantially since then - not really sure what happened.)

 

On Iraq: It's not only the Iraqi army. That's what I meant by nation-building: Maliki's government was quite successful in undermining any attempt at reconciliation, the integration of the various religious and ethnic groups, and generally unifying the country. ISIS' success in taking over large parts of Northern Iraq was not only due to the Iraqi army being hopelessly inadequate, and the army's ineffectiveness was not only due to being undertrained. The Iraqi government also failed to support those Sunni groups willing to cooperate, and in fact alienated them to a point where their resistance to ISIS basically was non-existent, not to mention those groups in opposition to the government anyway. (Plus, astonishing amounts of corruption.) Keeping a strong(er) US presence in Iraq might have lessened ISIS' success a bit (the price being that it would be American troops fighting them), but it would not have made the Iraqi army into an effective force without also taking responsibility on the political level.

So yes - withdrawing was probably not the best course of action. It would have been battling the symptoms, though.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

I appreciate the effort you have put into this response but some of those points you have confused with "   personally I  think this is bad  foreign policy decision "  as opposed with "  this is a bad foreign policy decision for the USA "

 

 

 

As opposed to you saying "I agree with all of his [Obama's] decisions" or "I think this was a good decision"?  

 

Originally you asked this: "If you think Obama's foreign policy decisions have been wrong and have made people think less of the USA can you give 3 examples of things you would have done differently" 

 

And then you asked for:  "give me 3 things he did that have now made the global community dislike the USA even more." 

 

 

Maybe if you were actually clear about what you were asking for we wouldn't have to go thru this song and dance of continual re-explanation every time a debate begins.   I'm beginning to think you do this deliberately to give yourself an out later to claim, "Oh you obviously misunderstood me."  or "No this is what I said."  

 

And you still haven't provided a single link to back up any of your assertions about how he is or might be viewed globally.    So much for your claim that you like to debate from facts.  

 

I'm going to condense the rest of my reply as much as possible because this is simply a pointless exercise. 

 

you need to ask yourself what the global community would have felt about the USA if it had ignored the UNSC veto?

 

 

No, if you want to debate "might have beens" fine let's open a new thread or better still let's open an astral link to the spirit of Nostradamus and ask him.         I thought we were  talking specifically about how world viewed the decisions that were actually made and not speculating about how they might view decisions that weren't made.         

 

deployment of special force soldiers ( not the same as boots on the ground )

 

 

It most certainly is the same thing.     Try telling the Afghan civilians in Ghazi Khan that it isn't.   Oh wait ..... 

 

Then you have given several examples that have led to the Middle East disliking the USA. Lets be honest, most of the ME dislikes the USA for one reason or another. Or rather the citizens of certain countries dislike the USA, this animosity is trenchant and historical and there is very little the USA can do to change this. So we shouldn't base the global view of the USA on the perception of the USA from the ME

 

 

And now you move the goal posts.   I'm sorry but I didn't get the memo that the ME wasn't a part of the global community any longer.         You want to dismiss the Middle East entirely because Muslim opinions generally getting worse runs counter to your argument re: world view of Obama.  So you find some dodge to dismiss the area out of hand.    Maybe you should have qualified "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better" to read  "The USA has really done well under Obama to make its global image better but only in the areas Bruce deems important".    Is there anyone else you want to exclude?      How about Russia?    

 

I will remind you again that Obama made the Middle East a keystone of his foreign policy and in that regard he has failed.  Attempting to Ignore or dismiss that won't change the facts Bruce.  You might as well rename Obama's ME policy:  Operation Charlie Foxtrot. 

 

From the PEW Center, Global Opinion of Obama Foreign policy in Muslim countries dropped from 25% favorable in 2009 to 15% in 2012 (no 2008 figures available).    Opinion ratings in Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Pakistan, dropped from 22%, 15%, 51% and 19% in 2008 to  10%, 12%, 41% and 14% in 2014 respectively. 

 

http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slips-international-policies-faulted/

 

And no not all of the opinions dropped but I never claimed that they did. 

 

For example when Bin Laden was killed this was very unpopular within Pakistan because they saw this as an attack on there sovereign territory. So you could argue that the USA shouldn't have done this as it would have angered the Pakistanis..yet this was the right decision. So sometimes foreign policy decisions will occur that will always anger certain countries and make the USA unpopular

 

 

It was unpopular in a lot of places not just Pakistan.  I happen to agree it was the right decision but the entire point is not what you and I think personally but how the global community viewed that decision.  Pakistan was severely pissed off and the Abbottabad commission called it an "act of war".  Other countries, both Muslim and non-Muslim alike were incensed over the US violation of Pakistani territory.  The very thing that the US accused Putin of doing in Ukraine/Crimea if you remember (albeit on a much smaller scale).   Others felt that capturing Bin Laden was preferable to killing him.  And still others praised Obama's tough action.  And others claimed that it was all a hoax.    

  

 

I'm not sure if you really believe that bombing Iran is the most effect strategy to get them to stop enriching Uranium?

 

 

I simply stated that Israel has threatened to take unilateral action -  I never advocated bombing Iran.  You can stop attempting to put words in my mouth any time now.   That's beneath you.      I'm tired of this BS.

B T F O

T

F

O

[s13ep]

"Not so fast, Hill"

[Calax]

Just a couple of quick notes:

Iraq - Maliki and the US and Iraqi commanders all agreed that the Iraqi army was undertrained (it was basically being rebuilt from scratch) and needed a US backstop.     Subsequent events with ISIS confirmed that analysis.  The Iraqi army crumpling like origami in a hurricane when ISIS made it's initial push is ample proof.  Obama's blind insistence on withdrawing US troops and his lack of effort in negotiating a SOFA extension despite the Iraqi government's repeated requests for a sizeable stay behind force was a mistake.    I realize that Obama would have taken considerable heat here and abroad over a decision to extend a US troop presence but sometimes the right decision isn't necessarily the popular one.      

 

Surveillance - True.  The NSA programs didn't originate under Obama's watch but they did continue and the leaks occurred under his watch.   He's responsible for the fallout.   

 

You realize the amount of **** he'd get from the international and domestic communities for attempting to extend the SOFA right? That that'd ultimately damage the US's image within the international stage, and undercut Obama's ability to do anything given he's got such a hostile congress. I don't remember the Iraqi government asking for a renegotiation about the US military sticking around, so it'd look like Obama was just standing there demanding to allow troops to stay in the country (like we do with EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY we've ever occupied) indefinitely.

 

And the Surveillance thing is just you trying to shift the blame in no uncertain terms. I don't know how much control Obama/Bush has/had over the NSA but most of the power the NSA had in that sector came from the Patriot act which was rushed into law in 2001, and constantly extended because "protection!". You can't blame somebody for a program they didn't start, and he probably had better things to do than deal with that relatively minor PR nightmare to-be before it blew up. Hell, I'd compare what you just did to Fox News trying to declare that Obama's economic policies didn't prevent a 2nd great depression.

[Namutree]

 

And the Surveillance thing is just you trying to shift the blame in no uncertain terms. I don't know how much control Obama/Bush has/had over the NSA but most of the power the NSA had in that sector came from the Patriot act which was rushed into law in 2001, and constantly extended because "protection!". You can't blame somebody for a program they didn't start, and he probably had better things to do than deal with that relatively minor PR nightmare to-be before it blew up. Hell, I'd compare what you just did to Fox News trying to declare that Obama's economic policies didn't prevent a 2nd great depression.

 

You can completely blame Obama as he extended the patriot act. He didn't have to do that.

[Hurlshort]

That is definitely on the top of my list for disappointments.  But I've said it before, as a whole I think he's had a lackluster 8 years.  Certainly not the 1000 years of darkness that Chuck Norris predicted, but hardly delivered on the promise of hope and change.  

 

Although really I prefer to evaluate these things with about a decade of hindsight.

[ShadySands]

I think he delivered on the hope which is why the lack of change is such a disappointment

 

Thanks Obama

[Elerond]

[Zoraptor]

Barack Obama is a 2016 candidate? Showing his contempt for the constitution yet again, even if it is only for a pesky amendment.

 

You realize the amount of **** he'd get from the international and domestic communities for attempting to extend the SOFA right? 

 

 

I'm unconvinced that Maliki ever had an intention to actually allow a SOFA anyway, whatever he said and whatever Obama or anyone else may have hoped for/ wanted. I doubt they would have got anything that would have materially altered the current situation even had they had more extensive negotiations, and it would have lowered Obama's popularity as a broken promise.

 

Fundamentally though, the damage in Iraq was done in 2003-4. Mistakes were certainly made later as well but they were made in a general context of juggling a bunch of live hand grenades.

[kgambit]

 

You realize the amount of **** he'd get from the international and domestic communities for attempting to extend the SOFA right? That that'd ultimately damage the US's image within the international stage, and undercut Obama's ability to do anything given he's got such a hostile congress. I don't remember the Iraqi government asking for a renegotiation about the US military sticking around, so it'd look like Obama was just standing there demanding to allow troops to stay in the country (like we do with EVERY SINGLE COUNTRY we've ever occupied) indefinitely.

   

 

 

 

Did you not read this:  "I realize that Obama would have taken considerable heat here and abroad over a decision to extend a US troop presence......."    

 

SOFAs have fixed durations and are constantly being renewed.  I'm not sure what you are getting on about with indefinite occupations. 

 

I was going to post a synopsis but you should just google Josh Rogin's October 2011 article at Foreign Policy for yourself and read that.

 

 

 

@Zoraptor,

 

You might be right about Maliki's intentions but there was a tentative SOFA in place in August 2011 iirc (troop count, duration, withdrawal dates etc.)  but it  hit an impasse over troop immunity.  Maliki had also made an offer of a SOFA based on a "memorandum of understanding" - an executive order if you will, that was rejected by the US who insisted on Council of Representative (parliament) approval.  

 

 

 

     

@Calax

 

As for the issue of surveillance, I sure as hell can blame him if he signed legislation extending the provisions of it.  

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/patriot-act-extension-signed-into-law-despite-bipartisan-resistance-in-congress/2011/05/27/AGbVlsCH_story.html

 

(yeah I know I was ninja'ed by Namutree - lol)

 

 

@Hurlshot - great point about hindsight.  Maybe in 10 more years we'll all have a different slant on this.  

Edited June 9, 2015 by kgambit

[Zoraptor]

@Zoraptor,

 

You might be right about Maliki's intentions but there was a tentative SOFA in place in August 2011 iirc (troop count, duration, withdrawal dates etc.)  but it  hit an impasse over troop immunity.  Maliki had also made an offer of a SOFA based on a "memorandum of understanding" - an executive order if you will, that was rejected by the US who insisted on Council of Representative (parliament) approval.

 

My impression at the time was that neither side had a really strong desire for an agreement so were relatively happy to find things to disagree on and be able to blame the other for intransigence- the above situation would actually reinforce that impression for me- with the US/ Obama being a bit more keen than Maliki to have at leave some presence left. Certainly a parliamentary vote doesn't seem like a big matter, unless Maliki thought there was no chance he could win it in which case he'd have a strong motivation to be spiking the agreement. It's certainly speculation and impression on my part though.

 

Dunno, I guess if the current US trainers etc are currently operating under an 'executive order' SOFA or a fully voted SOFA might be relevant, though obviously the situation is different now and Maliki has gone.

[ShadySands]

So I did the whole isidewith.com thing again and got 92% for Sanders and 54% for Paul (for people I'd actually ever consider voting for). For the parties I got 94% Green Party and 66% Libertarian parties but got none of their candidates

[ManifestedISO]

81% Sanders, 52% Chris Christie, 93% Democrat, 90% Green Party, 59% Libertarian--also none of their candidates. Hillary's backers own my student loans, so, I guess I have no choice ...   

Edited June 15, 2015 by ManifestedISO

[Barothmuk]

93% Sanders, 98% Greens, 96% Socialists.

 

I am a dirty hippy.

[Leferd]

98% Democrat, 91% Bernie Sanders, 81% Hillary Clinton.

 

Seems legit.

[Meshugger]

That test is broken, i selected nothing as important and got 85% Libertanian, 76% Constitution, 72% Republican, 66% Green Party and 60% Democrats.

 

As for candidates: 72% Rubio, 62% Paul, 62% Sanders (18% Hillary)

 

No matter who wins, i win!

Edited June 15, 2015 by Meshugger

[Bartimaeus]

74% Bernie, 59% Hillary, 46% Rand, 44% Jeb; 89% Green, 86% Democrat, 83% Socialist, 75% Libertarian, 70% Constitution, 41% Republican. I had a whole lot of uneducated opinions I wasn't totally sure about, though, so I'd give each result a 5-10% variance, at the very least.

Edited June 15, 2015 by Bartimaeus