Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
Following article is lengthy, but it details how and why US foreign policy has failed in the last 8 years.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/hes-made-it-worse-obamas-middle-east/
I approached this linked article with an open mind. Silly me.
It is a partisan, factually incorrect polemic, not an analysis of US foreign policy. In other words, right wing trash.
I have had similar reactions to every "serious" link you have recommended. I won't be bothering taking any more of your links seriously.
Yep. Can't seriously even argue the facts - dismiss the messenger.
Might work in many elections - won't work this year. The fact that left wing news sources are commenting on how bad obama's foreign policy has been (nee New York Times) shows just how bad the situation has gotten...
It was an interesting article. Too much to really address on a point-by-point basis in a single post, although it's clear that the author was keen to point out possible mistakes made by the Obama Administration while ostensibly ignoring mistakes made by previous Administrations or other key figures in our government. The one-sided tone of the article seems to taint the information somewhat. I'm not really a fan of the Obama Administration myself, and maybe he has made mistakes, just as every President and every human being on Earth makes mistakes.
From the article:
quote:
It would be the height of unfairness to blame the Obama administration outright for everything that’s happened in the Middle East in the past five years. The region’s bad actors and cultural disorders are often well beyond the reach of the United States, regardless of who’s in office. But limitations are one thing—ineptitude another. It’s simply hard to find a single instance of President Obama responding to recent regional events in a way that has paid off either for the United States or its allies. At the same time, America’s antagonists—chiefly Iran and its enablers—have been emboldened and are now ascendant.
If this is what the Obama administration has gotten in return for a more humble American posture, then it’s time to drop that posture. Dangers like rolling civil wars, a near-nuclear Iran, a re-Talibanized Afghanistan, and a resurgent al-Qaeda will not vanish on their own. This administration has three years to reduce the damage that’s been done. The challenge is enormous, but, despite all these setbacks, the United States remains the strongest power in world history. And, as we’ve seen, a lot can happen in a short amount of time.
As far as Iran is concerned, there are a number of mistakes which were made by our government. We didn't really know that much about Iran back in 1943 when the Tehran Conference took place, although the British and the Russians had a longer history and a better working knowledge of the country than we had. The 1953 coup and installation of the Shah was clearly a mistake in the long run - and may not have even been necessary for U.S. interests. If we had done nothing back then - even if they had turned pro-Soviet (which was not a certainty) - our long-term relationship might still be better today if we had left them alone. Even when the Shah was overthrown in 1979, Iran did not become pro-Soviet, but most of their anger was directed at America for installing and supporting the Shah's dictatorship.
I was in high school when the Iranians took over our embassy in Tehran and held our people hostage. I think most people were pretty angry at Iran for what they were doing. It was on the news every night, and even the radio stations had a few song parodies calling for military action against Iran. There was a parody done to the tune of "My Sharona" called "Ayatollah." Then there was also "Bomb Iran" sung to the tune of "Barbara Ann." Kids at my school were saying that we should "nuke Iran 'til they glow." This coupled with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan (leading to the US boycott of the Moscow Olympics), along with a failed rescue mission. Not a good time for the Carter Administration in an election year.
Worked out well for Reagan, though. I was never too sure about the allegations that his campaign may have secretly negotiated with the Iranians to keep the hostages until after he was inaugurated, although either way, he seemed content to let Iran and Iraq go to war with each other while aiding the Afghan rebels against the Soviets. He also seemed to be enormously worried about the grave threat posed by the tiny island of Grenada. Then there was the whole thing with the Contras in Nicaragua, which tied in with an arms for hostages arrangement in the Iran-Contra deal.
If the complaint here is about America's government showing weakness or indecision, then that may be an issue both major parties have to figure out in order to achieve a coherent and consistent policy for America to follow. There are political divisions and internal weaknesses within the system, and that's likely what other governments will be looking at.
As for the author's statement that "Dangers like rolling civil wars, a near-nuclear Iran, a re-Talibanized Afghanistan, and a resurgent al-Qaeda will not vanish on their own," we have to at least be honest enough to mention our own role and mistakes of the past which helped to contribute to many of these problems. Of course, it's not all America's fault either, since other countries have played significant roles in the region. But unlike political partisans and the US media, much of the rest of the world doesn't really have as short an attention-span. They remember things that the politicians, the media, and the electorate seem to have forgotten. We have a short collective memory, but they don't.
One thing we should also consider is that part of the original reason why we became involved in the Middle East to begin was because it was believed that the Soviets would take over the region if we didn't exert our influence and hegemony. Whether or not that was really true, now that the Cold War is over, the reason for US involvement seems irrelevant now. It also seems unlikely that any other power would even want to try to exert hegemony over a rather messy situation. The Russians have enough problems of their own right now, and the Chinese probably wouldn't even want to touch it. Since they're not in danger of invasion by either power, then US hegemony and influence seem irrelevant by that standard.
If, as the author suggests, America should feel the need to stabilize the region and face these dangers head-on, showing strength instead of weakness, that's a more hawkish, interventionist position that should be weighed carefully. The author says that Obama has three years to "reduce the damage" and calls it an "enormous challenge." No doubt it's an enormous challenge, but there are some serious problems that have to be considered from America's point of view. Even if we are the strongest power in world history (which might be debatable, but some other time), we also have to consider certain political realities, such as whether we have enough strength, resources, and the national will to continue exerting whatever force is necessary in such a hurly-burly of internecine rivalries, sectarian conflicts, and multiple factions hellbent on destroying each other. How far is this country prepared to go if things get out of hand? What are we prepared to do?
I don't see anything wrong with the U.S. slowly extricating itself from the situation in the Middle East. The problems clearly affect the region and the countries around it more than the U.S. We're on the other side of the planet. If the countries closer to that region don't seem to care all that much about what happens (including Russia and China, which have both had recent problems with Muslim terrorists), it seems geopolitically incoherent and illogical that the U.S. would be so fired up and concerned about it all. There are other sources of oil in the world; we don't need their oil that badly.
On the other hand, even if there was truly a danger that had to be dealt with in the Middle East, as mentioned by the author (Taliban, Al Qaeda, Syria, Iran, etc.), then what kind of solutions can be reached?
I see what the author is advocating here. He's saying that Obama should use America's strength to continue to keep these "dangers" in check and maintain America's hegemony over the region. That's what "reducing the damage" seems to mean here. But which "damage" are we talking about? The damage to America or the damage to the Middle East? And when we speak of the Middle East, are we talking about a region that belongs to us, or the people who actually live there?
|
Amazing Article on the US Foreign Policy Failures - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread