Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Algernon Moncrieff

(5,790 posts)
Sun May 4, 2014, 06:51 PM May 2014

NYT - Friedman - It’s Not Just About Obama

Complete Op-Ed at link

THERE has been a festival of commentary of late bemoaning the pusillanimous foreign policy of President Obama. If only we had a president who rode horses shirtless, wrestled a tiger or took a bite out of a neighboring country, we’d all feel much safer. Your Honor, I rise in — partial — defense of Mr. Obama.

Let me start by asking a question I’ve asked about other countries: Is American foreign policy today the way it is because Obama is the way he is (cerebral, cautious, dispassionate) or is Obama the way Obama is on foreign policy because America is the way America is today (burned by two failed wars and weakened by a great recession) and because the world is the way the world is (increasingly full of failed states and enfeebled U.S. allies)?

The answer is some of both, but I’d put a lot more emphasis on the latter. Foreign policy, our ability and willingness to act in the world, is about three things: interests, values and leverage. Do we have an interest in getting involved in Syria or Crimea, are our values engaged, and — if either is true — do we have the leverage to sustainably tilt things our way at a price we can afford? Leverage is a function of two things: the amount of economic and military resources we can bring to bear and the unity of purpose of our partners on the ground and our allies elsewhere.

I’d argue that a lot of what makes America less active in the world today is a product first of all of our own diminished leverage because of actions taken by previous administrations. The decisions by the Bush I and Clinton teams to expand NATO laid the seeds of resentment that helped to create Putin and Putinism. The Bush II team not only presided over two unsuccessful wars, but totally broke with American tradition and cut taxes instead of raising them to pay for those wars, weakening our balance sheet. The planning for both wars was abysmal, their execution worse and too many of our “allies” proved to be corrupt or used our presence to prosecute old feuds
.
5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NYT - Friedman - It’s Not Just About Obama (Original Post) Algernon Moncrieff May 2014 OP
Even a blind clock finds an acorn twice a day tularetom May 2014 #1
Friedman said something coherent?! BlindTiresias May 2014 #2
Surprisingly nuanced, considering the source surrealAmerican May 2014 #3
welcome to DU grasswire May 2014 #4
piss on him anyway. KG May 2014 #5

tularetom

(23,664 posts)
1. Even a blind clock finds an acorn twice a day
Sun May 4, 2014, 07:00 PM
May 2014

Friedman's scorecard:

Correct: This time

Wrong: Every other time

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»NYT - Friedman - It’s Not...