Thoughts?

[politicasista]

Last edited Sun Mar 13, 2016, 03:28 AM - Edit history (4)

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/


A lot of folks on social media have weighed in. That said, having read the article, still not understanding why it is a great read. It is/was meh IMO.

Sure, it offers insight into P Obama's thinking on FP and global issues, and one of the main focuses is Syria, Libya, and the rest of the world, but it reads like a hit piece.


1. The article is a very negative portrayal of SOS Kerry. He comes across looking like a hawkish Mister Magoo (yes, a left leaning FP writer (Max Fisher) called him that in the past) compared the POTUS and VPOTUS. The Senior Administration official's comment didn't help much either (reminiscing of "gravity" that the WH was forced to clarify). It's also why he and his work are always slept on.

Accidentally stumbled on outside comments from both sides of the political aisle saying that Obama's decision not to strike Syria/Assad was the right one and glad he "put Kerry in his place" on this issue saying that he (SOS Kerry) is not the SO Defense and/or at the Pentagon, and Obama has plenty of counsel to make his own final decisions, and that SOS Kerry himself should read TOD article.

Another was the "frustrated" VP Biden telling SOS Kerry to "Remember Vietnam?" So discouraging to read some semi-backlash coming from Democrats. It's like what did Kerry do to Obama and Biden?? IDGI

Long story short, the POTUS and VPOTUS come out great and on the right side of this issue, while SOS Kerry comes off looking like an evil diplomat pushing for war (remember the infamous vote? Unfortunately, that will never go away).


2. That said, the timing of this article is/was questionable, considering the US/CAN state visit was going on and the SOS was traveling to the Mideast region (Saudi Arabia), was interesting he didn't go to the official state dinner to travel (or did he?).


IMO, the WH and State PR people need to get it together on issues like this.


3. This all is reminding of an WaPo article written (Ignatus, I think) before Kerry became SOS about what can he do to have a personal, professional relationship Obama since their personalities are so different. (Ok, sounds silly, but don't see to many official WH pics with them together (or at special events i.e. birthday parties, sporting events, joint interviews...Granted, he may feel like he doesn't the publicity anymore since he (Kerry) said that SOS was his last job in public service).


4. Also, he was supposed to go to Cuba before the POTUS, but will travel with him. Hope they have a nice productive trip. Rhodes announced that the SBA, Commerce, and Agricultural secretaries will join them. Best wishes and safe travels to them all.


Lastly, if HRC offered him the chance to stay on, hope he says no. It's known that she is a very hawkish woman. More hawkish than POTUS (some have said that she and Kerry are both more than Obama). Let her find her own SOS.


Hopefully, he can spend some more time with Momma T (hope she is ok these days) and family, write books and travel. He does deserve some NPP consideration He is done good on Iran, Climate Change, and other work, but unfortunately, him not being on the same page with the Obama Administration will people talking.


Apologies for the long post. Feel free to disagree. Just some two cents. Will let the pros of this fine group comment more on FP/SOS related issues in the future.



Hope everyone is doing well.





Edit to clean up the OP for the K-Group and lurkers.

[tularetom]

1. By comparison with the incompetent Kissinger wannabe who had the job before him

John Kerry the Superman of Secretaries of State.

I didn't read the article and I don't know about Biden but I'm certain the President is breathing a lot easier these days knowing the SofS is actually on his side.

[politicasista]

2. True to that..

about the POTUS breathing a lot easier that he has a hardworking SOS. There were some in the GD/GR threads saying they were surprised that it was revealed that he (SOS Kerry was the one, given his strong diplomatic push in other agreements, another though while the article portrays him unfairly, he still came off looking good. IDK.

It is just still puzzling that he doesn't get the same love, support, and respect like the headliners (Obama, Biden, the Clintons, Gore, Warren---no disrespect to any of them). He still gets mocked for ____ years after he ran for POTUS, but some things may not be meant to be understood.

That said, it was just an observation. Will probably delete this post and go back to DU seclusion soon.

[mylye2222]

3. I agree.

I love POTUS and headliners but I also think thzre is some petiness in the WH (cf advisers...) otherwise Kerry wont be denied that way.
For sure the treatment he gets is unfair.
Take the IWR. ....years after peoole still hold grudges at him, meanwhile, when it comes form POPULAR ONES they are automatically forgiven by media and Co.
And now CorrpMedia are reharsing happily the little, little story of Obama rejecting JKs rencent Syria memo offers...

[politicasista]

6. Don't know what it is

Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Pettiness by leftover Clinton loyalists or those that are protective of POTUS/VPOTUS, but not sure what it is cause they seem to work good together on policy.

IMO, the POTUS, WH, State, and Pentagon should have declined his request for interviews. He seems like he has a malicious agenda for some reason. Just an observation.

[karynnj]

4. Kerry already went to Cuba and he did open the embassy

He was going to head a meeting on human rights and that was what was cancelled. That was to get more movement on that before Obama's trip, which he is going on. It was cancelled because Kerry was busy AND because there was not enough progress.

As to the Atlantic article, two things. One it is Golberg, who was for taking Assad out. The other is that anyone, Obama included, aims to make themselves look good. As to the decision, Goldberg has a problem with Kerry's speech. However, consider its goal. Obama had made the decision to make a targeted strike. The goal was to explain that unpopular decision and to sell the country on its need.

As to the decision, Obama had already set that as a red line and thousands were being killed. This is where many left humanitarians like Powers advocate force. Kerry, in public, spoke of the same thing quoted here. That a response was needed. He argued that it could be targeted and designed to put enough cost that Assad would not use chemical weapons. In Europe, he spoke of an unbelievably small attack. Kerry is not a war monger, knows the cost of war, but also was never a pacifist. Here, he was against US troops, but thought something needed to be done.

Where it likely gives Kerry too little credit is where he quickly slides over the negotiations that removed the chemical weapons. From accounts at the time, no one worked harder to make that work than Kerry. Not to mention, the idea had been raised earlier, and Russia had not jumped to play their needed role. It was the threat of a US attack that put that option into play, but if Obama had not opted to delay, it would never have happened.

I am not sure that Obama or anyone comes out great in this. Obama set up the problem with his red line, which Assad crossed. He then initially decided to attack and had his admination advocate for it, including himself. It was lucky that the stars aligned and the chemical weapon deal could be the solution. It is something both Kerry and Obama are proud of. It is also clear that it was not a planned result from the beginning.

It does show that Obama was reluctant to go to war, but look at Libya. The two together show he was ambivalent, rather than resolute on this. Iran and climate change were foreign policy wins and both were things Kerry both pushed to do and he negotiated against the odds. He was told that climate change accomplishments were unlikely before he took the job.

[politicasista]

5. I remember when he went...

Last edited Sat Mar 12, 2016, 11:51 PM - Edit history (3)

last August, and when the announcement was made that previous December. It is great that this is happening and hope that more progress will be made in the new relationship. His spokesman got grilled on that (it was spun as SOS Kerry suddenly canceled and not the real reason as to what happened...Your explanation that make sense). Also State PR needs to clarify the role he played in the Cuba-US normalization. Perception is that he (or the State Department) was annoyed?? (according to the NY "Negotiating the Whirlwind" story) about being left in the dark when talks had begun.

To be fair, Rhodes (who has been getting blame with Rice, Power, and HRC for Libya) and his partner deserve credit for all this happening, but WH, State, and Pentagon folks have to stop letting the DC media/pundits write that FP is all from the WH.

Long story short, Syria-The Middle East seems very, very messy. Kinda why I checked out of DU for a long, long, time. Ok, the "Mister Magoo" line about SOS Kerry was a bit harsh, but it was said (FYI, the Fisher dude used to work for WaPo, now Vox with Ezra Klein--semi P Obama critic).

Don't know what Mr. Goldberg's real agenda is, but it worked.

How did it work? Most Democrats (those that enthusiastically support POTUS/HRC) will not care about a red line or other diplomatic work that SOS Kerry did or has done (not to ever diss that . They just don't follow BTS diplomacy that closely at all.

What is taken from The Obama Doctrine is that Obama is a chess master at FP. (with Syria, Libya, Cuba, Iran deal, CC, etc). He is seen as a POTUS that doesn't want to get his hands dirty in FP matters (i.e. I-P peace talks), but will if Peace or a hopeful outcome is possible.

He takes the idea that some situations/crises may not be fixable---the old "we can't be the world's policemen" every time a foreign country has a crisis. That's why he (and Biden) is/are applauded and admired for all of the above.

That is what his FP legacy of "Don't Do Stupid S---" will be remembered for. Plus, he is on record for opposing a "dumb war" that his predecessor authorized, along with a crucial vote that haunts those to this day. That's how he is earning his 2009 NPP.

Don't know what will happen with the Syria Peace talks, a lot of complicated things, but we shall see.

I don't disagree with what you have said here, doing this article IMO was a bad idea. It opened up too many cans of worms.





edit for clarity