General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)If there is one area liberals should trust Obama, it's foreign policy. [View all]
Yes, I know - drones! But the only thing unique about Obama in that regard is that they've become far more advanced over the course of the last 20 years. Does anyone really think Kennedy wouldn't have sent drones into Cuba or Vietnam if he had the technology? What about FDR during World War II? Probably not. I get the backlash against 'em, though, and wish he would potentially address a better strategy that doesn't involve as expanded of use. But when it's come to foreign policy, Obama has probably erred on the side of caution more so than any president sans Jimmy Carter going back to before FDR.
So, no, I am not convinced we're on the verge of Iraq War III: The Iraqening. I believe, in the end, it will be what the President suggests - a limited action that won't lead us down the path to boots on the ground or another invasion.
Yes, Obama is not a pacifist and it's clear his foreign policy is far more interventionist than many on the left would like. But in today's world, with the issues facing the U.S. in terms of terrorism, an entire hands off approach, whether it's not negotiating potential peace talks with Israel and Palestine, or even offering to work with Iran in Iraq, is not going to work. This isn't the 1800s where we, as a nation, can completely isolate ourselves from the global community and hope nothing will come of it.
Yes, the U.S.'s approach to foreign policy, specifically under the Bush administration, and even under Pres. Clinton and Obama, has stoked the flames of hatred - but we also have to realize that this hatred has been brewing for longer than many of us have been alive. It just didn't happen over night, and, really, every president since Truman has had some hand in it - whether it was Truman's recognition of Israel or Carter embracing the Shah of Iran, even though public perception in his own country was dramatically turning against him.
That hatred is also not going to just disappear when the U.S. stops sticking its nose in other nation's business.
Madfloridian put it well a few days ago: Obama is in a no-win situation. He can do nothing and watch things continue to fester, putting the entire region at risk, and potentially, the United States, or he can do limited actions in hopes that something, anything, works. Both solutions probably won't end well - but politically for Obama, the latter at least offers him cover against a hostile congress that is hell-bent on pinning this disaster on him.
The fact is, us leaving Iraq didn't benefit the country whatsoever. We created a monster. Now, somehow, we've got to figure out how to control that monster without investing too much to where we're fighting a lost battle.
Either way, I trust the President because I think, on the whole, he has done a pretty solid job dealing with major international conflicts - whether ranging from Iraq to Iran to Syria.
We'll see if this works too. But Obama is not Bush. He's not McCain. He's not Romney. He's not going to take this country back to war. At worst, he'll play the same card Clinton did in the 1990s. I'm doubtful it'll work - but I do know doing nothing won't, either, and not only does it seriously jeopardize any minimal progress we've seen in Iraq since the original surge, it potentially takes a nation that was neutralized and turns it into another Afghanistan.
I do know one thing, though: I do not envy the President. He really has been handed one shit-storm after another from the last administration.
Hell, the fact our country has stayed afloat the last six years feels pretty damn remarkable.