Obama's problem is that he does the "stupid stuff" that he is always warning against. Getting involved in Libya was "stupid stuff" that Hillary talked him into. In Syria, the idea that we are going to be against both ISIS and Assad (the two most dominant groups) and instead spend our money and our weapons on the moderate rebels - who sell our weapons to ISIS for a tidy profit is really Stupid Stuff. If we don't have a strategy - and we don't, we should just come home.
7
Too bad the Texas Ranger is no longer president and is too busy painting dogs and portraits. How manly he was, how forceful, how prepared to put the US military out there to police the world and enforce our desires. No tedious searching for measured or balanced responses, just good old American war as the answer to any question. How well that worked out. He sure got the job done. Good thing there's another Bush in the wings ready to carry on the Republican tradition.
9
"Putin has reasserted Russian power in the vacuum created by American retrenchment and appears determined to shape the outcome in Syria"
You omitted "...by supporting a brutal megalomaniacal dictator."
Is there an honorable player in that Syrian mess?
Would you have the US colonize Syria?
True--this a big break from past US foreign policy--which was precisely to prop up brutal dictators to serve US corporate interests. Banana Republics in Central America, Chile's Pinochet, DR's Trujillo and so on.
But--clearly--there must be a better way. It must be something like Obama's way. Certainly not Bibi's way.
"the world is more dangerous than in recent memory," you write--blaming it on US weakness. Obviously assuming US military engagement--war--would solve the problem.
How do you know that?--not a shred of evidence of offered. The world could easily be an even more dangerous place if not for "Obama's Restraint."
This is puerile punditry--itself a form of megalomania.
You omitted "...by supporting a brutal megalomaniacal dictator."
Is there an honorable player in that Syrian mess?
Would you have the US colonize Syria?
True--this a big break from past US foreign policy--which was precisely to prop up brutal dictators to serve US corporate interests. Banana Republics in Central America, Chile's Pinochet, DR's Trujillo and so on.
But--clearly--there must be a better way. It must be something like Obama's way. Certainly not Bibi's way.
"the world is more dangerous than in recent memory," you write--blaming it on US weakness. Obviously assuming US military engagement--war--would solve the problem.
How do you know that?--not a shred of evidence of offered. The world could easily be an even more dangerous place if not for "Obama's Restraint."
This is puerile punditry--itself a form of megalomania.
10
What Cohen doesn't say in his criticism of the doctrine of restraint is what is wrong with it. The fact is that war is not a good way to settle problems, whereas negotiation is. The results of negotiation lasts; the result of wars is often chaos.
Furthermore, an honest look at history leads us to believe that the U.S., the world's richest and most powerful nation is not very good at war. We are losing in Afganistan and Iraq, we lost in Vietnam, we certainly did not win in Korea; the Soviet Union was the most important player in Europe during WWII; we hardly mattered in WWI; Napoleon distracted England during the War of 1812. The fact is, we seldom win, and when we do, it does't last.
Perhaps the Doctrine of Restraint, if it becomes the norm, will lead to a long-term smaller military budget and a chance to fix our problems here at home. Oh, yes, and it might lead to fewer young people getting blown to bits for the advancement and profit of a few old rich guys.
Furthermore, an honest look at history leads us to believe that the U.S., the world's richest and most powerful nation is not very good at war. We are losing in Afganistan and Iraq, we lost in Vietnam, we certainly did not win in Korea; the Soviet Union was the most important player in Europe during WWII; we hardly mattered in WWI; Napoleon distracted England during the War of 1812. The fact is, we seldom win, and when we do, it does't last.
Perhaps the Doctrine of Restraint, if it becomes the norm, will lead to a long-term smaller military budget and a chance to fix our problems here at home. Oh, yes, and it might lead to fewer young people getting blown to bits for the advancement and profit of a few old rich guys.
9
You attempt to measure the president and the country in terms of restraint in use of military force.
Starts of military engagements are cloudy and take time to understand, and outcomes take forever to recompense.
Now study Syria, after four years recent upticks begin to resemble the US and Russian roles three decades ago in Afghanistan.
The outcome of our decade-long act was just a small part in Britain's and Russia’s "Great Game," some pundits say is still playing.
Now write about the starts to all the engagements you want to analyze.
Starts influenced by capitalists and militarists in order to protect their “jewels.”
Then think of how US knowledge and technology are re-ranking todays jewels on the further sides of those oceans that front the jewels of our own Americas.
Starts of military engagements are cloudy and take time to understand, and outcomes take forever to recompense.
Now study Syria, after four years recent upticks begin to resemble the US and Russian roles three decades ago in Afghanistan.
The outcome of our decade-long act was just a small part in Britain's and Russia’s "Great Game," some pundits say is still playing.
Now write about the starts to all the engagements you want to analyze.
Starts influenced by capitalists and militarists in order to protect their “jewels.”
Then think of how US knowledge and technology are re-ranking todays jewels on the further sides of those oceans that front the jewels of our own Americas.
What Mr. Cohen appears to be ignoring is the majority of the crises Mr. Obama faces today are the results of decades in which the US. England, Russia, China, and other assorted states continually meddled in the affairs of the Third World, all in the name of "influence" and "stability." Central America doesn't look stable at all to me. Neither does the Middle East. Viet Nam, where we used the excuse of preventing the destabilization of Southeast Asia to intervene, cost us 54,000 lives, in addition to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians. The result? Viet Nam is communist, a willing trade partner, and the rest of Southeast Asia is a mess. No one tends to remember French colonialism as the start of all of it.
While American optimism and resources can deliver something as outstanding as the Marshall Plan, it can also cause set in motion the chain of events that created a theocracy in Iran that we hope will end with the eventual deaths from old age of the ruling religious leaders there. I think Mr. Obama looked toward that, rather than simply kicking the can down the street to the next administration. I also believe Mr. Obama realizes the unintended consequences of our previous foreign policies, and is adopting a wait-and-see attitude before intervening. Doing nothing when you're unsure of the right course of action is often more productive and less destructive than rushing in for the mere appearance of being decisive.
While American optimism and resources can deliver something as outstanding as the Marshall Plan, it can also cause set in motion the chain of events that created a theocracy in Iran that we hope will end with the eventual deaths from old age of the ruling religious leaders there. I think Mr. Obama looked toward that, rather than simply kicking the can down the street to the next administration. I also believe Mr. Obama realizes the unintended consequences of our previous foreign policies, and is adopting a wait-and-see attitude before intervening. Doing nothing when you're unsure of the right course of action is often more productive and less destructive than rushing in for the mere appearance of being decisive.
10
The true downside to "leading from behind" is yet to be played out. Iran now has a large military presence in Iraq and Syria, conducting military operations in areas that border Israel. With B.O.'s miserable track record in the M.E. it would be good for all of us to know what our response will be to a missile attack on Israel that was launched from Syria.
3
The people of the Middle East have been killing each other for 5000 years. The only reason the U.S. got involved was because we have needed Middle Eastern oil for the last seventy-years. Now that no longer is true. We can, if we choose to do so, supply all of our oil needs at home. That is a sea change and we should take advantage of it. There is nothing for us to win in the Middle East. We should disengage and let those folks kill each other and let Russia spend its blood and treasure in pointless fighting. The loss of "American influence" in the Middle East is no loss at all.
13
To all who are bashing Obama for the "JV Team" comment - Let it go. ISIS certainly was the JV team compared to Al Queda, a global movement that killed thousands in the US, London, Madrid and elsewhere. And to further the analogy, a JV team can do quite well against Little League (aka the Iraqi Army). The only reason ISIS, has succeeded with their 40,000 fighters is because the countries in the region (with armies numbering in the millions) are letting it happen.
14
I might point out that any country getting involved in the politics of the middle east, has entered a quagmire that wears them down, similar to Afganistan. I also add that we have yet to figure out who the good guys are in the Syrian conflict. In addition, there are multiple other countries (besides Russia) who could take a position and interest in the conflict, and haven't.
11
Let Russia exert i's self. Let other's "lead". I am tired, as Cohen writes, of the wars fostered upon us by war hawks. I am tired of my country always having to foot the bill be it in dollars or lives. I applaud a President who is restrained when it comes to military escapades. I applaud a President who seeks allies and diplomacy over war and killing. I applaud a President who thinks and remains calm. If I wanted someone who thinks war first and is always ready to send the military in, I would have voted for John McCain.
19
Well, let's just say I don't think history will be very kind to the Obama Middle East legacy.
3
Obama has contributed to a lot of suffering throughout the middle east. His failed policies in Yemen (which he called a success) Iraq (which he called a success), Libya (We came, we saw, he died- No wait that was HIllary), Syria, and ISIS (JV not Kobe). There is a lot more suffering to come. Iran has $150 billion to spend on terror and nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missiles. Russia is calling the shots now. The Obama doctrine of leading from behind and don't do stupid stuff isn't working. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands dead, and millions displaced.
3
the middle east has been unstable for 6,000 years. Certainly Obama is not responsible for this instability in its entirety, correct? We will see what Russia's bombast earns that nation in terms of results. If it is anything like what the US earned from its forays into Afghanistan and Iraq, then by all means, let the Kremlin lead the way.
4
The Doctrine of Restraint is clearly preferable when you look at the alternative: The GOP's Doctrine of Continuous War.
39
The mistake, in my opinion, in Syria, is that US policy relies on a non-existent moderate middle between the Syrian regime and ISIS. The experience with Iraq and Libya should have taught that anarchy is the likely outcome of toppling a regime in the Middle East -- this are not e.g., like the countries from behind the Iron Curtain.
In my opinion, the US should join Russia and defeat the jihadis, that are universal enemies of European, American, East Asian and Indian civilizations. After the jihadis are defeated, the question should be how to retire the current top layer of the Syrian regime and for the Syrian regime to liberalize rather than be entirely replaced.
In my opinion, the US should join Russia and defeat the jihadis, that are universal enemies of European, American, East Asian and Indian civilizations. After the jihadis are defeated, the question should be how to retire the current top layer of the Syrian regime and for the Syrian regime to liberalize rather than be entirely replaced.
4
Russia's intervention has been in two areas that, traditionally, have been solidly within its sphere of influence. Ukraine borders Russia and, while the Soviet Union existed, was governed directly from Moscow; Syria has been a Russian client state throughout the Assad era. The United States has had very little influence in either country in the past. Mr. Putin's use of militarily force, overtly or via "volunteers," is certainly a concern, but seems as much a sign of Russian weakness as American restraint, and not a sufficent reason for the USA to leap into either quagmire.
9
I shall await Mr. Cohen's next column with bated breath to see if he has decided to vote Republican next year.
2
"Quagmires can be Russian, too."
Good point, like calling the sky is blue.
Who was in Afghanistan before the US?
Oh yeah, the Russians.
Good point, like calling the sky is blue.
Who was in Afghanistan before the US?
Oh yeah, the Russians.
10
"Yet the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high."
Has it? Obama's policy has been, I think, not to enter into military adventures unless and until there is a situation in which he, and the part of the American public not devoted to the cause of opposing anything he does, are wiling to make an effort sufficient to accomplish the desired result. We have seen the result of throwing an insufficient military force into action, and it is disastrous. Should we really have re instituted the draft and put a multi million man army into Syria for a couple of decades? Obama has not listened to such advisers as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, and we should be thankful that he hasn't.
Has it? Obama's policy has been, I think, not to enter into military adventures unless and until there is a situation in which he, and the part of the American public not devoted to the cause of opposing anything he does, are wiling to make an effort sufficient to accomplish the desired result. We have seen the result of throwing an insufficient military force into action, and it is disastrous. Should we really have re instituted the draft and put a multi million man army into Syria for a couple of decades? Obama has not listened to such advisers as Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, and we should be thankful that he hasn't.
13
Enough with the Syrian chem weapons red line! He stopped their use and they are gone (more or less) No...he did not jump into the war with both feet as the chest pounders wanted and convinced themselves the red line-cross meant. It didn't mean that. It meant very narrowly that they would be gone...and they are. Want to split hairs? Putin did it? Putin only did it because he knew Obama would bring the hammer down, and he "advised" his puppet Assad to get rid if them...and helped them out the door. Case closed. So knock off using it in the anti-Obama litany.
12
Mr. Cohen:
This is a lamentable column coming from someone who can do better. You give short shrift to Obama's assessment of Putin's reckless adventurism and the heavy economic costs it puts on an already sagging Russian economy. Yet, you are only too willing to cast the dangers, as you define them, in a new cold war.
Before anyone gets too overwought about Syria, perhaps we should wait and see whether or nor this turns into another Russian Afganistan. It is also entirely disingenous to blame this "rudderless reality" on Obama. If I didn't know better I would think that Bibi Netanhayu edited this column.
At it's core this column is more saber-rattling, chickenhawk machoism. How did the last round of this thinking work out? It was the cause of the current situation .The trouble with warhawks is that if they can't find a vacuum they'll
make one out of whole cloth. The real vacuum to be feared is in the space between their ears.
This is a lamentable column coming from someone who can do better. You give short shrift to Obama's assessment of Putin's reckless adventurism and the heavy economic costs it puts on an already sagging Russian economy. Yet, you are only too willing to cast the dangers, as you define them, in a new cold war.
Before anyone gets too overwought about Syria, perhaps we should wait and see whether or nor this turns into another Russian Afganistan. It is also entirely disingenous to blame this "rudderless reality" on Obama. If I didn't know better I would think that Bibi Netanhayu edited this column.
At it's core this column is more saber-rattling, chickenhawk machoism. How did the last round of this thinking work out? It was the cause of the current situation .The trouble with warhawks is that if they can't find a vacuum they'll
make one out of whole cloth. The real vacuum to be feared is in the space between their ears.
15
More like the Doctrine of Delusion, Weakness, and Cowardice
7
Mr. Cohen. The President is wise. He realizes something you do not.
We are not the Janissaries of the Israeli/Turkey/Saudi/Iraqi/Gulf States world. He has repeatedly offered substantial help to other countries in the region while refusing to fight their battles for them. We have not inconsequential forces in the region already. We can do more if they will start to fight for their own homes and families. Example: the Persh Merga.
The President has simply made sure that we American's don't get fooled again!
We are not the Janissaries of the Israeli/Turkey/Saudi/Iraqi/Gulf States world. He has repeatedly offered substantial help to other countries in the region while refusing to fight their battles for them. We have not inconsequential forces in the region already. We can do more if they will start to fight for their own homes and families. Example: the Persh Merga.
The President has simply made sure that we American's don't get fooled again!
13
We have the history of appeasing Hitler back in 1939 and the results of that. But maybe this time it will be different. Maybe Russia extends its influence all the way to Libya and Pakistan. Is that so bad? Does that make them more likely to... what... invade us?
We used to care a lot about the Middle East because we needed the oil. But now we don't. A vote for fracking I guess.
We used to care a lot about the Middle East because we needed the oil. But now we don't. A vote for fracking I guess.
5
Cohen's doctrine of trillion dollar wars.
Thanks but NO Thanks!
What is the difference between Afghansitan,Iraq and Syria?
In one of them we didn't spend a trillion dollars(middle class taxes) and did not sacrifice thousands of american lives and limbs(poor/middle class).
Thanks but NO Thanks!
What is the difference between Afghansitan,Iraq and Syria?
In one of them we didn't spend a trillion dollars(middle class taxes) and did not sacrifice thousands of american lives and limbs(poor/middle class).
13
I totally disagree with Mr. Cohen's hawkish sentiments, both stated and implied. This is a different world from the "carry the big stick" era when military might was the primary way to invoke world dominance. Pity the Russians who are leading themselves into another quagmire (as they did in Afghanistan, Crimea and Chechnya) in Syria which will not bring them allies, but rather deeper economic turmoil. Putin is doomed and is dooming his country.
Obama is smartly undoing a foreign policy that was initiated by the Dulles brothers starting more than 70 years ago which focused on nation building in the image of our Republic. Sadly, U.S. administrations ever since the 1940s have followed the same route (with the exception of Carter's) leading to world disorder and turmoil. Finally, we have an administration that is focusing on diplomatic solutions to international disagreement that are more likely to pay off than military intervention. Obama is bringing new allies into the fold built around commerce and sound economics. To me that's a winner.
While Syria is a mess, Mr. Putin's initiative will not bring peace and happiness. He has failed in his other interventions and will do so again. Just look at the refugees rushing out of Syria, Crimea, Iraq and Afghanistan. Where would they like to end up --- Russia or the U.S.?
Obama is smartly undoing a foreign policy that was initiated by the Dulles brothers starting more than 70 years ago which focused on nation building in the image of our Republic. Sadly, U.S. administrations ever since the 1940s have followed the same route (with the exception of Carter's) leading to world disorder and turmoil. Finally, we have an administration that is focusing on diplomatic solutions to international disagreement that are more likely to pay off than military intervention. Obama is bringing new allies into the fold built around commerce and sound economics. To me that's a winner.
While Syria is a mess, Mr. Putin's initiative will not bring peace and happiness. He has failed in his other interventions and will do so again. Just look at the refugees rushing out of Syria, Crimea, Iraq and Afghanistan. Where would they like to end up --- Russia or the U.S.?
13
Help me understand where our use of military power has made a net positive difference since the end of WWII? It was our economy and our willingness to build up military power (but not use it) that brought down the soviet union. How has the cost of restraint been high? Once the middle east dictators were brought down (by military power), do we still honestly believe that military power will be the factor that rights that wrong?
13
Mr. Cohen,
I would appreciate your factoring in the fact that Putin also conscripted 150,000 young Russians for his adventures. Putin is dangerous but he is stunted by an economy that cannot support his big power ambitions. Let's not give him more credence than he deserves.
Big power involvement in intractable crises does not usually end well. We have enough recent history to prove that.
Mr. Obama's ambivalence is a sign of insight. What exactly is the upside of American Power that Haass refers to? In Syria, in the absence of a single overwhelming opposition force having ideals that the US could support, how could overthrowing Asad provide a better outcome than overthrowing Saddam or Ghaddafi did?
When our closest ally in the conflict Turkey is ambivalent about how to act, why must the US when a clear path is not present? America does not need to act militarily in every crisis. Probably good to let one or two go to waste.
I would appreciate your factoring in the fact that Putin also conscripted 150,000 young Russians for his adventures. Putin is dangerous but he is stunted by an economy that cannot support his big power ambitions. Let's not give him more credence than he deserves.
Big power involvement in intractable crises does not usually end well. We have enough recent history to prove that.
Mr. Obama's ambivalence is a sign of insight. What exactly is the upside of American Power that Haass refers to? In Syria, in the absence of a single overwhelming opposition force having ideals that the US could support, how could overthrowing Asad provide a better outcome than overthrowing Saddam or Ghaddafi did?
When our closest ally in the conflict Turkey is ambivalent about how to act, why must the US when a clear path is not present? America does not need to act militarily in every crisis. Probably good to let one or two go to waste.
14
OK, I understand. Our president sits with his legs crossed, while Putin assumes the more manly posture with his legs open.
But I'll take Obamas restraint any day. I'm glad he's above being goaded into being the more manly kind of man. He has wisdom, maturity, and a sense of responsibility to his citizens, something I think Putin lacks.
Allow Putin enough rope. He'll hang himself.
But I'll take Obamas restraint any day. I'm glad he's above being goaded into being the more manly kind of man. He has wisdom, maturity, and a sense of responsibility to his citizens, something I think Putin lacks.
Allow Putin enough rope. He'll hang himself.
20
Obama is a whimsical president.
On a whim he pulled out our troops from Iraq causing ISIS to take over and bedlam in the Middle East.
On whim he deployed our military with no war authorization from Congress.
On a whim he dumps his own choices from government.
On a whim he gave an exception to employers, but not to individuals on healthcare.
On a whim he ignored immigration and border-security laws.
On a whim he re-imposed deep-water drilling moratorium when it was struck down in the courts.
On a whim he had the IRS follow his guidelines to harass his political enemies like the Tea Party.
On a whim he ignored the Constitution and appointed people when the Senate is "not in session."
On a whim he decided his threat of Syria’s crossing a “red line” by using chemicals to kill his own people meant nothing. 250,000 dead Syrians so far.
On a whim he said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep him; if you like your plan, you can keep it too.
On a whim he said, his administration won’t have "not a smidgeon of corruption...the most transparent administration in history."
On a whim he said about stopping Iran, “This deal is not built on trust, it is built on verification"
"Whimsical president he may be but he has turned into a poor example of following our laws and our constitution.
7
Too bad that on a whim you and your warmongering clucking hen clan do not rush to the Iraqi, Syrian, Afghan, Libyan front to sacrifice your blood, life, limb, mind, limb and body.
Too bad that you do not know the law nor the constitution by whimsy as well as the former President of the Harvard Law Review and Constitutional law teacher.
What branch of the military did you serve in and when and where did you serve?
When and where did you go to law school and when and where did you practice what type of law?
Too bad that you do not know the law nor the constitution by whimsy as well as the former President of the Harvard Law Review and Constitutional law teacher.
What branch of the military did you serve in and when and where did you serve?
When and where did you go to law school and when and where did you practice what type of law?
2
At the peak of Middle East Conflict, the war was costing us 1.2% of GDP. At the peak of World War II, the war was costing us 35.8% of GDP. While I am wary of war and do not want to be in a constant conflict, the cost of appeasement and doing nothing in the face of evil can be considerably more expensive. (Numbers are based on a government study presented to Congress in 2010) Going to war in Iraq may not have been our best move in hindsight, but pulling out our troops after we had stabilized the country exponentially compounded the problem. The deal with Iran was politically brave but security foolish. Russia's involvement in Syria is was likely an easy decision by Putin given our weak stance in Ukraine. There is really is peace through strength. We really should speak softly and carry a big stick. Obama has worked to gut our military and has set the stick down. We should not easily march to war, but we should also never brush aside threats and dangers the lurk in the world hoping they will go away on their own. In a nutshell, calling Obama's foreign policy a Doctrine of Restraint is putting a nice paint job and a weak and rudderless foreign policy that will cause expensive problems for years to come.
1
yes, Obama's ambivalence has led to some policy fiascoes (the "red line" in Syria the worst instance). But ambivalence describes my view towards this piece, and I'm opposed to Cohen's labeling Obama's policies a Doctrine of Restraint. Given that much of our political class, as well as the public, seems convinced that we can control world events through drone strikes and providing arms to whomever we deem at the moment the "good guys" on the ground, Obama's skepticism is well-advised. What's crazy about American foreign policy at this juncture is how little we've learned, or seem capable of learning, from our manifest failures. If I fault Obama, it's that he's held back from serious criticism of Bush-Cheney's Iraq adventures. The emergence of ISIS was yet another opportunity to point to how America's invasion gravely destabilized the region, creating a void (and envenomed confessional politics) making ISIS possible. Yet Obama (whose hands at least are fairly clean in this matter) refrains from seizing this teachable moment.
From my view the bigger problem is that Americans now believe they can control world events through indirect, risk-free means, as though they were manipulating their television screens via their remote controls. Not a situation that's brought out the best, or the brightest, in our foreign policy instincts. If there's a problem with Obama's restraint, I think it lies more in his inability or disinclination to take on that obscene presumption.
From my view the bigger problem is that Americans now believe they can control world events through indirect, risk-free means, as though they were manipulating their television screens via their remote controls. Not a situation that's brought out the best, or the brightest, in our foreign policy instincts. If there's a problem with Obama's restraint, I think it lies more in his inability or disinclination to take on that obscene presumption.
8
'The world is more dangerous now than in recent memory?' Wow. The author really needs to get away from the constant drumbeat of cable news. Have we already forgotten the catastrophe in the Balkans and the Caucuses in the 1990s? The nuclear brinkmanship between India and Pakistan - also in the late nineties that was more dangerous than anything since? Rwanda 1994? Sri-Lanka and the Tamils - also in the 90s? Dafur and East Congo in the early 'noughts? Iraq, Afghanistan?
I could rattle off a long list of terrible conflicts that have happened specifically after the fall of the Berlin wall - and before this President. Just because we are getting more news everywhere now does not mean that things are any worse or any better. Due to the fallibility of human nature - these conflicts will remain with us, and it's an incalculable tragedy. Even a single death is one too many.
The difference with the president is that he will not once again ask military families to shoulder the burden of military involvement where America does not have a direct national security interest.
It is deeply infuriating that there's never a consideration for the military and their families. Do all the 'think tanks' and 'thought leaders' ever spare a thought for them? One thing is certain. If there was a military draft - such articles as this would be almost impossible to find.
If Mr. Putin wants to jump into a quagmire - then the world should let him. He'll get bogged down soon enough.
I could rattle off a long list of terrible conflicts that have happened specifically after the fall of the Berlin wall - and before this President. Just because we are getting more news everywhere now does not mean that things are any worse or any better. Due to the fallibility of human nature - these conflicts will remain with us, and it's an incalculable tragedy. Even a single death is one too many.
The difference with the president is that he will not once again ask military families to shoulder the burden of military involvement where America does not have a direct national security interest.
It is deeply infuriating that there's never a consideration for the military and their families. Do all the 'think tanks' and 'thought leaders' ever spare a thought for them? One thing is certain. If there was a military draft - such articles as this would be almost impossible to find.
If Mr. Putin wants to jump into a quagmire - then the world should let him. He'll get bogged down soon enough.
9
Honestly, more power to Putin. If he wants to waste Russian lives and resources on war in the Middle East, all I can say is better them than us.
We would be much better off strategically in the long term if we just accepted that the Middle East will be crazy for a bit and invested in ourselves. The best way to show the benefits of secular democracy is to actually have benefits, which means less bombs there and better schools and jobs here.
We would be much better off strategically in the long term if we just accepted that the Middle East will be crazy for a bit and invested in ourselves. The best way to show the benefits of secular democracy is to actually have benefits, which means less bombs there and better schools and jobs here.
8
What is happening the ME will effect Europe first and in ways we cannot even imagine. Germany is now expecting 1.5 million refugees in a year in a country of 80 million. Who knows what might follow if the ME totally blows up in total Shia Sunni war. The Russians will probe the Baltic states next claiming the need to protect Russian minorities there and to end the isolation of the Kallingrad Oblast. One can be sure that in Russia's new position in the ME they will encourage the Saudis, Emirates & Kuwait to reduce production, and they will remind the Sunni Saudis that the major oil fields are in the Shia areas of their country. Russia and Iran are heavily dependent on higher energy prices to revive their economies. The Sunni states and Israel will probably make some sort of accommodation with the Russia Iran axis.
Obama knows something that mr Cohen and most of you don't know. We can do nothing over there. Bush broke the first rule...never kill off the strongman unless you have someone more ruthless to replace him with. Reading the comments I see now the SEALs are assissains.
6
I have absolutely no idea why you hold Russia's aggression in a positive light. Bombing, attacking, and killing - these are laudable acts of strength? Really??? Putin is a warmongering murderer who has zero value for human life. I will vote for President Obama's thoughtfulness and refrain from doing "stupid stuff" every day of the week.
10
II am not sure you can call our foreign policy direction "retrenchment" or reticence. I would ask who can now (today) neatly and accurately assess America's reaction to the two longest and most expensive wars or to put it in a better light, who can we trust to assess our feelings? The media? Not really. The media is bent so badly there is not trust to be found.
Mr. Haass need to keep in mind that there are two important sides to leading this country: foreign and domestic and our domestic trouble spots are growing critical, the main one being infrastructure.
One fact stands out above most and that is dealing with the age old Sunni/Shia conflict. We don't understand it and we aren't dealing with it to anyone's satisfaction.
We tried dealing with the Arabs using the Bush method and blew it badly and we cannot simply continue to pour money into it at the expense of our own country.
Mr. Haass need to keep in mind that there are two important sides to leading this country: foreign and domestic and our domestic trouble spots are growing critical, the main one being infrastructure.
One fact stands out above most and that is dealing with the age old Sunni/Shia conflict. We don't understand it and we aren't dealing with it to anyone's satisfaction.
We tried dealing with the Arabs using the Bush method and blew it badly and we cannot simply continue to pour money into it at the expense of our own country.
5
It's the hawks who are out of touch with reality, as they showed so grotesquely in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and want to demonstrate with even more disastrous results for America's power in the world with a "regime change" war in Iran to "protect" Israel. Hillary was the Israel Lobby's favorite candidate in both parties in 2008. Lady Rothschild herself, queen of the hyper-Zionists, was her strongest backer. So it's a good bet that we'll get war with Iran under Hillary just as surely as we will under any Republican backed by Adelson. Then we'll see whether Obama's approach was making the best of a terrible situation, or whether the "strength" right-wing Jews long for America to display in the Middle East will, in fact, be any more productive under Hillary's or a new Republican's neocon advisors than it was under the last bunch of neocons who couldn't shoot straight.
8
Uhh, Roger, what about the pounding air strikes, drone filled skies? Is that "retrenchment?
1
Putin will fail in his overreach. All we have to do is sit back and watch the carnage.
5
The problem with Obama is he can't decide if he is Dwight Eisenhower or Woodrow Wilson. Restraint, a la Ike, can be useful. But if you try to leverage a world-changing, human rights agenda on a very limited willingness to use force, you wind up . . . well, you wind up where we are.
4
A strategy of "Strategic Patience"!
* Tell that to the people of Iraq and Syria today!
* Tell that to the people of the rest of the FREE Middle East tomorro!
* Tell that to the people of NATO within the next two years!
* Tell that to the people of Japan and the Republic of Korea the next three years!
* Tell that to the people of the USA (and those countries within our radius of damage) the next decade!
* Tell that to the people of Iraq and Syria today!
* Tell that to the people of the rest of the FREE Middle East tomorro!
* Tell that to the people of NATO within the next two years!
* Tell that to the people of Japan and the Republic of Korea the next three years!
* Tell that to the people of the USA (and those countries within our radius of damage) the next decade!
1
Another description of Obama's "Doctrine of Restraint" is "Catatonic Stupor."
3
We are responsible for our actions as others are to theirs....... I'm in 100% for restraint when it comes to the ME.
11
In your next column I hope you consider how the previous policy of intervention has resulted precisely in what you now claim is the result of Obama's policy of restraint. The US military has failed where it has tried to affect change. Perhaps, too, the restraint of military power is also failing. All we can know for sure it that thousands of young men and women are alive who would certainly have died in military confrontations. Tens of thousands of civilians, too, are alive.
Give peace a chance.
Give peace a chance.
8
My first thought when Russia entered Syria was that a rare, boots on the ground, situation was possibly in evidence of the U.S. and Russia competing with respect to the same objective. Sort of reminded me of the U.S., Russia centering on Berlin in '45 or in a more light manner, U.S. versus Russia at hockey.
In other words, and more simply, both Russia and the U.S. in same country and with military objective--especially if the objective is clearly identical such as ISIS--can be exceptionally revealing of both militaries much in the same way almost any socially sanctioned competition such as sports or business can reveal weakness or strength of the competitors within a democracy.
If Russia were to clearly take it to ISIS, for example, just crush them, the U.S. would have to acknowledge that although Russia is not as ethical as the U.S. today (we have heard never ending comments on the questionable nature of Putin) the very ethics of the U.S. (Doctrine of Restraint which goes back deeper than Obama and probably permeates entire country) has its weak points, namely inability to act with lethal effectiveness when required.
If the situation between the U.S. and Russia clearly becomes a competitive one with identical goal and the U.S. fears revealing weakness of self the course would seem to either be ramp up U.S. competition/lethality to do better than Russia at stated objective or seek to unite with Russia so all appears a team effort with Russia instead of a competition.
In other words, and more simply, both Russia and the U.S. in same country and with military objective--especially if the objective is clearly identical such as ISIS--can be exceptionally revealing of both militaries much in the same way almost any socially sanctioned competition such as sports or business can reveal weakness or strength of the competitors within a democracy.
If Russia were to clearly take it to ISIS, for example, just crush them, the U.S. would have to acknowledge that although Russia is not as ethical as the U.S. today (we have heard never ending comments on the questionable nature of Putin) the very ethics of the U.S. (Doctrine of Restraint which goes back deeper than Obama and probably permeates entire country) has its weak points, namely inability to act with lethal effectiveness when required.
If the situation between the U.S. and Russia clearly becomes a competitive one with identical goal and the U.S. fears revealing weakness of self the course would seem to either be ramp up U.S. competition/lethality to do better than Russia at stated objective or seek to unite with Russia so all appears a team effort with Russia instead of a competition.
1
Maybe I am not the only one who breathlessly waits for Mr. Cohen's next column explaining to the masses where Obama's 'rudderless reality' is likely to lead, including his supposed disengagement from Europe.
One only has to read European newspapers to understand that maybe they are disengaging from the US, while watching our legislative branch not even being able to agree on the brand of toilet paper being used in the hallowed halls of Congress.
One only has to read European newspapers to understand that maybe they are disengaging from the US, while watching our legislative branch not even being able to agree on the brand of toilet paper being used in the hallowed halls of Congress.
2
Mr Cohen, what exactly are the costs of this "doctrine of restraint?" If it includes not wasting more trillions in the sands of the Mideast, it's worth the "cost."
The President is only acknowledging the reality that there are other powers in the world.
The fact that US intervention around the world is destabilizing is pretty clear. Why on earth do you think we bring stability?
Did we bring stability to Iraq and Afghanistan? Libya?
Find another theme that makes sense.
The President is only acknowledging the reality that there are other powers in the world.
The fact that US intervention around the world is destabilizing is pretty clear. Why on earth do you think we bring stability?
Did we bring stability to Iraq and Afghanistan? Libya?
Find another theme that makes sense.
6
Thanks for the heads up on Richard Haass. We sure don't want him in charge of US foreign policy. Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria are going to have their civil wars without regard to the US and Mr. Haass's sincerely held fantasies about the efficacy of our military. They are all very large countries and a few thousand Americans with guns over a few years has proven to have only a superficial impact.
Let them have their own wars and let us stop believing we know best who should win. The side we hated won in Iran and the impact on us has been minimal (except for all the wrung hands). We intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq and the effect on us has been horrific. Why is this lesson so hard to learn.... no land wars in Asia?
Let them have their own wars and let us stop believing we know best who should win. The side we hated won in Iran and the impact on us has been minimal (except for all the wrung hands). We intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq and the effect on us has been horrific. Why is this lesson so hard to learn.... no land wars in Asia?
6
No Haas nor Ross nor Miller.
Mr. Cohen, where in the United States Constitution does it state that we are the World's Cop?
We do not live in a perfect world; far from it. The U.S. has real problems which we are working on. We are not responsible for the madness in the Middle East. The nations in that region may or may not resolve their own problems. Please, do not expect Americans to spend more blood and treasure over there.
As for neo-cons like Richard Haas who has always been wrong about everything, why the heck do you quote him? Haas is completely clueless and lives in an echo-chamber.
We Americans are so lucky that we have had Barack Obama as our President. Unlike you and Haas, Obama has been right almost all the time.
We do not live in a perfect world; far from it. The U.S. has real problems which we are working on. We are not responsible for the madness in the Middle East. The nations in that region may or may not resolve their own problems. Please, do not expect Americans to spend more blood and treasure over there.
As for neo-cons like Richard Haas who has always been wrong about everything, why the heck do you quote him? Haas is completely clueless and lives in an echo-chamber.
We Americans are so lucky that we have had Barack Obama as our President. Unlike you and Haas, Obama has been right almost all the time.
11
We have left graveyards full of American dead servicemen and women in many foreign lands. As an old veteran who has seen too many wars in my lifetime I do not want my grandchildren buried in some god-forsaken place because they made the supreme sacrifice fighting in a war over who was to be the successor to Mohammed or some other god person. That is crazy. When I want to watch a war I'll watch the Republicans. At least for now it is bloodless.
14
What are the existential interests that compel us to fight in the Middle East. Used to be Oil and Israel. It's no longer oil.
6
The central character in Herman Hesse's futuristic masterpiece The Glass Bead Game is the Magister Ludi, a secular monk who lived in a world of intellectual game playing since he'd lost his parents as a child. Although his skill at the game was unmatched and although he rose to become the head of his order, he ultimately gave up his vocation and attempted to enter the real world. Sadly, he drowned soon thereafter while swimming in a frigid mountain lake. It is a metaphor for the fate of academic personalities who have no capacity to function in the real world.
2
The US has to decide - we either want to be the world's policeman, or not. If we do not, then Obama has mostly made the right moves, and at least has not committed us to yet another quagmire. Russia is indeed 'exploiting' this situation, but from a position of utter desperation brought on by a deteriorating economic, political, social, and even demographic situation at home. Given the choice of using Russia's enormous stream of oil and gas revenue to support the reform and revival of Russian's nascent democracy and fully integrate with Europe, Putin chose instead to ally himself solely with nationalist and militarist forces, with the result that Russia is now politically and economically marginalized. To survive, he must now appease the nationalists and militarists with the largely pyrrhic 'gains' of a warm-water port in the illegally annexed Crimea and the 'defense' of Russia's failing Syrian client state, the sole host of Russia's Mediterranean fleet. Without these, Putin would have absolutely nothing to show for his 15 years in power, and what remains of his base of support would disappear completely. Far from calling the shots, Putin is being driven to increasingly desperate utterly self-serving measures, and will soon flame out. Meanwhile Obama has increasingly repositioned the US as the honest and economically powerful broker it was before 9/11.
12
You sound like John McCain. Obama has been underestimated because he insists on thinking while others just want to act. Actually he did act in Ukraine. We financed the overthrow of a legitimate government on Russia's border. We force them to act. They've been in Syria a long time and have legitimate claims there.
Today I red that ISIL is making gains against the Taliban. EVeryone is fighting everyone in the midEast chaos created by the Bush/Cheney non thinking policy. Russia did this in Afghanistan and had to pull out. If they really go in, they will get stuck in a mess again.
What are you fighting for, just to say we're the strongest? I like what Obama is doing and think it will be the wisest policy.
Today I red that ISIL is making gains against the Taliban. EVeryone is fighting everyone in the midEast chaos created by the Bush/Cheney non thinking policy. Russia did this in Afghanistan and had to pull out. If they really go in, they will get stuck in a mess again.
What are you fighting for, just to say we're the strongest? I like what Obama is doing and think it will be the wisest policy.
9
Bill Madison, Ct:
You sound like John McCain. Obama has been underestimated because he insists on thinking while others just want to act.
****
How many different ways are Obama supporters going to try to spin his poor leadership on foreign policy? From the narrative, "Leading from Behind", to his new narrative, "Putin is weak (really)", Obama's avoidance has been elevated to an art form.
You sound like John McCain. Obama has been underestimated because he insists on thinking while others just want to act.
****
How many different ways are Obama supporters going to try to spin his poor leadership on foreign policy? From the narrative, "Leading from Behind", to his new narrative, "Putin is weak (really)", Obama's avoidance has been elevated to an art form.
2
We always seem to gravitate with near certainty as to what would have happened "if". I disagree with the implied conclusion that it is our restraint that contributed to Russia's move in Crimea or the Ukraine or Syria for that matter. Nor do I see the Iran nuclear deal a statement of courage. One of the biggest arguments by the proponents of that deal is the fact that the other parties were all in favor of it, Russia included. To me that's being a follower. I don't advocate us getting mired in another Iraq or Afghanistan but we had better keep our military strength in a position that leaves no doubt to the rest of the world that we have the will and the means to defend ourselves and our allies.
"Obama’s skepticism about American power, his readiness to disengage from Europe and his catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria have left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture, Europe unstable and Putin strutting the stage." Huh????? The Middle East has been in generational conflict and fracture for . . . uhhh . . . A COUPLE THOUSAND YEARS. It was in check pre-9/11, pre-Iraq War -- a dysfunctional check, but check nonetheless. Obama is anything but rudderless -- he has chosen his path, to neocon imperialist chagrin. His sole mistake was in drawing a line in the sand, yet he had the maturity and prudence -- the STRENGTH -- to avoid doubling down on it. While neither Putin nor the GOP has learned from a history of Middle East mis-adventure, Obama has. Let Putin spend his (borrowed) treasure and adopt Ukraine and Syria. End of day, a strong Assad may be much better for the US than a poorly-conceived, American-installed democracy, human right violations and all. And let Europe worry about the Syrian refugees. (I hate it when I sound like Rand Paul.) Obama isn't leading from behind -- he's leading from his mind.
6
There are many writers who assert, wrongly, that America should withdraw from the world stage and the Mr. Obama is correct. They applaud his inaction.
I believe that those commentators are out of touch with mainstream Americans, many of them middle class, non-warriors, but who also have parents and grandparents who remember America's commitment to world peace. Call it Pax Americana, or American hegemony, or whatever you want. As a baby boomer I remember all too well Korea and Viet Nam. My uncle served in Korea. I served, as did many of my school mates during Viet Nam.
Our parents and grandparents fought and served in both WWI and WWII. My parents and grandparents served in both World Wars. Grandpa was wounded in the Battle of Meuse Argonne. Another was at Normandy. Dad served in the Pacific and mom was a Navy Petty Officer.
Mr. Obama has ushered in a period of abdication of the American role in securing peace and prosperity. He does not remember when commitment went beyond our borders. Our generation and the one before understood that American power, economic and military, assured that chaos, random slaughter and threats of war, terrorism and nuclear proliferation would be checked. America did not bluff. America took risks. We weren't always right and sometimes we paid a steep price for being wrong. The world knew it could count on America. The Soviet Union was dismantled. China was opened.
Obama offers peace through restraint
Yet, war and slaughter continue unrestrained.
I believe that those commentators are out of touch with mainstream Americans, many of them middle class, non-warriors, but who also have parents and grandparents who remember America's commitment to world peace. Call it Pax Americana, or American hegemony, or whatever you want. As a baby boomer I remember all too well Korea and Viet Nam. My uncle served in Korea. I served, as did many of my school mates during Viet Nam.
Our parents and grandparents fought and served in both WWI and WWII. My parents and grandparents served in both World Wars. Grandpa was wounded in the Battle of Meuse Argonne. Another was at Normandy. Dad served in the Pacific and mom was a Navy Petty Officer.
Mr. Obama has ushered in a period of abdication of the American role in securing peace and prosperity. He does not remember when commitment went beyond our borders. Our generation and the one before understood that American power, economic and military, assured that chaos, random slaughter and threats of war, terrorism and nuclear proliferation would be checked. America did not bluff. America took risks. We weren't always right and sometimes we paid a steep price for being wrong. The world knew it could count on America. The Soviet Union was dismantled. China was opened.
Obama offers peace through restraint
Yet, war and slaughter continue unrestrained.
3
Progressive anti-war sentiment, embodied in President Obama, permeates our foreign policy today. While the slaughter continues unrestrained, they cheer his inaction. They fear boots on the ground more than they fear a nascent Iran or Russia.
Somehow they concluded that the only alternative is full warfare. Given the limitations of this president, they are right. He seems incapable of, or disinterested in, providing alternatives. Realpolitiks is not his strength.
Somehow they concluded that the only alternative is full warfare. Given the limitations of this president, they are right. He seems incapable of, or disinterested in, providing alternatives. Realpolitiks is not his strength.
1
"But the fact remains that Putin has reasserted Russian power in the vacuum created by American retrenchment . . ?"
Maybe Putin was just emboldened by all the success Russia had in fighting Muslims in Afghanistan and wants another crack at them.
Maybe Putin was just emboldened by all the success Russia had in fighting Muslims in Afghanistan and wants another crack at them.
3
Your last paragraph says it all, Mr. Cohen. A feckless, indecisive, non-sensical foreign policy isn't a "Doctrine of Restraint." It's Obama's failure of leadership.
8
Two problems with much of Mr. Cohen's column and this comment: (1) the circumstances are much more complex than the media are able to report; and (2) the media and the rest of us do not know what the policy makers know. We probably do not know even "enough to be dangerous" in helping the president decide what to do with respect to Syria, Russia, etc.
LOL! "Doctrine of restraint"? As Garry Kasparov said recently: "It's nothing more than cowardice masquerading as prudence."
Leave it to a shameless Obama shill like Roger Cohen to try and put lipstick on this pig. "American has wound down its wars" huh? It was Obama's incredibly stupid decision, made against the advice of all of his senior military commanders, to prematurely pull all US forces out of Iraq that led directly to the rise of ISIS and the current humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Syria today.
The real "Obama Doctrine" is .... "Do just enough so that you can't be accused of not doing anything, but no more."
About the best thing that can be said for this administration;s foreign policy is the in 465 days it will be over forever.
Leave it to a shameless Obama shill like Roger Cohen to try and put lipstick on this pig. "American has wound down its wars" huh? It was Obama's incredibly stupid decision, made against the advice of all of his senior military commanders, to prematurely pull all US forces out of Iraq that led directly to the rise of ISIS and the current humanitarian tragedy unfolding in Syria today.
The real "Obama Doctrine" is .... "Do just enough so that you can't be accused of not doing anything, but no more."
About the best thing that can be said for this administration;s foreign policy is the in 465 days it will be over forever.
5
American prosperity was the product of having a large, sparsely populated country combined with vast amounts of untapped natural resources. When we combined this with a stable government that embraced freedom and democracy, magic happened. The gates were opened up and immigrants were welcomed, fueling an era of prosperity and growth. It was called American Exceptionalism, and it was exceptional but it's silly to think that we can remain this way forever or that we are some how anointed to lead the world. It's becoming clear that nationhood is a relic of a past era and that the new global economy and problems we face such as climate change will require cooperation among nations, not hegemony.
6
Obama's prudence and restraint was imperative because of Bush and Cheney's irresponsible wars. Afghanistan and Iraq proved that America's bountifully supplied and enormously effective armed forces could not and can not change intractable problems. We tried ever increasing violence in Vietnam and failed.
WW II was winnable because one man, Hitler, was running most of the other side. He had no adherents beyond the axis and his allies were opportunists, not true believers. His insane worship of himself was not widely reflected geographically. Essentially WW II was contained before it ever began. The current "Wars of Ideology" are international and cannot be contained. They are economically and socially developmental, rather than political. The Muslim communities of the Middle East were stunted in their development by colonialism and fell so far behind the West economically and socially that their only available self-expression is destruction, especially of themselves.
Obama is smarter than most of us. He understands that we cannot plant democracy by force when the root of the problem is historical and geographical suppression in which the U.S. was complicit after WW II. He seeks to limit the damage without compromising the U.S. economy and needlessly sacrificing U.S. lives. Bush and Cheney sent young men and women to war unprepared and under equipped. America's power IS LIMITED by forces larger than any nation.
WW II was winnable because one man, Hitler, was running most of the other side. He had no adherents beyond the axis and his allies were opportunists, not true believers. His insane worship of himself was not widely reflected geographically. Essentially WW II was contained before it ever began. The current "Wars of Ideology" are international and cannot be contained. They are economically and socially developmental, rather than political. The Muslim communities of the Middle East were stunted in their development by colonialism and fell so far behind the West economically and socially that their only available self-expression is destruction, especially of themselves.
Obama is smarter than most of us. He understands that we cannot plant democracy by force when the root of the problem is historical and geographical suppression in which the U.S. was complicit after WW II. He seeks to limit the damage without compromising the U.S. economy and needlessly sacrificing U.S. lives. Bush and Cheney sent young men and women to war unprepared and under equipped. America's power IS LIMITED by forces larger than any nation.
7
"The cost of restraint has been very high". So what is the cost? The ephemeral influence that brings us no advantage? In the long run, what if Assad remains as the head, dictator, of Syria. Just because we think he shouldn't be, is that a big loss for us? What is Assad going to do with his destroyed country if he quells the various revolts? And what could possibly be Putin's end game? Does he actually think that he is going to conquer lands? And is he following the Soviet Union's fatal policy of over-reaching which led to its demise?
Strategists are paid to think in terms of the worst scenario. Look at history and you will find that all aggressive campaigns eventually lead nowhere, other than deaths of millions, treasures wasted, and enmities rekindled. In some cases, there is much to be said about "let's you and them fight it out".
Strategists are paid to think in terms of the worst scenario. Look at history and you will find that all aggressive campaigns eventually lead nowhere, other than deaths of millions, treasures wasted, and enmities rekindled. In some cases, there is much to be said about "let's you and them fight it out".
9
Cohen has an interesting point of view, but I prefer Obama's path of restraint. With over $4 trillion and countless lives wasted on Iraq and Afghanistan and no natural allies on the ground, it would have been senseless for America to get involved in Syria and put more ground troops in Iraq. Initial "red line" bombing would have only forced greater involvement. The threat got the job done on WMD. Russia has stepped into Syria to save a client state. It will be a disaster as everyone is supporting a different combatant and there's no clear path to victory.
Similarly, ISIS wants to fight against US ground troops to improve its recruiting power. Why does America want to do their bidding?
It is hard to imagine that ISIS or Assad are worse than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. The Soviet Union was intervening in far more countries during that period. With energy independence and the move to renewables, the Middle East is going to be as important strategically as Africa is today. It's like fighting to protect whale oil and steam engines. Better to rebuild the economy, let war wounds heal and focus on Asia. While others are creating casualties and burning their treasure, Pres Obama has his eyes set on the future.
Similarly, ISIS wants to fight against US ground troops to improve its recruiting power. Why does America want to do their bidding?
It is hard to imagine that ISIS or Assad are worse than Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot. The Soviet Union was intervening in far more countries during that period. With energy independence and the move to renewables, the Middle East is going to be as important strategically as Africa is today. It's like fighting to protect whale oil and steam engines. Better to rebuild the economy, let war wounds heal and focus on Asia. While others are creating casualties and burning their treasure, Pres Obama has his eyes set on the future.
14
Cohen's claim that Obama has "left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture" is completely absurd. The conflicts were there before, were massively exacerbated by the Bush-Cheney regime, and will continue into the far future regardless of what the US does. Cohen is rational on some subjects but his obsession with Russia and Putin and general jingoism in the Middle East are not.
11
It was Obama's claim in 2008 that middle east is stable.
And leaders come and fix problems, not blame their predecessors.
And leaders come and fix problems, not blame their predecessors.
Obama has no coherent foreign policy.
9
R.R. show me a coherent world and we will all be enlightened.
1
Obama's foreign policy is neither intelligent nor well-constructed. People who praise his policy simply want to avoid involvement at any cost. To them, he's a genius. To the rest of the world, he's a meddler who doesn't know what he's doing and lacking any clear goals. He cannot be counted on in a pinch.
His peevish comments about Putin show he's got personality issues as well. It's as though he's in some kind of pi**ing match with Putin. And he refuses to be wrong about Assad.
Watching this president interact on a global stage is as bad as watching him interact with his own Congress. Weakness and under-equipped.
His peevish comments about Putin show he's got personality issues as well. It's as though he's in some kind of pi**ing match with Putin. And he refuses to be wrong about Assad.
Watching this president interact on a global stage is as bad as watching him interact with his own Congress. Weakness and under-equipped.
9
Obama did not lose Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, UAE, Oman and Qatar. They are feckless putrid mostly worthless allies. That was W and Bubba.
America can also thank Bill and George for both attacks on the World Trade Center, American embassies bombed in Tanzania and Kenya, USS Cole attack, Khobar Towers attack etc.
America can also thank Bill and George for both attacks on the World Trade Center, American embassies bombed in Tanzania and Kenya, USS Cole attack, Khobar Towers attack etc.
Russia's maneuvering in its geopolitical region may not be such a terrible thing. It may force the Europeans, who send unarmed soldiers who are not allowed to fight, etc., to unite and do what they have always relied on Americans to do, the hard stuff. Hopefully this policy will allow the U.S. to grow stronger internally after "wasting" so much blood and treasure - 2 trillion dollars in foreign wars? The Realpolitik of the border regions of Russia may require a firmer hand than the U.S. is willing to offer. Coexistence with a resurgent Russia may be a good thing even if not an endorsement of Putin's brutal methods.
3
all of those are good points, but America should not be involved with every country that is having issues...The US are not the parents of the world. Let us not forget who got us into these wars. The US has spent billions and is not handling its problems at home....Let us step back a little.
4
"Iraq and Afghanistan consumed trillions without yielding victory."
I beg to differ. Obama himself called the Iraq he was handed a "sovereign stable country". If you recall, which most liberals conviently ignore, Iraq had an elected government, suicide bombings and rebel activity was almosy nonexistant, and people were getting back to living normal lives.
Then of course, Obama decided to pull oall the troops. He said, in his debate with Romney - "what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."
And now of course, we have ISIS.
I beg to differ. Obama himself called the Iraq he was handed a "sovereign stable country". If you recall, which most liberals conviently ignore, Iraq had an elected government, suicide bombings and rebel activity was almosy nonexistant, and people were getting back to living normal lives.
Then of course, Obama decided to pull oall the troops. He said, in his debate with Romney - "what I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. That certainly would not help us in the Middle East."
And now of course, we have ISIS.
7
Let's get down to the basic cost of abandoning a policy of restraint. How many American lives will be lost when we reassert a macho approach to foreign policy? Who will be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters just to show that we can swagger through the world and push people around? Wake up. There are costs to bringing back the George W. Bush solution to world problems. Who will be the first to die? As John Kerry said in 1971, who will send the last soldiers to their deaths in a cause that makes no sense?
8
This what the pacifist said after WW1.
And soon after their was WW2.
Ignorant people think that U.S. just happened. Just take a pause and think what could have happened if U.S. did not resist Russia's expansionism for almost 40 years.
And soon after their was WW2.
Ignorant people think that U.S. just happened. Just take a pause and think what could have happened if U.S. did not resist Russia's expansionism for almost 40 years.
MONEY! THE reason we have been embroiled in these losing wars is that it
has made select corporations and individuals very rich. Can we convince these
same people that they can get rich off of peace initiatives here in the U.S.,
like builiding our infrastructure, making education free for all, and improving
the quality of healthcare and the lives of our seniors? That would not cost thousands of lives in losing battles. If someone wants to use my tax dollars, do it in the USA.
has made select corporations and individuals very rich. Can we convince these
same people that they can get rich off of peace initiatives here in the U.S.,
like builiding our infrastructure, making education free for all, and improving
the quality of healthcare and the lives of our seniors? That would not cost thousands of lives in losing battles. If someone wants to use my tax dollars, do it in the USA.
43
I think you may have ventured into la la land. Which corporations and individuals are war profiteers?
Ralphie... from USA Today.... 3/13 These are a few of the corporations that profited from the wars.... Lockheed Martin,
Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamic, Raytheon, Northrup
Grumman... not to mention all the companies who supplied
uniforms, sunglasses, trucks, helmets, weapons, food, etc to
the troops. THere are many articles about war profits.
m
Boeing, BAE Systems, General Dynamic, Raytheon, Northrup
Grumman... not to mention all the companies who supplied
uniforms, sunglasses, trucks, helmets, weapons, food, etc to
the troops. THere are many articles about war profits.
m
Exactly right. Who the hell cares what happens in Afghanistan, anyway. Let them take care of themselves. What about fixing Baltimore.
In my lifetime, we have had many wars. WWII was not a war we sought nor one we led for a long time. We won that war. After that, we were anxious to enter any conflict that occurred anywhere on earth. We did not win many wars after that. We spent much of our treasure and thousands of U.S. and other lives in the process. Obama is an astute student of history. He realizes that the cost of war is tremendous and can only be paid for at the expense of other national needs. We do live in a dangerous world which is why we have the most expensive defense and homeland security apparatus in the world. Engaging militarily around the world is just stupid.
63
"We won that war"
Take a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad
and you will see how tough the Russian people are who outlasted a siege of almost three years.
It is far better to cooperate with Putin in destroying ISIS rather than pick peevish fights with him as Obama is doing. And even the EU agrees that Assad should stay for a while. In 2020, he can retire and hand the reins over to someone else.
Take a look at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad
and you will see how tough the Russian people are who outlasted a siege of almost three years.
It is far better to cooperate with Putin in destroying ISIS rather than pick peevish fights with him as Obama is doing. And even the EU agrees that Assad should stay for a while. In 2020, he can retire and hand the reins over to someone else.
Interesting analysis. So unsought war kills almost a million Americans. And for decades after that U.S. becomes the sole superpower by influencing the world.
And yet you claim that ignoring problems and waiting for them until they become really big is a better option.
I think Ostriches can do better.
And yet you claim that ignoring problems and waiting for them until they become really big is a better option.
I think Ostriches can do better.
WWII was a real war where a country declared war on us and we threw everything into it to win. It was not just a sideline skirmish with half hearted efforts. We did not lead it for long because we entered late and Germany was fighting a 2 front war which they could not sustain.
The lesson from WWII is that we eventually responded to a threat and invested our presence in that region for decades to provide Europe a stable environment to grow and prosper without a lot of volatility. We could have avoided a lot of bloodshed and treasure being spent if we had entered much earlier and slapped psychopathic Hitler back into his bunker.
That's the real history lesson.
The lesson from WWII is that we eventually responded to a threat and invested our presence in that region for decades to provide Europe a stable environment to grow and prosper without a lot of volatility. We could have avoided a lot of bloodshed and treasure being spent if we had entered much earlier and slapped psychopathic Hitler back into his bunker.
That's the real history lesson.
1
What is the point of military intervention? Why be in a Syria, a Iraq or for that matter a Mexico. The vast majority of wars are started by the aggressor for economic reasons. The attacked are fighting for survival. We launched the war in Iraq for economic reasons and all we accomplished was to destabilize the region and pile up our debt. What logic compels pundits to think we need a military intervention in Syria? Is there any economic gain for the United States? Is Syria a threat to our security?
The reality is there is no good reason for us to get involved in the Syrian civil war. It is ludicrous to think you can generate peace and prosperity in a foreign nation by bombing it flat in a prolonged military engagement.
The reality is there is no good reason for us to get involved in the Syrian civil war. It is ludicrous to think you can generate peace and prosperity in a foreign nation by bombing it flat in a prolonged military engagement.
7
As I read through these comments and overall comments of the public in general, on would think that W just marched into Afghanistan and Iraq all by himself. the fact is, at the time of 911 WE demanded these actions. When the world trade center went down, our reaction was "how could this happen here?" We demanded action and he, rightful so, responded. He went to congress and the UN. Democrats voted for these actions, most notably HILLARY, JOHN KERRY and,Harry Reid War is never a happy situation. Rewriting history is never helpful to the debate
3
Thanks for an honest assessment. Opportunist liberals now make it sound as if it was all W's doing.
Now that's odd, I thought that what WE (well, at least me) demanded after 9/11 was a swift and just response that would hold those accountable for 9/11 responsible. And by those I mean Wahhabists, in Afghanistan, Pakistan and especially in Saudi Arabia. The incompetence of Bush, Cheney and the hapless Rumsfeld put an end to that possibility, once they abandoned the just war in Afghanistan and fearmongered the invasion of Iraq (you may not have heard, but Iraq didn't do 9/11 ...) based on fixed intelligence. I can agree with you that rewriting history is never helpful - but I have to ask why you insist on doing so.
I think GG sums it all up: Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald - How do you know your country is an empire? When the President who bombs 7 countries is accused of excess "restraint."
4
"for now the initiative lies with the Kremlin". as if military intervention in and of itself is a good thing. not to mention the fact that the Kremlin is propping up a war criminal, something that goes unmentioned by this author.
1
To suggest that "the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high...this rudderless reality" is a delusional neo construct.
How conveniently the neo supporters of shock & awe in Iraq ignore/forget the catastrophic costs that will ripple through the generations including hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, millions of refugees, & the civil wars created. In 2008 W celebrated the signing of a status of forces agreement which required the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The power vacuum & chaos opened the door to radical Sunni jihadism on 1 side, & Alewite/Shia coalition on the other backed by Iran, & Russia. Seems a bit curious that the US is now trying to protect the Army of Conquest & other Sunni jihadists affiliated with Al-Queda from Russian air strikes.
How conveniently the neo supporters of shock & awe in Iraq ignore/forget the catastrophic costs that will ripple through the generations including hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, millions of refugees, & the civil wars created. In 2008 W celebrated the signing of a status of forces agreement which required the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq. The power vacuum & chaos opened the door to radical Sunni jihadism on 1 side, & Alewite/Shia coalition on the other backed by Iran, & Russia. Seems a bit curious that the US is now trying to protect the Army of Conquest & other Sunni jihadists affiliated with Al-Queda from Russian air strikes.
1
Unfortunately this is not a Doctrine of Restraint so much as a Doctrine of Meddling and Political Incompetence. Not necessarily on Barack Obama's part, but certainly on the part of the people he hired under him to figure things out.
We've ended up supporting a virtually Fascist regime (not even neo-Fascist) in Ukraine, who've initiated what they'd like to be an ethnic cleansing policy against Russian-affiliated Ukrainians in the East. The remnants of White Russia were not sufficiently eliminated during the Revolution, it seems.
And we're now on the side of Al Qaeda and terrorism in Syria and Iraq, with the excuse of trying to support "freedom fighters" against the terrible Assad regime.
We've had a policy for 30 years of "encircle and mess things up" on the borders of the former Soviet Union's spheres of influence to its west, no more, no less. The Iraq War was itself a part of that policy.
It's a stupid, imperialist and dangerous policy, full stop. There's not much else to say about it. We create problems and then point the finger at our victims for their "failure." Just like the police do on the streets, and the GOP does in the Federal Government. It's all the same, destructive mentality of hate and xenophobia.
We've ended up supporting a virtually Fascist regime (not even neo-Fascist) in Ukraine, who've initiated what they'd like to be an ethnic cleansing policy against Russian-affiliated Ukrainians in the East. The remnants of White Russia were not sufficiently eliminated during the Revolution, it seems.
And we're now on the side of Al Qaeda and terrorism in Syria and Iraq, with the excuse of trying to support "freedom fighters" against the terrible Assad regime.
We've had a policy for 30 years of "encircle and mess things up" on the borders of the former Soviet Union's spheres of influence to its west, no more, no less. The Iraq War was itself a part of that policy.
It's a stupid, imperialist and dangerous policy, full stop. There's not much else to say about it. We create problems and then point the finger at our victims for their "failure." Just like the police do on the streets, and the GOP does in the Federal Government. It's all the same, destructive mentality of hate and xenophobia.
2
Mr. Cohen’s disappointment in President Obama maybe understandable from those who view the entire Middle East as our personal purview. Our record in the area is a mixed one. From Iran’s Mossadegh overthrow to today’s regime change philosophy that so controls DC, we have declared a new “Monroe Doctrine” that encompasses an area stretching from the Atlantic Ocean to India. Unlike Russia which borders the area, we must rely upon military bases mainly from medieval autocratic rulers or despots. Mr. Obama’s reluctance, if any, stemmed from seeing an endless war in Afghanistan, a failed war in Iraq, a disastrous drone campaign that probably produces more hatred of America than the deaths of terrorists, a Libyan adventure that has produced more bloodshed as well as drive refugees to Europe, a dubious claim about a gas attack that the American public rejected the hue and cry of war from both political parties. and backing the very countries that helped to create modern day Islamic terrorism to destroy one more secular state. Mr. Cohen should relax as Obama’s presidency is coming to an end. The person who will replace him may well give all the war advocates hope for confrontations. If $500 million can give us five active fighters, than even more money will achieve the goal of Pax Americana in the Middle East.
1
Ask the Russians abuot Afghanistan. Ask Americans if,was a good idea to save the Russians from Afghanistan and save them from their mess. We have the capacity to destroy but as you rightly point out, we have not developed the capacity to build civil society. In fact, if David Brooks is right, we are loosing the capacity at home.
1
It took courage to conclude the Iran deal? No, it took a desire bordering on desperation to get a deal, any deal the Iranians were willing to allow. That's how "No nuclear weapons, ever" ended up as "No nuclear weapons for the next 10 years." The bin Laden raid fraught with risk? No, increasing circumstantial and direct evidence points to that raid having been a set-up snuff job, with the US all but being invited in to do the Pakistan ISI's dirty work. If these are two signal achievements of Obama's foreign policy, there is not much there there.
2
How is the US weak? Because we don't send a small fraction of our military force into a chaotic landscape? I thought Steve Kroft on "60 Minutes" would go absolutely apoplectic when the President explained Syria is the last bastion of Russian influence in the region, and he is losing it. Putin intervened to preserve his power in the ME, but at the price of economic ruin in Russia. There is no reason to believe the Russian bombing campaign will be any more successful than what the US has done. It sure is not going to be considered a blessing by the Syrian people. Putin has mistaken his popularity in Russia using a surge in nationalism to recapture prior region wide influence with a leader like Assad whose detractors represent a substantial number of Syrians. Further there is no uniformity to this opposition. The Russians are beating at a hornet's nest for the sole purpose of reclaiming influence that was dead and buried a while ago. Mr. Putin has deceived himself that he can retrieve Russia's lost status. He will soon find out what folly this is.
Commenters have decried the US position as world policeman because of its failure. Somehow Mr. Putin thinks he can do better with much less. He can't.
Commenters have decried the US position as world policeman because of its failure. Somehow Mr. Putin thinks he can do better with much less. He can't.
4
All the world ever does is react to what is happening in the various middle eastern countries that all take turns having violent crisis after crisis . This pattern never going to be stopped by outside military forces. The world needs to look at the bigger picture and ask " why ?" Why is there repetitive violent strife throughout the idle East ? Before any problem is solved it must be understood . We cant just keep reacting with military. Einstein said it is a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect different results . Ar
Once we see the bigger picture and know the reasons perhaps the world can come together to finally bring peace to the Middle East . I believe its root of the problerms has to do with the clash of ancient cultural beliefs, religion and methods of governing and the vast riches brought to a small minority by oil. Wrap this together with the internet viewed by the vast underclass who see , mostly falsely, how the rest of the civilized world lives verses how they are treated by their government and how poor they are. Being helpless otherwise, the only reaction that gives them any sense of power is anger and violence.
What can the world do to get to the root of this conundrum and heal the cancer ? Bombing wont solve anything especially when the bombs fall on hospitals and weddings . Sending our young and women over there for them to come back broken has not and never will solve the problem at its root.
Once we see the bigger picture and know the reasons perhaps the world can come together to finally bring peace to the Middle East . I believe its root of the problerms has to do with the clash of ancient cultural beliefs, religion and methods of governing and the vast riches brought to a small minority by oil. Wrap this together with the internet viewed by the vast underclass who see , mostly falsely, how the rest of the civilized world lives verses how they are treated by their government and how poor they are. Being helpless otherwise, the only reaction that gives them any sense of power is anger and violence.
What can the world do to get to the root of this conundrum and heal the cancer ? Bombing wont solve anything especially when the bombs fall on hospitals and weddings . Sending our young and women over there for them to come back broken has not and never will solve the problem at its root.
4
Is sending our soldiers to war to be slaughtered a sign of strength? Mr. Cohen, would you vote to send your grandchildren into Syria to fight?
Would that be a sign of strength or stupididy?
Would that be a sign of strength or stupididy?
5
There must be something missing in Judaism that Jews like Mr Cohen miss the essential message that war is not a means to achieve peace. And that every action has a reaction, to end that cycle, one has to reverse the negativity not add to strengthen it.
1
Putin and a variety of global insurgents, along with Roger Cohen, are the last of the rehabilitated OGs (along with a long, unending list of neo-cons), who believe in the outdated and discarded premise of Mao's: that "power comes from the barrel of a gun."
Surely, by now we know only broken lives do, only fear and defeat are left. The new paradigm should be carefully examined (Obama explains it fully in his Nobel speech, its nuances, challenges and criteria) rather than inartfully dismissed!
Surely, by now we know only broken lives do, only fear and defeat are left. The new paradigm should be carefully examined (Obama explains it fully in his Nobel speech, its nuances, challenges and criteria) rather than inartfully dismissed!
9
"catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria"
And your answer would have been? Military engagement is possible for Putin because the terrain is clear - he supports the dictator, his long-time ally. I am greatly pained by what has happened to Syria (which I visited in 1998) and its people. That said, short of military involvement sure to not end well, what options have we had?
And your answer would have been? Military engagement is possible for Putin because the terrain is clear - he supports the dictator, his long-time ally. I am greatly pained by what has happened to Syria (which I visited in 1998) and its people. That said, short of military involvement sure to not end well, what options have we had?
4
Mr. Putin has stepped into quicksand, not deep enough to destroy him but enough to keep him bogged down for a very long time with an end result ever less satisfactory than the present situation.
7
I for one am bone weary of the constant state of war since 2002.
10
War is one of the worst of all things. However the Progressive posture toward America and the rest of the world is helping to create the conditions for war. There are alternatives to President Obama's actions, inactions and policies and those of President Bush. We are not faced with an "either-or" dilemna.
Our kids in their 20s have never seen America at peace, they have only seen constant war and hype about war against this that and the other.
1
It's hard to see why intervention in Syria would work to our favor when intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan hasn't, or didn't. What's in it for us? Or is it simply about boxing out Russia? Does anyone really think Russia will do a better job at controlling a country like Syria than the U.S. did in Iraq?
10
So, if we had invaded Syria and shown strength then we would not had to have invaded Syria. Or if we bomb Syria then Russia would not have bombed Syria? It seems like either way we have to fight if we want to appear "strong", a self imposed stupid burden.
We have been sending people to death in the middle east for many years now. It never gets safer or less complicated or less dangerous. Perhaps we should try a different method.
We have been sending people to death in the middle east for many years now. It never gets safer or less complicated or less dangerous. Perhaps we should try a different method.
13
President Eisenhower refused to become entangles in the Suez crisis. Seemed like a show of strength not weakness.
13
The obvious flaw in this argument is that it is based on the naive view of American Exceptionalism where the USA is the dispenser of good to the world. It presupposes a world of order and law where the law is to everybody’s benefit and is dispensed without self-interest, a noblesse oblige in other words.
This ancient justification of aristocracy is precisely outdated, overtaken by notions of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. USA was, perhaps, a Republic before it became a plutocracy.
The Unipolar world is gone, we are in the midst of a massive worldwide political revolution and the dust has not settled. It would be good if Mr. Cohen tried to adopt a less partisan viewpoint.
This ancient justification of aristocracy is precisely outdated, overtaken by notions of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. USA was, perhaps, a Republic before it became a plutocracy.
The Unipolar world is gone, we are in the midst of a massive worldwide political revolution and the dust has not settled. It would be good if Mr. Cohen tried to adopt a less partisan viewpoint.
9
The idea that there is an Obama "Doctrine of Restraint" is a laughable spinning of timidity and abdication of responsibility. By a declared unwillingness to step up, Obama created a vacuum that is allowing Russian aggression, Chinese expansionism, Iranian interventionism, and IS expansion. There simply is no cost to aggression. The premature and poorly communicated draw downs in Iraq and Afghanistan were motivated in part by a desire to ensure that there was no success of American power, for ideological reasons. And the idea of a 'Pivot Home' is absurd - the past 7 years have been marked by unprecedented levels of divisiveness, not only political, but racial and cultural as well - and Obama has expanded his restraint to avoiding acting as a unifier and healer. Restraint by good people in the face of evil and disunity is a recipe for disaster as it has always been. Don't try and sugarcoat what it is - abdication of responsibility and pushing hard decisions to the next person.
5
That's just the authoritarianism talking. Trump fan, ami I right?
8
If we humans do not learn to live together in cooperation, not competition, we won't survive. Go see the movie The Martian.
1
Pivot here, pivot there, pivot, pivot everywhere. Obama's narratives about foreign policy are often just plain silly and have little relation to reality. No one buys into them except his domestic base, which has always had a weakness for his rhetoric.
Unfortunately Obama's , more or less , isolationist policy has prepped the way for World chaos and war.
US does not need to be involved in every international crisis but when it does ( Obamas 'red line ' in Syria for example) it needs to follow up with action not words. US needs to be at least perceived as a power that you don't want to confront.
As Roosevelt said, " walk softly but carry a big stick "... Good advice then and today.
The power vacuum Obama has allowed by his inaction or incorrect action has put US future security at great risk. We no longer have the luxury of isolationism.
eg.
--Not getting an agreement with Iraq over troops and pulling troops out of the country allowed ISIS an open door to plunder through the region. These terrorist now boast they have followers within US ready to strike... And we would do well to heed the warning.
-- His embrace of the Arab Spring was the catalyst for most of the present turmoil in the area
-- His allowing Putin to control destiny of Syria will not bode well for US or Israel since it will be Russia and Iran in control of the whole area.
-- Putins deal with Iraq, Syria and Iran neutered Obamas deal with Iran
Obama is perceived internationally as irrelevant and thus US is irrelevant... Not the most secure opinion in a increasingly small, volatile World.
US does not need to be involved in every international crisis but when it does ( Obamas 'red line ' in Syria for example) it needs to follow up with action not words. US needs to be at least perceived as a power that you don't want to confront.
As Roosevelt said, " walk softly but carry a big stick "... Good advice then and today.
The power vacuum Obama has allowed by his inaction or incorrect action has put US future security at great risk. We no longer have the luxury of isolationism.
eg.
--Not getting an agreement with Iraq over troops and pulling troops out of the country allowed ISIS an open door to plunder through the region. These terrorist now boast they have followers within US ready to strike... And we would do well to heed the warning.
-- His embrace of the Arab Spring was the catalyst for most of the present turmoil in the area
-- His allowing Putin to control destiny of Syria will not bode well for US or Israel since it will be Russia and Iran in control of the whole area.
-- Putins deal with Iraq, Syria and Iran neutered Obamas deal with Iran
Obama is perceived internationally as irrelevant and thus US is irrelevant... Not the most secure opinion in a increasingly small, volatile World.
3
Where all did you go on the world to interview people and ask them how they perceive Mr Obama? Please report back after your Interviews. Thanks
1
Obama did not start all this trouble. The main culprit, who started trouble in MiddleEast is wanted for his war crimes by the World Court in the Hague is living happily on a big ranch in Texas, George W. Why have we not handed him over to the World Court needs to be addressed, and Obama does not have the gonads to do it. We have been pointing fingers to other world leaders, and without an ounce of shame, we tell the world they, the leaders, must step down!
6
Sorry my quote for should have read "................but by the content of his character. " I stand corrected....tkb
As a European that grew up with parents who experienced the German occupation and never forgot what America did for us, I will always be gratefull for America's involvement with the world. That is, as long as the US chooses that involvement and its friends carefully. So please, stay with us in Nato! But stay away as far as you can from the Middle East. For those who forget how this mess in Iraq and Syria was created: just look back to the politics of the presidency before Obama's. Obama learned a lesson. It is time we all do. I am sure Putin will learn too, soon enough.
19
All of these things you attribute to the Obama "Doctrine of Restraint" would have happened whoever happened to be President. Putin's probing in Ukraine is as much about 25 years of squandered opportunity on the part of Ukraine. Georgia happened to be led by a man who thought he knew the U.S. and did not. These are unstate areas in the neighborhood of Russia and have long histories of turmoil and some success. Syria is a neglected humanitarian disaster and I see no progress in relieving the pain of the people. Syria and Russia have been allies. Russian intervention might have happened sooner. The vaunted "Arab Spring" is another wasted opportunity. The U.S. is indeed no longer able to maintain wars and a military where military intervention is easy. I think of Korean which has been in civil war all of my sixty five years. We have a government that seems to be loaded in the Republican majority Senate and House ready to go to war instantly without thinking of the consequences. The U.S. is still the nation to partner with if you have international unrest. I am glad we are not on another "Cold War" path if, indeed, we are not. There will be wars and Russia will be involved if they are near its borders.
5
The geo-political dimension of the Middle East imbroglio is such that it is natural for Russia to feel threatened by the developments there. It is just possible that Russia is taking proactive action to prevent the conflict reaching nearer home. In a way, Russian action is aimed at protecting the dominance of the West in the world affairs. This can be achieved by preventing the Islamist Jihadists from spreading their influence beyond the Middle East. Afghanistan is an unfinished agenda for Russia. It would be in Russia’s interest to ensure that any non-Western power does not get a foothold in Afghanistan. There is convergence of interests of the U.S., the E. U. and Russia on such issues.
3
Unfortunately, Obama's weakness will lead to further conflict, and quite possibly war with China and/or Russia.
Weakness and an absolutely incoherent foreign policy invite aggression.
This final year of the Obama Administration is likely to be the most dangerous period America has faced since the end of the Cold War.
Weakness and an absolutely incoherent foreign policy invite aggression.
This final year of the Obama Administration is likely to be the most dangerous period America has faced since the end of the Cold War.
3
The Middle East is more dangerous because the powers we relied on to keep order are weakened or gone, undercut by social media, mass movements, and their own cruelty and incompetence. This is also true in Central America. The old orders we backed were incapable of transitioning to a more dynamic and less repressive order that would harness the energy of their peoples.
Europe might love for us to stand up to the Russians in Ukraine while they stand back watching and criticizing how we do it. Middle Eastern powers would love for us to take out ISIS while they schemed for advantage in their more ancient conflicts. They scream about our Doctrine of Restraint in order to challenge our manhood and shame or scare us into once again picking up the burden of empire.
The Doctrine of Restraint puts our allies and partners on notice that it will be up to them to do their parts, and that if they do not do their parts we will not save them from the bad things that will happen. Israel has to get real about the Palestinians, and the Saudis have to stop spreading a fundamentalism that turns in the minds of many to ISIS. The world's wealthy have to stop squirreling money away in Manhattan real estate, and the world's youth have to think about making it in their own countries rather than emigrating here.
Europe might love for us to stand up to the Russians in Ukraine while they stand back watching and criticizing how we do it. Middle Eastern powers would love for us to take out ISIS while they schemed for advantage in their more ancient conflicts. They scream about our Doctrine of Restraint in order to challenge our manhood and shame or scare us into once again picking up the burden of empire.
The Doctrine of Restraint puts our allies and partners on notice that it will be up to them to do their parts, and that if they do not do their parts we will not save them from the bad things that will happen. Israel has to get real about the Palestinians, and the Saudis have to stop spreading a fundamentalism that turns in the minds of many to ISIS. The world's wealthy have to stop squirreling money away in Manhattan real estate, and the world's youth have to think about making it in their own countries rather than emigrating here.
9
Unraveling has set in, in the Middle East NOT because President Obama has focused on America's limitations, as Mr. Cohen implies, but because George W "THE WORST" Bush recklessly invaded Iraq on a whim! Mr. Cohen supported and continues to support that terrible war, even though he, to my knowledge, is not an American citizen and does not live in America.
So unless and until Mr. Cohen is willing to enlist his OWN children to fight the wars he's so fond of having the American military engage in, he should keep his opinions to himself.
So unless and until Mr. Cohen is willing to enlist his OWN children to fight the wars he's so fond of having the American military engage in, he should keep his opinions to himself.
7
Now that the Russian bear has again stuck his paws into the Middle East looking for 'honey'? let's step back to Israel and see how good the bear is at dealing with scorpions(Arabs?)
Quagmire.... Russia got stuck in it in Afghanistan and I suspect they will get stuck in it in Syria. I think Obama, contrary to being a "weakling" as he has been called, is being very smart. We don't really have important strategic interests in the Middle East, aside from our one-sided approach to Israel. We've shown that we can get our own oil, or get it from Canada, or convert to renewable energy sources. On the other hand, the Muslim factions insist on killing each other, so why should we get in the middle of that? Its an intractable problem that's a thousand years old. I see no strategic importance in trying to sort all that out. Let the Russians play that game, I say.
9
Keep in mind that Russia had their own Afghanistan. Russia is desperately trying to cling to their only base in the Middle East, while at home their economy is cratering. If, like Thomas Wolfe once said, "you cannot go home again"; well, neither can the Russians.
They are a small economy with severe demographic challenges. They have no world class products outside of some defense assets. And they are beset with their own problems to the south: 1.4 billion Chinese who are not their friends, not to mention huge problems with terrorists. They are not the Soviet Union, and never will be.
Obama is choosing the wise choice. Napoleon, who once cautioned against interfering with his opponents when they were screwing it up, would be smiling.
They are a small economy with severe demographic challenges. They have no world class products outside of some defense assets. And they are beset with their own problems to the south: 1.4 billion Chinese who are not their friends, not to mention huge problems with terrorists. They are not the Soviet Union, and never will be.
Obama is choosing the wise choice. Napoleon, who once cautioned against interfering with his opponents when they were screwing it up, would be smiling.
4
Obama may have a vision of something that amounts to being liberal.
He also may have sold something that amounted to him being - wrongly - awarded the Peace Nobel Price.
But that was only a very successful amount of window dressing.
In fact, Obama has run more wars than even his predecessor and Obama has done nothing to stabilize the Muslim regions in the Middle East and Norther Africa.
In fact, he has given people in these regions false hope of an "Arab Spring" which has led to more civilian casualties and destabilization and the rise of the IS.
Obama also has renewed a senseless Cold War against Russia with devastating effects on Russia and Europe.
Obama also has furthered along an overture to a new trade war against China called the TPP and TTIP agreements which aim at bringing European and Asian governments at the heels of US economic interests while lowering local standards so that the US can become competitive again.
Obama may have successfully sold a "Doctrine of Restraint", but in reality he has done at least the same amount of damage to the world if not more so that Bush II.
And that in itself is something that is even in a much harder contrast to what Obama has sold to the world those 7,8 years ago when he produced himself as the world's saviour after the dark years of Bush II.
There is no restraint in Obama's doctrine only the helpless politics of someone who is way out of his league but has a strong muscle and the weapons to use it.
He also may have sold something that amounted to him being - wrongly - awarded the Peace Nobel Price.
But that was only a very successful amount of window dressing.
In fact, Obama has run more wars than even his predecessor and Obama has done nothing to stabilize the Muslim regions in the Middle East and Norther Africa.
In fact, he has given people in these regions false hope of an "Arab Spring" which has led to more civilian casualties and destabilization and the rise of the IS.
Obama also has renewed a senseless Cold War against Russia with devastating effects on Russia and Europe.
Obama also has furthered along an overture to a new trade war against China called the TPP and TTIP agreements which aim at bringing European and Asian governments at the heels of US economic interests while lowering local standards so that the US can become competitive again.
Obama may have successfully sold a "Doctrine of Restraint", but in reality he has done at least the same amount of damage to the world if not more so that Bush II.
And that in itself is something that is even in a much harder contrast to what Obama has sold to the world those 7,8 years ago when he produced himself as the world's saviour after the dark years of Bush II.
There is no restraint in Obama's doctrine only the helpless politics of someone who is way out of his league but has a strong muscle and the weapons to use it.
3
Dear Roger:
Two things.
First we have entered a new epoch and not era. These are the fossil wars. Russia see its future as an oil and gas fuel source and it will use this to create and maintain its hegemony from Russia and west as far as he can go. That is why he grabbed the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. He sees the Russia-Syria axis and the Saudi Arabia-Iraq axis. Triangulate and you get the Russia-Syria and Iran axis. Putin's 26 Cruise missiles sent 900 Miles was a commercial demonstration. He will sell his new missile systems first to Iran and then the other Arab nations. He has to do this to invigorate his economy. It's and old trick. "Busy giddy minds with foreign wars."
Second you cannot have 67 years of Israel flaunting fairness and acting with impunity toward the Palestinians in the middle east without creating an environment that lacks law and order.
Granted Islamic societies are dysfunctional on so many measures but the bottom line is that the ancient lands selected by the United Nations for an Israeli homeland was a poor choice all things considered. It has bred terrorism as a criminal industry using young men and some women who are terribly undereducated and who have never made a rent or car payment.
The question is how do you unravel all of this and is it unraveable?
It seems to me we have tried but have never been able to overcome the 1979 the Iran revolution and the accommodation by the Saudis that enabled the Wahhabi sect to take over.
Two things.
First we have entered a new epoch and not era. These are the fossil wars. Russia see its future as an oil and gas fuel source and it will use this to create and maintain its hegemony from Russia and west as far as he can go. That is why he grabbed the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. He sees the Russia-Syria axis and the Saudi Arabia-Iraq axis. Triangulate and you get the Russia-Syria and Iran axis. Putin's 26 Cruise missiles sent 900 Miles was a commercial demonstration. He will sell his new missile systems first to Iran and then the other Arab nations. He has to do this to invigorate his economy. It's and old trick. "Busy giddy minds with foreign wars."
Second you cannot have 67 years of Israel flaunting fairness and acting with impunity toward the Palestinians in the middle east without creating an environment that lacks law and order.
Granted Islamic societies are dysfunctional on so many measures but the bottom line is that the ancient lands selected by the United Nations for an Israeli homeland was a poor choice all things considered. It has bred terrorism as a criminal industry using young men and some women who are terribly undereducated and who have never made a rent or car payment.
The question is how do you unravel all of this and is it unraveable?
It seems to me we have tried but have never been able to overcome the 1979 the Iran revolution and the accommodation by the Saudis that enabled the Wahhabi sect to take over.
4
Obama may be underestimating american power, although I doubt it. He has correctly assessed the american people´s appetite for wars.
Russia´s power is seriously overestimated. Russia´s economy is about the same size as Italy´s and shrinking. The bad judgement is on Putin´s side, not Obama´s...
Russia´s power is seriously overestimated. Russia´s economy is about the same size as Italy´s and shrinking. The bad judgement is on Putin´s side, not Obama´s...
9
"(Obama's) catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria"
. . . The US is not responsible for everything that happens in the world. Syria's situation is of Assad's own making who learned from his father to meet demonstrations with tanks and artillery.
. . . If there is anything to blame Obama for it is his meddling in Libya where he did too much and without a plan. For Syria he learned not to repeat his Libyan mistake.
. . . The US is not responsible for everything that happens in the world. Syria's situation is of Assad's own making who learned from his father to meet demonstrations with tanks and artillery.
. . . If there is anything to blame Obama for it is his meddling in Libya where he did too much and without a plan. For Syria he learned not to repeat his Libyan mistake.
5
Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21th century, telling the U.S. people
we have peace in our time, and our major problem is climate control. Russia
and Putin realize this weakness and have moved into the Middle East. The
trigger point was when the U.S. signed the treaty with Iran. The fact is that
the U.S. can still act by slowing the $150 billion to a trickle to Iran. Iran also knows the weakness of the U.S by shooting this weapon yesterday. If the U.S. fails to act, we will be further diminished in the world's eyes. Obama has
another 15 months in office, and he has laid the foundation of a
weakened U.S.
we have peace in our time, and our major problem is climate control. Russia
and Putin realize this weakness and have moved into the Middle East. The
trigger point was when the U.S. signed the treaty with Iran. The fact is that
the U.S. can still act by slowing the $150 billion to a trickle to Iran. Iran also knows the weakness of the U.S by shooting this weapon yesterday. If the U.S. fails to act, we will be further diminished in the world's eyes. Obama has
another 15 months in office, and he has laid the foundation of a
weakened U.S.
1
The president has told Americans no such thing. Next parallel, please.
1
Doctrine of Restraint? in our world? and used by the most powerful nation on earth? Such doctrine is good only in academia but not in the real world and not with current enemies that "restrain" for them equal "fear and defeatism". If President Obama will continue his "Doctrine of Restraint" US streets will look like Israel's streets. Putin understand the situation, Obama does not
2
No thanks.
1
The defining time for Syria and hundreds of thousands of Syrians came when Mr. Obamas 'red line' was irrefutably crossed, and yet he did nothing about it. At that point, Assad, Putin, the Iranians, Hezbollah, and ISIS, knew they could do anything they wanted, and there would be no consequences.
The result? Several hundred thousand Syrian citizens killed, Millions pushed from their homes into neighboring countries, one of the worst migrant problems for Europe since WW2, and now foreign forces and terrorist organisations dividing the country for their own purposes.
What could the US have done to prevent this? Cruise missiles in the front door of the Presidential Palace, the Defence Ministry, and Interior Ministry, then negotiate a peace deal with moderates in the government .
For the best example of this succeeding, look back 20 years to another Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who essentially stopped the Balkan War with the exact same tactics. He even bombed the Chinese Embassy for good measure. Result? An end to that conflict, democratic elections in Serbia, bad guys eventually captured and sent to the ICC for trial, etc. It only took a few cruise missiles and F-117s to do.
Is it any coincidence that it is now the Russians using the cruise missiles, for their own agenda?
The result? Several hundred thousand Syrian citizens killed, Millions pushed from their homes into neighboring countries, one of the worst migrant problems for Europe since WW2, and now foreign forces and terrorist organisations dividing the country for their own purposes.
What could the US have done to prevent this? Cruise missiles in the front door of the Presidential Palace, the Defence Ministry, and Interior Ministry, then negotiate a peace deal with moderates in the government .
For the best example of this succeeding, look back 20 years to another Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who essentially stopped the Balkan War with the exact same tactics. He even bombed the Chinese Embassy for good measure. Result? An end to that conflict, democratic elections in Serbia, bad guys eventually captured and sent to the ICC for trial, etc. It only took a few cruise missiles and F-117s to do.
Is it any coincidence that it is now the Russians using the cruise missiles, for their own agenda?
The mindless posturing has to stop. Everyone seems to think he or she has an answer to the Middle East's problems. I am reminded of Colin Powell's comment during Desert Storm: "If you break it you own it." He resigned ignominiously after the U..S. continued "breaking it".
The entire region is a U.S.-created mess, from thriving dictatorships like Saudi Arabia to Pogrom-inflicting Israel. These two U.S. allies have contributed more to the destruction of the Middle East, and to Islamic Terrorism, than Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Assad combined.
Obama's 'restraint' is refreshing. I just saw a Charlie Rose interview with Dr. Ben Carson whom I instantly recognized as Dr. Strangelove. He said he would establish No-Fly zones over Syria and shoot any Russian planes that breached it! As an established neurosurgeon he should operate on his own brain before criticizing Obama's 'restraint'. God help us all.
The entire region is a U.S.-created mess, from thriving dictatorships like Saudi Arabia to Pogrom-inflicting Israel. These two U.S. allies have contributed more to the destruction of the Middle East, and to Islamic Terrorism, than Khomeini, Saddam Hussein, Qaddafi and Assad combined.
Obama's 'restraint' is refreshing. I just saw a Charlie Rose interview with Dr. Ben Carson whom I instantly recognized as Dr. Strangelove. He said he would establish No-Fly zones over Syria and shoot any Russian planes that breached it! As an established neurosurgeon he should operate on his own brain before criticizing Obama's 'restraint'. God help us all.
7
I do not think that the Middle East, like Vietnam, is such a vital American interest that it warrants the commitment of precious American lives. That hasn't worked and enough is enough.
Conversely, Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, may have created a tar pit for Putin that he will not be able to disengage from as the murderous religious factions focus on Russia as an infidel invader or crusader, if you will.
As Russia becomes mired into such a morass, America will thrive by conserving its resources, strengthening its economy, and doing what is possible diplomatically.
No more wars where our 'allies' fight to the last dollar and the last American.
Peace.
Conversely, Obama, wittingly or unwittingly, may have created a tar pit for Putin that he will not be able to disengage from as the murderous religious factions focus on Russia as an infidel invader or crusader, if you will.
As Russia becomes mired into such a morass, America will thrive by conserving its resources, strengthening its economy, and doing what is possible diplomatically.
No more wars where our 'allies' fight to the last dollar and the last American.
Peace.
5
As long as we as a nation are giving millions or billions a year in money and weapons to individual nations, we are supporting policies, good, bad, or ugly, this includes Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Pakistan, Syria, Yemen, etc. Restraints is kind of like the kind of like parenting that goes on now in America without involvement, while handing out lots of money to children who are not yet adults. That type of parenting doesn't work well not unlike the current foreign policy!
1
Richard Haass, as articulated by Roger Cohen: "We need to go to war. And by 'we', I mean you."
1
Shorter version of today's column: Obama is a little too much of a referee and not enough of a hot-headed cop.
2
Jobs and economic development and growth were the imperatives when Obama took office. We have not adequately addressed the jobs issue and in fact the true unemployment rate is roughly 10% using U6. In fact government regulation is hurting employment. On foreign policy the world is chaotic. Yes we have had a reset with the Russians but not the reset Clinton and Obama hoped for but one they crafted. Is the world safer now during this administration? Is the U.S.A. as respected? We have a community organizer who is leading us to a place Americans are realizing is the wrong direction. Let's elect a president who has accomplishments in governing.
2
Speak softly but carry a big stick.
Beware of the sleeping giant.
These a really great policies to live by.
Beware of the sleeping giant.
These a really great policies to live by.
1
Roger Cohen should carefully review the following - lest he forgets the monies involved:
www.costofwar.com
Scroll down and note the final price tag of $1.6 trillion.
Note the trade-offs et al.
I hope that Cohen addresses this matter in any subsequent Op-Ed he may wish to carelessly pen.
He first effort smacks of brain-washing ....... I wonder by whom.
www.costofwar.com
Scroll down and note the final price tag of $1.6 trillion.
Note the trade-offs et al.
I hope that Cohen addresses this matter in any subsequent Op-Ed he may wish to carelessly pen.
He first effort smacks of brain-washing ....... I wonder by whom.
2
Let the fellas on the right step forward. If anyone could come up with some muscular assertiveness they could. With their business model thinking a design for world peace would appear to require three things:
1) A high level fairness requiring that we all share the burden
of expanded military effort equally---presumably that would mean a universal draft. The thought of the younger members of the Koch and Walton families running down to their local draft boards to demand combat assignments is truly inspiring.
2) Financing for our overseas endeavors will need to be accomplished on a pay as you go basis---FDR and congress required 91percent of top income earners. Perhaps
Dick Cheney can shepherd a JFK figure of 70 percent through The House once he is made Speaker.
3) The wound licking incoherence we are all stumbling through could be turned into some real
"Get down American achievement" if only the
Folks on top and their corporations stepped forward in a big way to offer up their fortunes and the safety of their children.
Yes the Republican Party is full of ideas about leadership---but maybe
they are not quite ready
Walk the talk.
1) A high level fairness requiring that we all share the burden
of expanded military effort equally---presumably that would mean a universal draft. The thought of the younger members of the Koch and Walton families running down to their local draft boards to demand combat assignments is truly inspiring.
2) Financing for our overseas endeavors will need to be accomplished on a pay as you go basis---FDR and congress required 91percent of top income earners. Perhaps
Dick Cheney can shepherd a JFK figure of 70 percent through The House once he is made Speaker.
3) The wound licking incoherence we are all stumbling through could be turned into some real
"Get down American achievement" if only the
Folks on top and their corporations stepped forward in a big way to offer up their fortunes and the safety of their children.
Yes the Republican Party is full of ideas about leadership---but maybe
they are not quite ready
Walk the talk.
5
How presumptive an argument Mr. Cohen writes in his latest piece!!
What would he propose; engaging in yet another Middle East war in Syria. If there were mistakes by Obama in the three examples provided; they were in the 'initial' impulse of his administration. Regrettably, Obama was seduced by the hawks and/or the politics of the moment into three missteps; those being, placing a red lines in Syria, pursuing a surge in Afghanistan, and supporting the Libya campaign with air power & special forces. If anything, Obama's conclusion that such interventions create more problems than solutions came a bit too slow; and thus paints an unfortunate picture of inconsistency.
If there is an argument to be made, it is that foreign policy experience and/or expertise ought to be a requisite attribute for the next president.
What would he propose; engaging in yet another Middle East war in Syria. If there were mistakes by Obama in the three examples provided; they were in the 'initial' impulse of his administration. Regrettably, Obama was seduced by the hawks and/or the politics of the moment into three missteps; those being, placing a red lines in Syria, pursuing a surge in Afghanistan, and supporting the Libya campaign with air power & special forces. If anything, Obama's conclusion that such interventions create more problems than solutions came a bit too slow; and thus paints an unfortunate picture of inconsistency.
If there is an argument to be made, it is that foreign policy experience and/or expertise ought to be a requisite attribute for the next president.
Why did US become a major powers after WWI and the dominating power after WWII? I would argue that this was based on our success in maintaining economic superiority and a strong socio-economic base at home while most of the countries in the world were destroyed by war. As the world "normalizes" and recovers, we should naturally expect a more equalized world and that is not necessarily a bad situation. However, if we want to remain one of the dominating powers in the 21st century, we must focus our effort in maintaining our economic superiority. We should put our resources in improving education, updating infrastructure, and fast tracking research and development at home. Wasting our resource in the Middle East is exactly the "stupid" thing to do. What is our national interest in the Middle East now that we are a net energy exporter? It is foolish to expect us to impose Pax Americana in a region that has centuries of historical enmity and build multicultural democracies out of thin air. I would argue that even our most successful nation building effort, Israel, is NOT a true representative democracy. The only way to spread democracy is through soft power; build a prosperous country with fulfilled citizens that other countries want to emulate. Let Syria be the second Afghanistan for Russia. Afghanistan had destroyed the Soviet and Syria will destroy Putin.
1
The dead of history call out to us
Find a better way they say.
There is a better way.
Find a better way they say.
There is a better way.
1
May peace reign on earth. May our children reap the fruits of peaceful means.
1
Have you, Mr Cohen, any offspring in the military who will be on the front lines of any escalated conflict you envision the US might advance in the Mideast?
Rather than this craven kvetching critique of Obama's "courage," what actions do you concretely suggest be taken, to be approved by Obama or the next in line, by a cooperative Congress, by the State Department and an equally besieged American public, to resolve ANY conflict in the Mideast? What, specifically, should "we" - (that would include your flesh-and-blood on the front lines) do about Syria, for example, or about any of the oily sandy 'Stans?
Rather than this craven kvetching critique of Obama's "courage," what actions do you concretely suggest be taken, to be approved by Obama or the next in line, by a cooperative Congress, by the State Department and an equally besieged American public, to resolve ANY conflict in the Mideast? What, specifically, should "we" - (that would include your flesh-and-blood on the front lines) do about Syria, for example, or about any of the oily sandy 'Stans?
2
People may not like Obama's restraint. But I appreciate the fact that he is not leading America into a situation where we know who will be fighting, but have no idea who we are supporting. Where there is no real group to accept the role of leadership in the end, and America has to be the nation builder, once again.
Putin looks decisive in stepping into Syria. But Russia will be attacking and bombing Sunnis (ISIS and the Assad opposition) to support an Alawite regime, in a majority Sunni country and region. Is the end game to defeat the majority Sunnis and preserve power for a minority ethnic group? This only makes Russia the future target of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Sunnis extremist groups.
In a year or two, Putin may not like what he stepped in.
Putin looks decisive in stepping into Syria. But Russia will be attacking and bombing Sunnis (ISIS and the Assad opposition) to support an Alawite regime, in a majority Sunni country and region. Is the end game to defeat the majority Sunnis and preserve power for a minority ethnic group? This only makes Russia the future target of ISIS, Al Qaeda, and other Sunnis extremist groups.
In a year or two, Putin may not like what he stepped in.
1
"But the fact remains that Putin has reasserted Russian power in the vacuum created by American retrenchment..."
On the contrary, Putin has lashed out from weakness and desperation. He seized Crimea after his Ukrainian client fell, because he feared the economic and strategic consequences of losing his Black Sea ports more than he feared the economic sanctions his actions ensured. Now he's frightened by the prospect of losing his most reliable client in the Middle East (part of the reason he cared so much about Crimea in the first place).
If you're an American who's obsessed with tactics and "winning" the "great game" you should probably be pleased with Obama's clear strategy of quietly but aggressively provoking and undermining Putin at every turn. But, some people require swagger and open shows of force.
Putin's perspective is that the US has been provoking and undermining his country ever since the USSR fell and the US promised Russian autonomy and no NATO encroachment. He's a terrifying fascist, but he's also not wrong about that. Pundits who bluster about the swaggering open shows of force required to counter Crimea or Syria might consider what they'd propose if US military and economic power was in decline and the Russians were making mischief in Mexico or the Caribbean.
As for Afghanistan and Libya: the problem wasn't "ambivalence," as Mr. Cohen would have it. The problem was going to war halfway around the world without real consideration of the consequences.
On the contrary, Putin has lashed out from weakness and desperation. He seized Crimea after his Ukrainian client fell, because he feared the economic and strategic consequences of losing his Black Sea ports more than he feared the economic sanctions his actions ensured. Now he's frightened by the prospect of losing his most reliable client in the Middle East (part of the reason he cared so much about Crimea in the first place).
If you're an American who's obsessed with tactics and "winning" the "great game" you should probably be pleased with Obama's clear strategy of quietly but aggressively provoking and undermining Putin at every turn. But, some people require swagger and open shows of force.
Putin's perspective is that the US has been provoking and undermining his country ever since the USSR fell and the US promised Russian autonomy and no NATO encroachment. He's a terrifying fascist, but he's also not wrong about that. Pundits who bluster about the swaggering open shows of force required to counter Crimea or Syria might consider what they'd propose if US military and economic power was in decline and the Russians were making mischief in Mexico or the Caribbean.
As for Afghanistan and Libya: the problem wasn't "ambivalence," as Mr. Cohen would have it. The problem was going to war halfway around the world without real consideration of the consequences.
1
I love these Cohen types who endlessly proclaim they can "do regime change" better than Clinton/Bush/ Obama.
In truth, one can only cheer that Putin has put an end to the genocidal rampage the US ruling class has been on since Vietnam days.
The real danger is that the crazies in the Anglo-American Establishment will decide to provoke thermonuclear war as a "way out" of their demise.
In truth, one can only cheer that Putin has put an end to the genocidal rampage the US ruling class has been on since Vietnam days.
The real danger is that the crazies in the Anglo-American Establishment will decide to provoke thermonuclear war as a "way out" of their demise.
1
The hunt for Bin Ladin had gone on a long time. It was a win-win for the President to green light a strike if it had only a 50-50 chance of success. It would have been politically cowardly of him not to try. The national wound was still open.
The Iran nuclear deal, on the other hand, was an abject act of cowardice made possible by the short memory of the American public. When, not if, Iran engages in an act of nuclear blackmail, the recollection of that long ago act of war, the Iran Hostage Crisis, will suddenly be remembered. After which will follow the chorus of, how could we have forgotten?
Mr. Cohen is right, Putin, and most certainly Xi, get what Obama is doing. But of course it is the law of unintended consequences that lays in the future, as Japan and Germany ponder re-armament.
The Iran nuclear deal, on the other hand, was an abject act of cowardice made possible by the short memory of the American public. When, not if, Iran engages in an act of nuclear blackmail, the recollection of that long ago act of war, the Iran Hostage Crisis, will suddenly be remembered. After which will follow the chorus of, how could we have forgotten?
Mr. Cohen is right, Putin, and most certainly Xi, get what Obama is doing. But of course it is the law of unintended consequences that lays in the future, as Japan and Germany ponder re-armament.
2
Obama may be acting astutely in Syria but he clogs his actions with silly and irrelevant criticisms of Putin's. They actually sound childish and defensive, so he should hold off. However and especially because the US is active in Syria as far as the CIA supplying Assad's enemies with unlimited availability of TOW missiles. So how is this not more of "stupid stuff" which Obama intends to avoid?
Mr. Cohen lives and travels in Europe so he may be missing the extent to which the American public is in alignment with the president. He appears to minimize or not appreciate the full disgust held with our involvement in the Middle East. Obama does, and roots his policies there with this broad and deep native rejection of future US military in this region. The neocon response - one that Cohen adopts - is that this presages an intentional decline in world leadership by the US.
Not so! What is the Iran pact if not example of leadership? And the TPP also? And insisting on and involving Western Europe with accelerated military commitment in the Baltics and Central Europe - democracies which Putin knows better than to interfere despite his dream of asserting rule. Obama is giving the US citizenry what it wants - and that is good enough.
Mr. Cohen lives and travels in Europe so he may be missing the extent to which the American public is in alignment with the president. He appears to minimize or not appreciate the full disgust held with our involvement in the Middle East. Obama does, and roots his policies there with this broad and deep native rejection of future US military in this region. The neocon response - one that Cohen adopts - is that this presages an intentional decline in world leadership by the US.
Not so! What is the Iran pact if not example of leadership? And the TPP also? And insisting on and involving Western Europe with accelerated military commitment in the Baltics and Central Europe - democracies which Putin knows better than to interfere despite his dream of asserting rule. Obama is giving the US citizenry what it wants - and that is good enough.
47
But the neo cons think it's no good unless it costs lives.
And now for something entirely different, how about Chris Christie announcing today that Obama's "weak" and that he, NJ FatBoy, would be shooting down Russian planes. Now there's a plan that Roger-that, and all those Republican proto-presidents can really get behind.
How sick is all this? We could stop it in a NY minute -- Ship Bush & Cheney to the Hague, the Int'l Criminal Court. That would also make us a lot of friends in Africa by the way.
How sick is all this? We could stop it in a NY minute -- Ship Bush & Cheney to the Hague, the Int'l Criminal Court. That would also make us a lot of friends in Africa by the way.
4
History forgotten. Facts ignored. Not worthy of my subscription.
2
“Russia’s Syrian foray may be overreach.”
Yes, but it could also provide a valuable opportunity. We have been accomplishing little to stem either the chaos in Syria or the barbarity of ISIS. Putin may not be serious, but his offer to get his Shiite coalition to collaborate with our Sunni coalition, mobilizing the entire Arab world in organized opposition to ISIS, its common threat, is worth testing. And if that delays Assad’s departure from Syria and gives Russia a seat at the table in planning whatever comes next, that could also be a positive development. As it is, we don’t seem to have any good ideas about how we would fill the vacuum if we were successful in removing Assad by ourselves. The prospect that we would own the smashed up china shop that is Syria is not appealing. That’s a problem we should be glad to share.
The situation is the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma Game writ large, where we and the Russians must both choose between cooperation and competition and where mutual cooperation would produce the best outcome for both of us. But competition is what we do, out of habit, and we seem to be doing it again here, transforming a potentially win-win situation into a certain lose-lose for both of us.
Yes, but it could also provide a valuable opportunity. We have been accomplishing little to stem either the chaos in Syria or the barbarity of ISIS. Putin may not be serious, but his offer to get his Shiite coalition to collaborate with our Sunni coalition, mobilizing the entire Arab world in organized opposition to ISIS, its common threat, is worth testing. And if that delays Assad’s departure from Syria and gives Russia a seat at the table in planning whatever comes next, that could also be a positive development. As it is, we don’t seem to have any good ideas about how we would fill the vacuum if we were successful in removing Assad by ourselves. The prospect that we would own the smashed up china shop that is Syria is not appealing. That’s a problem we should be glad to share.
The situation is the famous Prisoner’s Dilemma Game writ large, where we and the Russians must both choose between cooperation and competition and where mutual cooperation would produce the best outcome for both of us. But competition is what we do, out of habit, and we seem to be doing it again here, transforming a potentially win-win situation into a certain lose-lose for both of us.
3
Hubris is endemic to the presidency and in that respect, Obama has been no different than his predecessor, George W. Bush. What has differed is just what that hubris has meant concerning foreign policy. For Bush, no potential battlefield should be avoided. This approach gave us a tragic war in Iraq. For Obama, no potential battlefield should be entered. This approach has given us the human tragedy of 200,000 lives lost in Syria and a battered Ukraine (that we encouraged to separate from Russia) stripped of Crimea and its industrial east.
The US spends about 600 billion dollars on military defense, an amount that is more than the next seven biggest military spending nations combined. The world expects that America's dominance in military spending means that the US will play a dominant role in many foreign disputes. The Bush Doctrine was all about irrational overstep. The Obama Doctrine is all about irrational avoidance. When the US ignores its expected role in world affairs, chaos is the result. That's what we have now. The Obama Doctrine, like the Bush Doctrine before it, has been a failure.
The US spends about 600 billion dollars on military defense, an amount that is more than the next seven biggest military spending nations combined. The world expects that America's dominance in military spending means that the US will play a dominant role in many foreign disputes. The Bush Doctrine was all about irrational overstep. The Obama Doctrine is all about irrational avoidance. When the US ignores its expected role in world affairs, chaos is the result. That's what we have now. The Obama Doctrine, like the Bush Doctrine before it, has been a failure.
2
Roger Cohen's article is the best I have read on President Obama.
He is both positive and negative about the man without being insulting or over critical.
Criticism can be cheap and easy if you are not sitting in the hot seat.
As far as I can see Obama has been trying very hard to give peace a chance, peace through peace rather than peace through war.
Risking being labelled as weak goes with that choice but the US has had Gung Ho presidents and this had lead to both loss of lives and face for the country.
It requires more inner strength and courage to sometimes do what you think right albeit a political negative.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
He is both positive and negative about the man without being insulting or over critical.
Criticism can be cheap and easy if you are not sitting in the hot seat.
As far as I can see Obama has been trying very hard to give peace a chance, peace through peace rather than peace through war.
Risking being labelled as weak goes with that choice but the US has had Gung Ho presidents and this had lead to both loss of lives and face for the country.
It requires more inner strength and courage to sometimes do what you think right albeit a political negative.
STAN CHUN
Wellington
New Zealand
2
Are you kidding? Can't wait to hear why your solution to stopping the Syrian war will involve even more American lives, weapons and money and an escalation of death and destruction for the Syrians. I guess it's mostly to show Russia that we're the boss.
Is this like the NRA's solution to add more weapons to our already gun saturated country in order to stop violence?
Is this like the NRA's solution to add more weapons to our already gun saturated country in order to stop violence?
4
The Cold War and its stability is over, replaced by instability and multiple hot wars. The Middle East and other regions will play out their enmities with but quantitative influence from the U.S. or Russia. Let Russia fill internecine vacuums and endure another Afghanistan debacle. Hopefully American leaders will follow Obama's general thrust, though with more attention to the inevitable unplanned and unintended consequences of both word and deed.
At least President Obama shows some substantial understanding of the history of the Viet Nam and Iraqi Wars. President Putin appears to have ignored the Afghanistan War just because his country is no longer the Soviet Union.
The Russian leadership is as much in need as American leadership of reading T. E. Lawrence's "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and realizing how very little has changed in the Middle East in the past century. (No, not the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia", but the book itself.)
At least President Obama shows some substantial understanding of the history of the Viet Nam and Iraqi Wars. President Putin appears to have ignored the Afghanistan War just because his country is no longer the Soviet Union.
The Russian leadership is as much in need as American leadership of reading T. E. Lawrence's "The Seven Pillars of Wisdom" and realizing how very little has changed in the Middle East in the past century. (No, not the movie, "Lawrence of Arabia", but the book itself.)
31
The leader of a Democracy can do little without the support of the people. It would be tempting to tell America to go the blazes for its petulant and flatulent thinking. Ask your neighbor who was the fifth president of the United States and do not be surprised if you draw a blank look. The President grows more real as a person in his own right every day, everything that a courageous statesman should be, and it will be cold comfort if one day this American reads that one of our finest humanitarian politicians went into Siberia, while attempting to battle one of the greatest evils mankind has faced in contemporary history.
I usually agree with the thoughtful views of Mr. Cohen but here I find his advice a return to the wishful thinking that American military can cut through all the complexity of a disintegrating state and Somehow lead to a good outcome. That would necessitate our ignoring the horrible outcomes of our recent using of our military in Iraq to inadvertly create the malignancy we call ISIS. I say Let Putin create his own ISIS 2.0 for his sinking little dictatorship we know as Russia. Remember Putin was the "soulmate" of our own dweeb, prez. W, both very good at PR and photo ops.
2
It's interesting that the first fifty Readers' Picks were strongly in favor of the President and in disagreement with the columnist. Voted for in two and three figures, people strongly do not want to be involved in another war. Certainly not a war for hegemony. In contrast, the NYT Picks were four in favor of the President and four in favor of the columnist's position -and one I couldn't figure out. Is there a disconnect here?
4
A good point for this reader but we can hardly envision taking up arms when we are having a crippling war of our own, tearing the Country apart. It was the address the Pope gave to the leaders of the world at the United Nations, the finest this American has heard in a life time, asking for us to look into our very soul and selves to save Humanity.
It is not President Obama who holds the future of our children, our next generation at stake, but the choice of the People of the Land of the Free and civilized countries across the borders of our Planet, to rise in unison and put an end to this terrorism.
It is not President Obama who holds the future of our children, our next generation at stake, but the choice of the People of the Land of the Free and civilized countries across the borders of our Planet, to rise in unison and put an end to this terrorism.
1
I for one am very tired of America's endless wars,endless war profiteering and cutting taxes for the well off but calling any aid to those whose children are "food insecure" and sent to bed hungry during the Summer when school lunches end endless entitlements. I am tired of Conservatives who want to cut everything except the Military "entitlement."
The Russians had their quagmire in Afghanistan, where our longest War is still happening, although many Americans would be surprised. We would like to get back to Iraq but only to fight the "Islamic State."
So I am also asking as Carolyn Egeli asked"why must we be in the Middle East at all?
The Russians had their quagmire in Afghanistan, where our longest War is still happening, although many Americans would be surprised. We would like to get back to Iraq but only to fight the "Islamic State."
So I am also asking as Carolyn Egeli asked"why must we be in the Middle East at all?
1
A call to arms to place a crushing defeat to Fascism, which has resurfaced again, and is tearing us asunder.
Speaking of restraint, wasn't George W. Bush the model of restraint when he ignored the threat posed by Al-Qaeda in 2001? Of course, he was distracted by planning an invasion of Iraq.
4
Let us not go back into past history to find solutions for the threat Humanity is facing at present.
You obviously are not acquainted with the idea that those who do not know the past are condemned to repeat it. You essentially dismiss an entire field of study known as history as useless.
We've had war since 2001. Billions and trillions flowing into a great abyss. You and me are paying these billions and trillions through the nose. Yet amazingly people want more and more of it and others are only too stupid to see into the heart of madness, the sheer insanity in service to these billions and trillions. The only power of the people in response is in the ballot box.
2
Cohen's words are somewhat nuanced and lacks the strident anti-Obamaism that pervades the rightwing, neocon critique that the president is a wuss, a crypto Muslim who is always apologizing for America. But his conclusions are essentially the same as the Bush/Cheney rubbish. Obama rightly recognizes the limits of American power and wants to avoid the debilitating hangovers from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
4
Doing nothing is really just kicking the can down the road and hoping that it will all work out. But often that neglect comes back to bite us and costs us much more at a later date.
It's apparent that Obama has promised to wind down wars and he wants to be seen as a domestic tranquility President not a foreign interventionist. On the one hand he holds the view that ISIS is a jayvee team while on the other hand he believes we are the most powerful country in the world. Not responding to the ISIS threat then is a choice of inaction not capabilities. This is a page out of Bill Clinton's presidency which was marked by a domestic focus and half hearted military ventures.
However this can leave a lot for the next president to clean up as the world political scene and our alliances fall into disarray and players like ISIS make further gains and become very costly to defeat. Imagine if ISIS takes over Iraq and/or Syria. This will be unacceptable as they will export terrorism to the US on a grand scale.
What is lost in all this inconsistent US policy is that we invested decades in a Europe presence after WWII to ensure that region of the world would be stable. Whose idea was it that we could cut and run from the ME and that would be a good strategy?
It's apparent that Obama has promised to wind down wars and he wants to be seen as a domestic tranquility President not a foreign interventionist. On the one hand he holds the view that ISIS is a jayvee team while on the other hand he believes we are the most powerful country in the world. Not responding to the ISIS threat then is a choice of inaction not capabilities. This is a page out of Bill Clinton's presidency which was marked by a domestic focus and half hearted military ventures.
However this can leave a lot for the next president to clean up as the world political scene and our alliances fall into disarray and players like ISIS make further gains and become very costly to defeat. Imagine if ISIS takes over Iraq and/or Syria. This will be unacceptable as they will export terrorism to the US on a grand scale.
What is lost in all this inconsistent US policy is that we invested decades in a Europe presence after WWII to ensure that region of the world would be stable. Whose idea was it that we could cut and run from the ME and that would be a good strategy?
9
America finances and arms it's "allies" in the Middle East.
And what do they do with that money and arms along with American diplomatic cover?
Israel is a Zionist Jewish supremacist state that makes war on and oppresses the Palestinians. Egypt is a military dictatorship at war with it's own citizens and the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia a royal theocratic fossil fuel autocracy at war with Shia Muslims, Turks and Persians. Turkey is becoming an Islamist Turkish supremacist state at war with Arabs, Persians, Kurds and Shia Muslims. Iraq is a Shia Muslim Arab majority nation state at war with both it's Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish minority.
While al Qaeda and ISIL and their affiliates are growing and running rampant.
And what do they do with that money and arms along with American diplomatic cover?
Israel is a Zionist Jewish supremacist state that makes war on and oppresses the Palestinians. Egypt is a military dictatorship at war with it's own citizens and the Muslim Brotherhood. Saudi Arabia a royal theocratic fossil fuel autocracy at war with Shia Muslims, Turks and Persians. Turkey is becoming an Islamist Turkish supremacist state at war with Arabs, Persians, Kurds and Shia Muslims. Iraq is a Shia Muslim Arab majority nation state at war with both it's Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish minority.
While al Qaeda and ISIL and their affiliates are growing and running rampant.
And you prefer what Bush left behind? He created this mess.
Europe is not the Middle East.
World War II ended 70 years ago.
There was and is no American military solution to the socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian Middle Eastern civil wars when since 9/11/01 "we" only includes 0.75% of Americans volunteering to put on any American armed force military uniform.
World War II ended 70 years ago.
There was and is no American military solution to the socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian Middle Eastern civil wars when since 9/11/01 "we" only includes 0.75% of Americans volunteering to put on any American armed force military uniform.
"American retrenchment" under Obama? What did the neocons do when Russia got a part of Georgia "heim ins Reich", i.e. the 2008 Georgia-Russia war? Even the Bush II people weren't unintelligent enough to risk anything (and they were the creme de la creme of unintelligent). Russia has the bomb and loads of rockets that can annihilate us within hours. The higher the Russian profile in the Middle East, the better for us. Assad may be an evil dictator, but the Middle East's problems lie with Sykes-Picot, which defined the borders of the countries so that in these aritificial countries, minorities rule over majorities using some weaponized stratified social systems. The Free Syrian Army that gets crushed first now would have lost anyway, but even if they had not, what kind of government would they have imposed? They were and are so fractured and inhomogeneous it would just be anarchy as in Libya. The borders must be redrawn or there will just be another Assad in a few years (or worse, someone of the majority, which then completely plows under the minority as in Iraq). We cannot uphold the (British, French and Russian) mistake that was Sykes-Picot forever. There needs to be a Sunni country between Baghdad and somewhere east of Damascus. Please somebody make a plan and call the ISIS generals or we'll never have peace there. Apparently, they will not be bombed into submission.
Do you , Roger Cohen, take responsibility for beating the drums of war? Will you be accountable for the blood and treasure that will be spilled, the chaos that will ensue, the goals not reached and for all the consequences that will follow?
Our president is strong enough to stand the unpopular tide against such foolish taunting.
Our president is strong enough to stand the unpopular tide against such foolish taunting.
4
Putin is a cross between the leaders of Imperial Russia and the serb leader Milosevic. Both the czars and 'Slobo' depended on a fiercely patriotic, uninformed, and highly dependent public. Beneath the surface, present day Russians are none of these. Obama seems to be enjoying the prospect of watching Putin work himself into a stalemate. The only question is NATO. Despite the words, when Ukraine heated up there was no action. Why? The natural gas pipeline. What's the problem now? The refugee crisis. We do not need to go it alone any more. Where are the Europeans ?
1
Enough of demanding American blood and treasure for every adventure in the world. NATO members are rich and fat and spend little on defense and grow their economies as they know the good old USA is there to save their skins.
If politicians want to send American soldiers to war, let them establish universal military service so their children can go too. No more sending other peoples' children, no more deferments. Either everybody goes or nobody goes. And that should apply to our so called allies-ready to fight to the last American. No more free rides. No more phony allies and causes. The War Powers Act has shown its impotence. Congress must have the responsibility to declare war-no war by executive actions. Nothing short of the validity of constitutional government is at stake here.
If politicians want to send American soldiers to war, let them establish universal military service so their children can go too. No more sending other peoples' children, no more deferments. Either everybody goes or nobody goes. And that should apply to our so called allies-ready to fight to the last American. No more free rides. No more phony allies and causes. The War Powers Act has shown its impotence. Congress must have the responsibility to declare war-no war by executive actions. Nothing short of the validity of constitutional government is at stake here.
1
what about a "war tax" on the richest 1% of the population?
Cohen has to ignore post WW-II American military history to reach the conclusions he does. Other than the first Iraq War (driving Saddam Hussein from Kuwait) and the war in Kosovo, American military adventures have either failed to achieve their objectives and/or left the region involved in continued peril or conflict (Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, second Iraq war and Libya where the military objectives were achieved but the failure to follow up left a dangerous void.) If anything, the experience has taught Obama that taking military action to dispel these notions which journalists and political critics like to call strength are ephemeral and matter less than the lives of and bodies of American troops and questions as to whether military solutions will actually achieve their goals regardless of the heroism of the servicemen and servicewomen called to serve. How many times in Vietnam did LBJ convince himself we had to get deeper in to the conflict to assuage critics that he would be weak if he showed restraint and because he thought it was necessary to show how tough he was to the Soviet Union.
Stability during this period came from international organizations and treaties not wars with the two exception I cited.
Stability during this period came from international organizations and treaties not wars with the two exception I cited.
2
It is certainly a pleasure to see the end of American hegemony and world power in the horizon. Did not think I would see it in my lifetime. At the rate we are going thanks to American "freedom" and "benevolence," it will be a miracle if half the species survives to see the erradication of the cancer.
Some Americans joined the fight against the rise of Fascism during the Spanish Civil War and this may not be the time to pray for miracles, but to unite as one People under the American Constitution and bring back the word 'Patriotism' and my Country for better or worse, while the bells are tolling.
This foreign policy piece suffers from a flawed assumption. Simply put, it assumes that Russia's actions are motivated by a desire to thumb it's nose at America, or perhaps to "strut on the world stage".
The writer seems unable to comprehend that Russia is simply acting in a manner that it feels best protects Russia's interests. Indeed that is what nations do, and every foreign policy analysis must necessarily proceed from this first, most elementary of principles.
In other words, it isn't always about us. While the end of the cold war led Washington to approach the world as uni-polar, centered on itself, this has always been an oversimplification. In point of fact, all nations have retained a degree of power and ability to act independently-in Russia's case, to a greater degree than we have carelessly assumed was the case in recent years.
Unipolarity (rejected by Russia as being valid or viable, by the way) has caused a kind of lazy decadence in our policy, an assumption that no nation has the right to do anything, about anything, in the world, until we in America have made up our minds about what the right thing to do is.
It is amply clear, and Russia has been articulate about it, that Russia fears unbridled Islamic terrorism spilling out of Syria, so close to its own recently troubled Islamic region of Chechnya and has now acted.
It has nothing to do with us.
The writer seems unable to comprehend that Russia is simply acting in a manner that it feels best protects Russia's interests. Indeed that is what nations do, and every foreign policy analysis must necessarily proceed from this first, most elementary of principles.
In other words, it isn't always about us. While the end of the cold war led Washington to approach the world as uni-polar, centered on itself, this has always been an oversimplification. In point of fact, all nations have retained a degree of power and ability to act independently-in Russia's case, to a greater degree than we have carelessly assumed was the case in recent years.
Unipolarity (rejected by Russia as being valid or viable, by the way) has caused a kind of lazy decadence in our policy, an assumption that no nation has the right to do anything, about anything, in the world, until we in America have made up our minds about what the right thing to do is.
It is amply clear, and Russia has been articulate about it, that Russia fears unbridled Islamic terrorism spilling out of Syria, so close to its own recently troubled Islamic region of Chechnya and has now acted.
It has nothing to do with us.
Perhaps Obama recognizes that the Mideast is only important in terms of religious belief and as a source of hostility to United States. Without oil, it is just sand. And oil isn't what it used to be. Despite being home to Jerusalem, Mecca, the holy places of so many religions, none of these nations have the capacity that the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Imperial Britain had to harm the US. There is no nation there that truly threatens the American dominance of trade, culture, wealth or its global military supremacy.
Well, well...Russia is flushing all manner of imperialists-in-disguise these days...write to defend women's right one day, only to demand military action the next.
One cannot stomach the comments from America about trying to bring "stability" to any place in the world.
One cannot stomach the comments from America about trying to bring "stability" to any place in the world.
So easily do reporters and politicians and editorial writers commit other peoples’ children to war and death and dismemberment. For a cause proven to be foolhardy. There are no good options in the Middle East and it isn't our fight. That is the point of the Obama Doctrine.
The media loves a good war to cover but Obama surges ahead with intelligence and steady resolve. Great President.
The media loves a good war to cover but Obama surges ahead with intelligence and steady resolve. Great President.
4
"... the two longest and most expensive wars in its history." Most expensive?? Does Mr. Cohen not know the difference between nominal and real costs?
There is absolutely no reason or necessity for the US to take sides in Syria's multi-sided civil war. To label one group of rebels as "moderate" and to expect that they will be stable and predictable is as senseless as trying to grasp the desert wind. We should get out of the mess. We should never have gone in in the first place. It is not our duty or our responsibility to police the nations of the world. To join with others in fighting ISIS is a worthy cause, since ISIS is a threat to us. The Assad government is the established government of Syria. And by the way, his regime is backed by many people of that land. The US should get out and stay out. We should also avoid a proxy war with Russia. Since they are backing Assad, we should not back Assad's enemies.
1
Thanks to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the world now knows that the USA's self-professed ability to fight two major wars simultaneously was a pipe dream. Fighting two mere insurgencies at the same time bankrupted us. Cohen believes that while Obama is realizing our limitations the adventuresome Putin is taking 'advantage' of him. History will tell us if Russia's moves into Crimea and Syria were successful. I think not.
1
Unbelievable. You guys are like a broken record.
2
I've long maintained that history will say that Russia won the Afgan War by getting us to take it over. Perhaps by the US, "keeping our powder dry" for a while we will have a better opportunity to step in positively and decisively in the future. There is no telling. It is the Middle East and at some point those problems have to be fixed by those living there. We are not going to disappear in that area,
The Middle East has become like Haiti, it's always being destroyed and needs to be rebuilt. Some places just tap your resources so much it's better to leave it alone and invest the money here. Obama is 100% correct in leaving this money pit. It's literally killing our country.
Yes mr. Cohen , "time of wound-licking American incoherence", let the Middle East burn.
President Obama wins with his mind and strategy. That really stymy's leaders (Putin, ISIS) who are just bully's with big sticks. The gun's, glory and gore people are loosing. They are not happy because war is big money and power for those who have nothing else..
1
Cohen's acting out once again as the resident war hawk on the editorial page at the NYT. He pines for the good old days during the 2Oth century. It was an era when presidents knew how to exercise military power and weren't afraid or reluctant like President Obama is to exercise that power. Cohen fails to mention the Vietnam War. It was the worst foreign policy debacle in our history, and It was waged with a bipartisan consensus by JFK, LBJ and RMN. Cohen reminds me of Winston Smith in George Orwell's 1984. His job at the Ministry of Propaganda was to throw news clippings into a vacuum tube and they were sucked down the memory hole to be burnt out of existence in a broiler in the basement. That's what ideologues do when faced with facts that never seem to fit into the pigeon holes of their prejudices.
1
A Columbus day, so beautiful traveling the train this autumn, nose pressed to the pane, the magnificent hills of the Hudson, the river so clear, a sheet of glass, a reflecting mirror, where only one solitary swan is to be seen, the sun so bright, the sky so blue, colors so bright and returning home, reflecting on the beauty of tenderness.
How to put closure to this day, but to read what Roger Cohen has to say of this business of living because he offers solace in the midst of chaos for this reader with his quiet tone. 'We are at war' earlier to an American. He agreed, and thought I was referring to the escalating tension between America and Russia. I was thinking of our Country more divided than ever, and he blames the President for this state of affairs. He thought the President had been planning to transform America.
We are both worried. Worried for the future of our children and the legacy we are leaving them. Something is going to give, he added, while I feel it is happening now. Not the brutality of Nations but the enemy within Us.
In 2008 the President addressed America and asked for our help. Having Inherited two wars and a severe Recession, he was not going to be able to restore the Country on his own. It would require a peace-corps mission across the States; a time to pull each other through hardship in the face of adversity.
We do not have a viable candidate for next president and I report this some certainty. Mr. Obama remains my Hope.
How to put closure to this day, but to read what Roger Cohen has to say of this business of living because he offers solace in the midst of chaos for this reader with his quiet tone. 'We are at war' earlier to an American. He agreed, and thought I was referring to the escalating tension between America and Russia. I was thinking of our Country more divided than ever, and he blames the President for this state of affairs. He thought the President had been planning to transform America.
We are both worried. Worried for the future of our children and the legacy we are leaving them. Something is going to give, he added, while I feel it is happening now. Not the brutality of Nations but the enemy within Us.
In 2008 the President addressed America and asked for our help. Having Inherited two wars and a severe Recession, he was not going to be able to restore the Country on his own. It would require a peace-corps mission across the States; a time to pull each other through hardship in the face of adversity.
We do not have a viable candidate for next president and I report this some certainty. Mr. Obama remains my Hope.
"Yet the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high."
Really? Higher than the 6,863 U.S. KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan as a consequence of the previous administration's Doctrine of Preemptive War?
Really? Higher than the 6,863 U.S. KIA in Iraq and Afghanistan as a consequence of the previous administration's Doctrine of Preemptive War?
Obama's interview exposed a man who actually thinks he does a good job and a man who has no clue as to the reality of the world. It was a shocking interview and frightening to have a president of the United States who is so delusional and clueless. It was truly a window into a man who lives on another planet!!
If Israel needs security in the Middle East they should put boots on the ground and stabilize their borders. The US can be concerned with the humanitarian issues in the Mideast. Ukraine is a threat to Europe. What is Europe going to do about it? More sanctions anyone? As a US veteran I welcome the reduction and end of American adventurism all over the world. I am too old but my children are that age. Our defense budget should actually be a defense budget. None of the tricky sayings like "the best defense is a good offense." The best defense is the best defense and it involves commerce and economic stability, reciprocal trade agreements, non-proliferation agreements, food security, safe and non-toxic environment, clean and potable water, healthcare and human services, beneficial immigration and emigration as well as a strong military. US exceptionalism? I drive a Ford but my wife drives a Toyota and at least part of the fuel comes from the Mideast. All of the parts come from all over the World. The last time I needed help with a purchase, it sure sounded like I was talking to someone in India. My clothes? Hecho in Mexico. Relative to the rest of the World, our borders with Canada and Mexico seem pretty stable and non-violent. Why is that?
I think this column misses a major point. Is it the decline in American power abroad that has led to Russia and China's brazenness? Or does it more reflect a reactionary impulse to reassert their power after falling oil prices in Russia and the leveling off comparative advantage in China have hurt their economies?
It is appropriate that only Republican conservatives will criticize the president for not learning from the bloody history they have written for American families, including the unnecessarily extended Afghan war, the Iraq war, and the Vietnam war. Putin is making Russia look like the old U.S., and let him. Russia’s pilots need the experience, and better for its troops to be engaged on more than one front.
The point the president made in the “60 Minutes” interview that matters is that there is no vital U.S. interest at risk, and that should be the only determinant of whether the U.S. will become militarily involved. The president also didn’t stress, as he did when a senator, that critics of “his” restraint should point their bloodied swords at congress, which has the exclusive constitutional power to initiate hostilities.
And, though Republicans would like to re-write history to stain the president, it is quite unfair, as well as just plain wrong to say the president drew a line with Assad that was ignored. The agreement by the Assad regime to turn over its WMD erased that line, making any lethal action unthinkable.
It is a pleasure to hear a U.S. president resist, with intellect, the persistent push of Republicans and the varied forces of the military-industrial complex, including, seemingly, “60 Minutes’” Steve Kroft, to expand U.S. military involvement in the quicksand of the Middle East.
The point the president made in the “60 Minutes” interview that matters is that there is no vital U.S. interest at risk, and that should be the only determinant of whether the U.S. will become militarily involved. The president also didn’t stress, as he did when a senator, that critics of “his” restraint should point their bloodied swords at congress, which has the exclusive constitutional power to initiate hostilities.
And, though Republicans would like to re-write history to stain the president, it is quite unfair, as well as just plain wrong to say the president drew a line with Assad that was ignored. The agreement by the Assad regime to turn over its WMD erased that line, making any lethal action unthinkable.
It is a pleasure to hear a U.S. president resist, with intellect, the persistent push of Republicans and the varied forces of the military-industrial complex, including, seemingly, “60 Minutes’” Steve Kroft, to expand U.S. military involvement in the quicksand of the Middle East.
Mr Cohen not so subtly implies that President Obama's exercise of restraint equals weakness. Based on our history of ill conceived major interventions in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it seems like restraint actually demonstrates a strength. The knee jerk reactions of Neo Cons to jump into conflicts has resulted in disastrous results for our country, with our young coming home in body bags, or returning without limbs, or suffering life debilitating brain damage, and ending with the demoralizing realization that our policy was a failure.
"Quagmires can be Russian, too. But for now the initiative appears to lie in the Kremlin, with the White House as reactive power. "
So short term the initiative is with Russia but long term Russia's entry will be a quagmire. Seems like it is Russia that has made the long term strategic blunder. Not so far back, it was President Bush proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier. So for a brief period of time, America had seized the initiative and we announced our victory. And then everything turned to ashes.
"Quagmires can be Russian, too. But for now the initiative appears to lie in the Kremlin, with the White House as reactive power. "
So short term the initiative is with Russia but long term Russia's entry will be a quagmire. Seems like it is Russia that has made the long term strategic blunder. Not so far back, it was President Bush proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" on the aircraft carrier. So for a brief period of time, America had seized the initiative and we announced our victory. And then everything turned to ashes.
70
And given the state of Russia's economy with sanctions, drop in oil prices, etc., he'll likely find himself in trouble at home. He doesn't have the treasure we had (before we blew it on Iraq). Not to mention that there are 20 million sunni's living in Russia that could cause him further problems at home.
Is the power of the USA diminished? Well, no but the intransigence of the multiplicity of miscreants in the ME yields no good partner. Sadly, Obama's choices are probably the best. Remember, he criticized GWBush and then, once POTUS, he let stand almost all of the GWB foreign policy. This is more about circumstances than usable power.
Russia may actually be able to stabilize al Assad. That will leave Syria in a mess but, the West is not able to rescue Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, or even the Palestinians from their ingrained violence.
Russia may actually be able to stabilize al Assad. That will leave Syria in a mess but, the West is not able to rescue Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria, or even the Palestinians from their ingrained violence.
I had to read this column twice to see if this was a parody. No reasonable, intelligent person could really write this claptrap!
Have I wandered onto theblaze.com or a Sean Hannity blog?
All I can say is that the next time I go visit my military husband’s grave in the National Cemetery I can tell him that the USA has still lost its collective mind. That his life and the lives of his fellow brothers-in-arms mean NOTHING to old white men who never served in the military.
Have you met our wounded warriors Mr. Cohen? How do I explain to all the young widows/widowers just EXACTLY what their spouses died for in Iraq and Afghanistan? 22 vets are committing suicide each day. Our VA medical facilities are well behind in construction and not attracting more MDs and nurses even though Bob McDonald is working 18 hrs a day to get MTFs (Military Treatment Facilities) up to snuff.
This column is completely outrageous. Yes! Obama has restraint! Thank God!
Have I wandered onto theblaze.com or a Sean Hannity blog?
All I can say is that the next time I go visit my military husband’s grave in the National Cemetery I can tell him that the USA has still lost its collective mind. That his life and the lives of his fellow brothers-in-arms mean NOTHING to old white men who never served in the military.
Have you met our wounded warriors Mr. Cohen? How do I explain to all the young widows/widowers just EXACTLY what their spouses died for in Iraq and Afghanistan? 22 vets are committing suicide each day. Our VA medical facilities are well behind in construction and not attracting more MDs and nurses even though Bob McDonald is working 18 hrs a day to get MTFs (Military Treatment Facilities) up to snuff.
This column is completely outrageous. Yes! Obama has restraint! Thank God!
7
Who cares if Putin struts? In negotiation, I was taught long ago to look in my pocket, not the other guy's.
Besides, if he wants repeat our experience in Iraq, that's fine. The next time planes get flown into a building it will be the Kremlin.
Besides, if he wants repeat our experience in Iraq, that's fine. The next time planes get flown into a building it will be the Kremlin.
Listening to Obama on 60 Minutes and watching him chuckle at Steve Kroft hyperventilating over America's 'decline' in the Mideast, I thank God that we have a President with the courage to 'stay the course' in his foreign policy.
We are NOT the world's policeman. It's time for other countries to step up and clean up their own part of the world. If Russia wants to play world leader and step into the muck of the Mideast, well, I have some land they might want to buy in Florida.
We are NOT the world's policeman. It's time for other countries to step up and clean up their own part of the world. If Russia wants to play world leader and step into the muck of the Mideast, well, I have some land they might want to buy in Florida.
1
Cohen is forgetting recent history. It is a Doctrine of Over-reach than a Doctrine of Restraint. The US overreached by expanding NATO to Russia's border, by engineered the overthrow of the government in Ukraine, and by forcing regime change in Syria. Putin called Obama's bluff by annexing Crimea and supporting rebels in east Ukraine and now by intervening militarily in the Syrian civil war. Not only it is a Doctrine of Over-reach but also of recklessness, amateurist, and strategically shortsighted by underestimating Russian boldness and reaction and the staying power of the Assad government.
1
I assume that in his next column Mr. Cohen will be kind enough to enlighten us us with the specifics of what the U.S. should be doing in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.. I'm really looking forward to it.
" He has probed where he could, most conspicuously in Ukraine, and now in Syria."
These are distortions. Ukraine had a leader, Yanukovych. The US encouraged violent protests which led to his overthrow and the US, contrary to US law, proceeded to recognize the next, anti-Russian government.
Similarly, Syria has a head of state. Obama may not like him but it is not really Obama's business to dislike him, say, "Assad must go" and proceed to arm anti-Assad groups against the government of Syria.
In both cases the aggression came from Obama, though it was covert rather than blatant. But Putin is refusing to play dead, it is not his temperament.
This is not going to end well.
These are distortions. Ukraine had a leader, Yanukovych. The US encouraged violent protests which led to his overthrow and the US, contrary to US law, proceeded to recognize the next, anti-Russian government.
Similarly, Syria has a head of state. Obama may not like him but it is not really Obama's business to dislike him, say, "Assad must go" and proceed to arm anti-Assad groups against the government of Syria.
In both cases the aggression came from Obama, though it was covert rather than blatant. But Putin is refusing to play dead, it is not his temperament.
This is not going to end well.
1
Is is it "restraint" or the succession of
American blatant failures all over but particularly in the Middle East?
Any objective tally of the output of America's M E policy will have to admit a preponderance of failures which made of the USA M E policies far more counterproductive than suspected.
But here, re USA M E policies, one cannot fail,to question and ponder who, or which, was the major driving force behind it?
Was it really planned to,serve the USA or others?
American blatant failures all over but particularly in the Middle East?
Any objective tally of the output of America's M E policy will have to admit a preponderance of failures which made of the USA M E policies far more counterproductive than suspected.
But here, re USA M E policies, one cannot fail,to question and ponder who, or which, was the major driving force behind it?
Was it really planned to,serve the USA or others?
2
Great!
Iran is going to make a deal with us while still working on atomic bombs.
Obama is going to wipe out ISIS terrorists by bombing Iraq and supporting the Syrian rebels.
Who told him to withdraw the U.S. military from Iraq to begin with?
Military analyst Andrew Bacevich said, “What I see is an administration that is content to manage the quagmire that we’ve managed to get ourselves into.”
As Hardy repeatedly told Laurel in the Hollywood film comedies, "A fine mess you've got us into," always blaming everyone else except himself for the trouble he could have avoided to begin with.
Staying the course president Bush and Dick Cheney originally set or a variation therof would have avoided all the mess we're in now all over the world because the success of ISIS has encouraged other Muslims to join.
Same with Afghanistan.
Now it’s Obama’s big mess.
1
Putin's situation is hugely different from Obama's. If he can bolster Assad into defeating the rebels and IS, there is a regime in place and Russia has an ally. For Obama, military success for the rebels would take an enormous military involvement, would not be supported in this country, would be subverted by the Repubs, and the government resulting from the overthrow of Assad, while unlikely to be worse, is a crap shoot at best. Building somebody else's nation hasn't worked out so well for us, ever. The middle east needs to resolve its issues and our involvement should be limited to preventing extreme extremes, which seems to be what Obama is trying to do on an ad hoc basis. What Obama's doing is neither dithering nor isolationism - discretion is the better part of valor.
1
Putin has got the political neurosis, meaning that he is consumed by his fame and his narcissistic quest for more and more power. As these figures do inevitably throughout history, he will go overboard and start eventually to make his own fatal mistakes. America should wait and see. The more he moves, the more he will drown. Dictators always fall, that is why they try so hard to hold on to power. When they fall, their many friends feel threatened, so they become violent. This violence ends when a whole class has swichted allegiance or vanished or been killed..
The guy has no instincts. Can his wife take over?
Putin will learn, as will you, the price of unrestrained military intervention in the Middle East, a part of the world with such complex religious and political hatreds that outsiders find themselves lost in a maze. When Putin's economy, already severely strained by oil price collapse and sanctions for his other mischief, begins to deal with terrorism on a grandiose scale, he may wind up like Il Duce, another bullyboy, hanging from a meathook. Your education may not be as costly. Indeed, I am confident that you will continue to yap from your lofty perch at the Times. President Obama is a man of wisdom. We will miss him sorely.
1
The Middle East is a cacaphony of ethnic rivalries. Turks, Sunni Islamists, Shiite Islamists, Kurds, Alawites, Christians and Jews. The US can't make them want to live together or redefine national borders at this stage to stabilize the Middle East. It is up to the peoples of the Middle East to make order in their region.
Military internvention by the US won't make it any easier. Obama's restraint is correct. If Russia wants to use military power, it is their business. The Middle East is close to their country.
The proper way to deal with Russian overreach is economic sanctions, which is ultimately going to make Putin unpopular. For now he is using extreme nationalism to keep himself in power, but he can't get away with it forever.
I am surprised that a person as sophisticated as Roger Cohen appears to be doesn't have more patience.
Military internvention by the US won't make it any easier. Obama's restraint is correct. If Russia wants to use military power, it is their business. The Middle East is close to their country.
The proper way to deal with Russian overreach is economic sanctions, which is ultimately going to make Putin unpopular. For now he is using extreme nationalism to keep himself in power, but he can't get away with it forever.
I am surprised that a person as sophisticated as Roger Cohen appears to be doesn't have more patience.
" the world is more dangerous than in recent memory."
Perhaps. But this alone cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy without far more rigorous analysis and examples than what is offered here. To assert otherwise is simply if/then thinking that is far too simplistic for the complex world in which we live.
Perhaps. But this alone cannot be attributed to Obama's foreign policy without far more rigorous analysis and examples than what is offered here. To assert otherwise is simply if/then thinking that is far too simplistic for the complex world in which we live.
Syria , Iraq ,Yeman are battle grounds between Sunni and Shia .
Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations want the USA to spend its blood and treasure on fighting on the side of Sunni fundamentalist and accuse our President of lack of leadership because he has the good sense and courage not to do so.
If SaudiArabia wants to rid Syria of ISIS and Al Nusra let them lead the way.
They are the third biggest Defence spenders in the world they do not need us to do the dirty work for them.of course they will not do this for fear of stoking the coals of revolution in their Kingdom
As for Putin , he is firstly late to he party ,secondly in taking the side of Shia,s he is setting himself and his country for a long futile war.
I for one am grateful for the strength of our President in ignoring the cries for war and keeping us out of this total and inevitable mess.
We need to focus on building the incomes of the majority of our citizens,rebuilding our infrastructure and building the best health care system in the world available to all Americans
Saudi Arabia and other Sunni nations want the USA to spend its blood and treasure on fighting on the side of Sunni fundamentalist and accuse our President of lack of leadership because he has the good sense and courage not to do so.
If SaudiArabia wants to rid Syria of ISIS and Al Nusra let them lead the way.
They are the third biggest Defence spenders in the world they do not need us to do the dirty work for them.of course they will not do this for fear of stoking the coals of revolution in their Kingdom
As for Putin , he is firstly late to he party ,secondly in taking the side of Shia,s he is setting himself and his country for a long futile war.
I for one am grateful for the strength of our President in ignoring the cries for war and keeping us out of this total and inevitable mess.
We need to focus on building the incomes of the majority of our citizens,rebuilding our infrastructure and building the best health care system in the world available to all Americans
Recall Carter's response to the USSR invasion of Afghanistan to avoid his appearing weak. He and Brezinski greatly reinforced the Afghan Mujahadeen, seeding al Qaeda and Bin Laden in the process. Neither Russia's nor the US's policies worked out very well. With the historical examples of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya it would be wise to withhold judgment on the wisdom of either Putin's or Obama's moves in Syria at this stage. Machismo-infuenced analyses of foreign policy have generally not stood the test of time.
I would disagree with the statement that "the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high". The fact is that the Middle East does not hold the significance it once, if ever, did for the US. In not a single scenario I know of does the Middle East present a military, economic or cultural threat or opportunity to the US. The impetus of all those wanting another war, - even if not stating it that way -, is that Russia acts, so we must react. Cut off from a strategy and long term objectives this is foreign policy on the school yard level. So if we withdraw Russia and China will seek an entry. After spending trillions in two failed wars in the region, this should be welcomed by the US. If others want to make the same mistakes that we did, they should be welcomed, and not inspire an effort to then double down. It's not a contest in stupidity after all. Recognizing limits on American power is welcome realism and not retrenchment; the exercise of US power should have a clear, objective benefit for the US, beyond a puerile 'we are the strongest'. It is wisdom to not engage in every fight for the simple reason that we could, not weakness. There well may be mayhem, disorder and failed states elsewhere; let the regional powers deal with it. It seems Europe e.g. is doing well by not intervening in every place with the problem, or by 'demonstrating strength'. Breaking the foreign policy paradigm that we need to intervene just because we can is clear progress, rather than weakness.
Finally, a President that has the smarts to see reality. No testosterone driven drivel. But honesty and pragmatism. Wow.
2
"Doctrine of Restraint"? Don't think so...
"Doctrine of The Future" would work better for me.... One inspired by the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine"....
Welcome to the Post-Modern World and the blooming of the 21st Century!
'Bout time! Wahoo!
"Doctrine of The Future" would work better for me.... One inspired by the lyrics of John Lennon's "Imagine"....
Welcome to the Post-Modern World and the blooming of the 21st Century!
'Bout time! Wahoo!
I am eternally grateful that President Obama, with his careful, intelligent, and thorough evaluation about entering foreign conflicts, has chosen to move slowly. I am eternally grateful that President Obama does not consult Richard Haas and Roger Cohen about foreign policy.
Our powerful military inventory can easily mislead us into overestimating our
power to solve problems notwithstanding the lessons of Iraq,Afghanistan.
Syria, Libya etc. One cannot have an interventionist foreign policy predicated
on a weak internal base. Our political paralysis is the symptom of our system
deficiency which hollows out our middle class and exacerbates inequality.
Foreign commitments may lead to internal dislocations which we cannot afford
power to solve problems notwithstanding the lessons of Iraq,Afghanistan.
Syria, Libya etc. One cannot have an interventionist foreign policy predicated
on a weak internal base. Our political paralysis is the symptom of our system
deficiency which hollows out our middle class and exacerbates inequality.
Foreign commitments may lead to internal dislocations which we cannot afford
Obama's Syrian policy may very well bring Europe to its knees with millions upon millions of refugees it cannot afford. Along with the refugees will inevitably come ISIS returnees bent on chaos and destruction. Europe will be forced into redefining itself as it has already started to do. This will lead to unsettling anxious times for the foreseeable future. All because we have a complete fool in the White House. Your remarks that we left Afganistan and Iraq in tatters is categorically untrue. Kabul is thriving. High rises are everywhere. Children go to school. Women hold electoral office. The mayor of Bagdad is a woman. The chaos was caused by Obama playing nice to Muslims by leaving Iraq with no American military backup. Syria is another story but ISIS would never have made it into Iraq if Obama had left a small but effective force there. Obama has done great things and he is brave but when it comes to foriegn policy he has abdicated his responsibility in exactly the same way a teenager gets in a car after drinking at a party. It's truly a catastrophe that will last decades. American can't wait much longer to get Barry out of the White House.
Again, I find Mr. Cohen's assessment historically inaccurate. One quick comparison would be America's impudence while Russia (then USSR) invaded Afghanistan. Now or then, no one would accuse Reagan of acting "restrained", yet, officially, the U.S. had no policy in Afghanistan.
Historically Obama is following a foreign policy the U.S. has adapted many times.
One thing stays the same, people forget the past.
Historically Obama is following a foreign policy the U.S. has adapted many times.
One thing stays the same, people forget the past.
When at last the United States shows maturity and restraint, Mr. Cohen and the warmongers turn up the rhetoric. How has war worked for us over the last 70 years? Still he would have us believe that we are just a bit of bluster and a few more bombs away from peace. Aren't we still militarily in over a hundred countries and often killing people with no real purpose?
If the creators of Star Trek knew enough to not intervene in alien cultures, what is it that keeps us from taking the long view? Oh, what is at stake are the egos and pride of the author and his friends. We can no longer afford this folly.
If the creators of Star Trek knew enough to not intervene in alien cultures, what is it that keeps us from taking the long view? Oh, what is at stake are the egos and pride of the author and his friends. We can no longer afford this folly.
The world needs a policman as much as America needs policmen. To argue otherwise is to give in to foreign power. We don't need another Vetnam or Iraq but the opposite is just as poor a strategy. Now that Putin is involved is not the time to bolster support for the Syrian rebels. That time has come and gone.
What a phenomenal buch of hogwash. There are holes that really should be avoided. If Russia didn't learn from their Afghan experience, then so be it. They have chosen the easiest side to support, Assad; and that will surely come back to bight them at home. They haven't just chucked a rock at the hornet's nest; they've stuck the nest on their head.
I'll take restraint any day, thank you.
I write this as a survivor of another war we just had to get into to show Russia and China how strong we are. I now wear t-shirts manufactured in that First Trading Nation...Vietnam.
I'll take restraint any day, thank you.
I write this as a survivor of another war we just had to get into to show Russia and China how strong we are. I now wear t-shirts manufactured in that First Trading Nation...Vietnam.
So what's the better 'lead from the front' option? Boots on the ground in Libya? In Syria? War with Russia over Crimea? To follow in the same footsteps that cost us all those lives and dollars in Afghanistan and Iraq? How are those two examples of 'American power' any argument for more of the same? Military engagement surely feels like you're doing something. It surely will make things different -- but different isn't necessarily better, is often worse, and with military engagement always comes with the cost of blood and dollars. Obama's restraint is nothing more than a realization that these problems do not have a simple military fix.
Obama's restraint is exactly what has been needed.
Obama's restraint is exactly what has been needed.
The problem with Mr. Cohen's thesis is that it presumes that there is order to be had under the chaos. The so-called moderate rebels seem to come and go according to the administration's political agenda. The fluidity among rebel groups and dominance of ISIS suggests that there are no reliable partners on the ground.
Let's say we defeat the Iranians Russians- who would take Assad's place? What institutions of government would remain in the post Assad period? Would Saudi Arabia and gulf states allow a secular or Shia government to take Assad's place?
Let's say we defeat the Iranians Russians- who would take Assad's place? What institutions of government would remain in the post Assad period? Would Saudi Arabia and gulf states allow a secular or Shia government to take Assad's place?
Constraint is the first start: don't fall for the quagmire sinkhole of trillions. You can't bomb Sunni Muslims into moderation. If the President can resist this, including a withdrawl from proxy war: funding "rebels" only weaponizes terrorists expanding the conflict. The President at worst can sit back and watch the various powers vying to control the Middle East rip each other apart without any stability. If he wades in, the quagmire will look the same, but it will have Obama's brand all over it.
The needed move is a bold initiative to gather all these proxy powers funding terrorists (or rebel quagmireists) into a border-drawing and oil-field dividing room for real talk.
If the President can't gather everyone, he can at least gather more and more European and other world leaders who recognize as China, Austria, Spain, Brazil and others do outright, that a powerr-sharing negotiation has to happen at some time. The majority of the world, being so lacking in courage prefer that this happen after World War III.
The president can open up a global rhetoric and create a leader's club of pre-World War III -- we were the ones calling for a power-sharing summit of real talk and realpolitik solutions on these oil field and national border issues driving the terrorism.
President Obama is really the man to do it. The question is, will he be the one who saw the opportunity stalemate presents.
Call for the Treaty of Paris negotiations BEFORE World War 3.
diggingspace.com
The needed move is a bold initiative to gather all these proxy powers funding terrorists (or rebel quagmireists) into a border-drawing and oil-field dividing room for real talk.
If the President can't gather everyone, he can at least gather more and more European and other world leaders who recognize as China, Austria, Spain, Brazil and others do outright, that a powerr-sharing negotiation has to happen at some time. The majority of the world, being so lacking in courage prefer that this happen after World War III.
The president can open up a global rhetoric and create a leader's club of pre-World War III -- we were the ones calling for a power-sharing summit of real talk and realpolitik solutions on these oil field and national border issues driving the terrorism.
President Obama is really the man to do it. The question is, will he be the one who saw the opportunity stalemate presents.
Call for the Treaty of Paris negotiations BEFORE World War 3.
diggingspace.com
This lousy President of ours is placing us a position that is endangering me and my family. He has to be thrown out of office. Right away!!
OK Mr. Cohen, I'll send my son to fight in that caldron, after you send yours first. Also, I assume you want to pay a 'war tax' to pay for it all.
Cohen is a classic NeoCon supporter without the guts of those types who will never admit that they are ever wrong—their superior policies can only be betrayed by the pusillanimous and impatient. Cohen is a waverer, simply more comfortable to be on the side that is acting high & mighty. Right now that is Putin. Before it was Bush/Cheney. Pride goeth before the fall.
Lot of hand wrenching but no alternative policy put forward which will be any different than what we did in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan? Sometime the best option is the patience and restraint, and It takes a lot of courage to restrain yourself.
Late to this discussion, but I beg to differ with Mr. Cohen. If the three stooges of "shock and awe" (Dick, Donnie & W) hadn't recklessly blown the whole place up to begin with, along with much of our military and treasury, there would be no need to fix what would not have been broken. Options for doing so now are about as plentiful as the truth was behind that Mission Accomplished Banner.
The U.S.A. purports to be a representative democracy. The Country could have elected John McCain or Mitt Romney if it hac wanted more war. Didn't happen.
Live with it, and let our military live too.
Live with it, and let our military live too.
Putin right now is where Bush was when he invaded Iraq. Look at what happened, don't be too quick to judge. Putin has a macho attitude Obama doesn't. It is always better to have a cool leader than one who jumps first and thinks later.
For examples of true courage I prefer Ghandi, MLK, and of course Jesus Christ. Pacifists all.
Please, stop being an apologist of Obama.
It is pathetic!!
It is pathetic!!
My question is simple: at what point do we act? At what point do we say enough? Our actions are being interpreted as weakness, and that simply enables Russia, Iran, North Korea and others. I do not know the answer to my question, but I do know if we continue down this path, we will be fighting in time someone and the conflict will not be small.
The U.S. is the "chief underwriter of global security?" Like wrongfully invading Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving them in ruin? Our misadventure in Viet Nam? Our participation behind the Iran/Iraq war? Trading arms for drugs? Ejecting democratically elected leaders in favor of useful dictators?
Causing death, injury, and damage for many thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of others? Impoverishing the U.S.? Maybe Obama is rejecting the Doctrine of Stupidity and Selfishness. Clearly, restraint and informed action is needed. Any cure will take time to take effect.
Causing death, injury, and damage for many thousands of U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of others? Impoverishing the U.S.? Maybe Obama is rejecting the Doctrine of Stupidity and Selfishness. Clearly, restraint and informed action is needed. Any cure will take time to take effect.
1
Cohen is speculating, here, and I strongly suspect his speculations.
1. The world is more dangerous ? So it would be less so if we intervened more forcefully ?
2. Putin and Russia are ascending ? Again, this has yet to be seen.
3. We are weaker ? Doubtful. Our ability to respond is stronger when our forces are less dilute.
4. The cost has been very high ? Followed by "How high we do not know..."
Roger, you're entitled to your opinions but nothing you've cited here supports them.
Effective foreign policy is all about nuance. I believe the current issue of Foreign Affairs gives a balanced account of Obama's efforts.... some wins, some losses, overall, a passing grade.
1. The world is more dangerous ? So it would be less so if we intervened more forcefully ?
2. Putin and Russia are ascending ? Again, this has yet to be seen.
3. We are weaker ? Doubtful. Our ability to respond is stronger when our forces are less dilute.
4. The cost has been very high ? Followed by "How high we do not know..."
Roger, you're entitled to your opinions but nothing you've cited here supports them.
Effective foreign policy is all about nuance. I believe the current issue of Foreign Affairs gives a balanced account of Obama's efforts.... some wins, some losses, overall, a passing grade.
1
The generals were wrong about Vietnam. Wrong about Afghanistan. Wrong about Iraq. Should we establish our own version of the Islamic State which we can call the “Good Syrian Government State.” Is it our right to determine who should rule Syria — or any other country that doesn’t threaten our national security interests? Should we ask the generals what to do in reaction to what Russia is doing in Syria? We already know what they’d say. And they’d be backed solidly by the military-industrial complex we warned about many decades ago by former five-star general President Eisenhower.
".......the face of a vitriolic cacophony from Israel and the Republican controlled Congress." Can't Roger Cohen write one single column without taking a knee jerk cheap shot at Israel while simultaneously swooning over Iran?? Roger Cohen should also keep up with current events--the Republicans are now a house divided against itself as the battle over who will be the next Speaker of the House heats up. Therefore it's a fairly safe assumption that the Republicans won't be paying much attention to Israel for the foreseeable future.
I'm happy Obama avoids wars, it only benefits the oligarchs and the military industrial complex. We lose our men and women, they get the money. Putin had better start feeding his people or he'll be gone soon enough.
Rudderless? Hard left away from more needless wars, while guiding us out of the most useless, most expensive war in our history (Iraq) and out of the longest (Afghanistan) seems like effective crewing to me. Just because Americans have so soon forgotten the daily moments of silence for the 6, 10, 15, 22, or 27 dead Americans soldiers in Iraq at the end of every day's broadcast news, from 2003 onwards, doesn't mean needless, endless warfare is once again American's best policy.
I'm with President Obama - not everything is our fight. The Middle East is a mess that our involvement only made worse. Five thousand American troops killed, tens of thousands grievous wounded, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead and wounds, $trillions spent - on behalf of WMD's that didn't exist should have taught that much at least.
No one who has not served (or had their children serve) in our military should be eager to send others into war. That goes for ALL the Republican candidates. Be a little humble guys. Support your President. Be Anerican!
No one who has not served (or had their children serve) in our military should be eager to send others into war. That goes for ALL the Republican candidates. Be a little humble guys. Support your President. Be Anerican!
From a reading of the "Readers' Picks" of comments below, it appears that Mr. Cohen must be a very lonely neo-conservative.
1
"Doctrine of Restraint"?
More like a "Doctrine of Don't Have the Slightest Inkling" so do nothing.
More like a "Doctrine of Don't Have the Slightest Inkling" so do nothing.
In addition to the considerable list of misjudgments that Mr. Obama has strewn his administration with, there is also the arming of ISIS with vast numbers of captured military weapons that has taken place and is now being used apparently quite effectively by ISIS and its associates in Syria. There may be a plus or two that can be given to Mr. Obama for things he has been able to accomplish, but the number and magnitude of the minuses that he has stumbled into far exceed any pluses that he can claim credit for. Arming ISIS with U.S. military assets so that it was able to mount its current victories has to be one of the huge stumbles amongst a collection of disastrous blunders. With a Congress of Tea Party extremists and life-tenure party faithful there is no effective discussion and debate on the crucial decisions made that have brought us to the condition that ISIS has achieved where it can contest with us militarily. Thankfully, if regretably, Russia and Mr. Putin appears to be our only savior.
Chris Christie calls our President "this weakling in the White House.” Funny coming from a man whose main targets are teachers, state workers and people crossing the George Washington Bridge.
More reason to support our President's restraint and thoughtful approach to a difficult problem that cannot be solved in sound bites from people who have never commanded an army or who don't have children serving in the military.
Mr. Christie, until your Princeton son signs up for service and you have skin in this awful game, until you sit in that chair and have to make life and death decisions for thousands of military and civilians (the same goes for Trump, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz and anyone else who gambles with the lives of our young people), you have no business telling the President how to do his job. You, too, Mr. Cohen.
More reason to support our President's restraint and thoughtful approach to a difficult problem that cannot be solved in sound bites from people who have never commanded an army or who don't have children serving in the military.
Mr. Christie, until your Princeton son signs up for service and you have skin in this awful game, until you sit in that chair and have to make life and death decisions for thousands of military and civilians (the same goes for Trump, Fiorina, Rubio, Cruz and anyone else who gambles with the lives of our young people), you have no business telling the President how to do his job. You, too, Mr. Cohen.
1
And what exactly do you suggest we do about Syria besides sitting around and complaining! The bringing down of Gadafi was brilliant. No need for boots on the ground in endless confusion and great coordination with our true allies. Finesse is much less expensive than endless killing on foreign soil.
If you studied history you'd note that all the greatest powers on earth met the same fate. Defeat and the eventual slide into mediocrity or worse due to total reliance on military solutions.
Let suggest that Obama's use of economic isolation of Iran is unique and another great example of how finesse can substitute brilliantly for the war mongoring we hear from the far right here and in Isreal.
Think about it. Oh, and again what is you solutions? Quit whining. That' so easy.
If you studied history you'd note that all the greatest powers on earth met the same fate. Defeat and the eventual slide into mediocrity or worse due to total reliance on military solutions.
Let suggest that Obama's use of economic isolation of Iran is unique and another great example of how finesse can substitute brilliantly for the war mongoring we hear from the far right here and in Isreal.
Think about it. Oh, and again what is you solutions? Quit whining. That' so easy.
1
The first thing to do is fire all the pundits
First things first: Presidents’ do not go to war - they send good men and women, many of whom are in service just for employment, on their order to possibly die or be maimed. Therefore, being tough and bellicose as Commander-in-Chief just get good men and women killed, in fact; I seem to recall President Eisenhower being one of our most reluctant warriors. Look back at Formosa Straits Resolution for verification
Insofar as I can recall five years ago, three and even last week Syria was under Russia's umbrella and so was Ukraine; what has changed? Mr. Putin now has to send Russia troops to keep Syria and Ukrainian doors open to him where before it was done through a dinner date. And in the matter of Ukraine, along with an unexpectedly steep drop in Russia’s main revenue – oil, Putin’s actions have brought about crippling sanctions.
Further, I am not aware of Putin’s Russia disrupting or threatening USA’s interests, he has directed military force toward his own supposed allies, which include sending troops.
If Mr. Putin has the ‘hold cards’ and is as tough and stronge leader as Obama’s critics believe; they must think a head of state putting his position in jeopardy is a sign of genius. What we have to fear is some sociopath driven to take over Russia’s leadership reins because of Putin’s disastrous economic, political and military moves.
Insofar as I can recall five years ago, three and even last week Syria was under Russia's umbrella and so was Ukraine; what has changed? Mr. Putin now has to send Russia troops to keep Syria and Ukrainian doors open to him where before it was done through a dinner date. And in the matter of Ukraine, along with an unexpectedly steep drop in Russia’s main revenue – oil, Putin’s actions have brought about crippling sanctions.
Further, I am not aware of Putin’s Russia disrupting or threatening USA’s interests, he has directed military force toward his own supposed allies, which include sending troops.
If Mr. Putin has the ‘hold cards’ and is as tough and stronge leader as Obama’s critics believe; they must think a head of state putting his position in jeopardy is a sign of genius. What we have to fear is some sociopath driven to take over Russia’s leadership reins because of Putin’s disastrous economic, political and military moves.
1
No interest in getting back on the battlefield. Period. The end.
1
With 20/20 hindsight, it seems to me that Obama's chief error with regard to Syria was in not establishing a "no-fly zone" thus creating safer havens for those opposing Assad. That this strategy was espoused by John McCain was hardly the strongest recommendation (snark); but the results of the same strategy in northern Iraq, where the Kurds, safe from Saddam's bombs, gassings, and helicopter gunships, developed a functioning state on their own, suggests this might have been a viable strategy, sans "US boots on the ground."
Such a no-fly zone, if in existence, would have precluded Russian airstrikes on the non-ISIL opponents of Assad.
Ah, hindsight.
Such a no-fly zone, if in existence, would have precluded Russian airstrikes on the non-ISIL opponents of Assad.
Ah, hindsight.
I live in a somewhat exclusive area and many of my regular coffee mates, tend to be affluent, white and most with children living the good life with high tech jobs and an active social life. When this group rattles their sabres I challenge them to accept an across the board tax hike and a mandatory draft of all 18 to 30 years olds, their sabres get quiet. They don't want to pay for war and their children have absolutely no interest in leaving their cushy life for a rumble overseas. So if you don't want to pay for war, or send your children off to fight it. Show some restraint.
1
The wars in Iraqi and Afghanistan did not yield victories?
Everyone does realize after Bush left office and Obama took over both those countries were stable and safer than anytime over the past 20 years. Only when it was firmly entrenched the US would pull troops out did the safety and "victory" fade.
Stop having revisionist history for the sake of an argument. Whether right or wrong to go in, don't retell a story incorrectly.
Everyone does realize after Bush left office and Obama took over both those countries were stable and safer than anytime over the past 20 years. Only when it was firmly entrenched the US would pull troops out did the safety and "victory" fade.
Stop having revisionist history for the sake of an argument. Whether right or wrong to go in, don't retell a story incorrectly.
1
Thoughtful article and all great points. Although can't agree with the idea of restraint being the doctrine because we have intervened in Libya, Iraq, and Syria. We are still spending billions on our military endeavors in those countries. The doctrine is not restraint but to oust pro-russian regimes (Ukraine, Syria, Libya) without sending troops even though it comes at tremendous human casualties, million refugees, and chaos afterwards. America played an exceptional role in rebuilding Europe after WWII but apparently there is no interest/intention/plan to rebuild anything meaningful in the Middle East. As an example, we invaded Iraq and toppled their regime, but then we became extremely obsessed with staying out of Iraqi affairs even during President Bush. Or been committed to another stone age policy and a major source of so much misery in the Middle East: preventing Iraq from splitting to 3 new ones at all cost - probably just to please Turkey which has a hard time to keep itself as a united country. Same goes for Syria, we insist on replacing Assad with a pro-saudi/turkey sunni gov without even recognizing the fact that Syria as a country doesn't exist anymore. In contrary to amazing track record of our military and men/women in uniform, but those in the administration who plan/strategize for our policies in the middle east seem to be a bunch of out of touch rookies playing video games. That is why ROI of our enormous presence in the region is extremely low.
In absence of restraint, whose sons and daughters would fight the wars to project American power Mr. Cohen is proposing? Until congress pass laws mandating draft for every eligible man and woman with no exception and how to pay for it, talk of power through the show of military might might have to wait. The nation just went through two wars in which all that advocated for wars found ways to avoid fighting wars when their met went to war. American power and the projection of it should be of interest to every American especially those who have much to gain - from the children of CEOs, pundits and every member of the congress.
1
And what would Mr Haass, and the other chest-pounders suggest? Keep them wars hot and nasty, or just an occasional military style "tough love" for upity smaller countries that just so happen to be sitting on assets our corporations would like to get their hands on?
I think the US has the right leader for the right time. The pressure on Mr. Obama to go to war yet again is enormous. As he pointed out to Kroft in last night's interview broadcast, there are some who would have us back in the ME with hundreds of thousands of troops, and a trillion more spent and have no qualms about it. The definition of insanity is to repeat things that don't work over and over and expect them to work. To the reader below who stated that certain leaders live in a b & w world, I say that it was GW who stated for the whole world, 'You're either with us or against us.'. These leaders you mention have / had to balance a plethora of minorities and sects carefully to survive. GW et al charged in like bulls in a china shop and smashed Iraq to pieces. Now the same interests promoted by their pet "think tanks" want a repeat in Syria. As ridiculous as even this prospect sounds, my personal suspicion is even were we to do this and I hope to God the US doesn't, next will be another "inconvenient" regime to be dealt with in the region, followed by another and another and another... When I saw Mr. Obama taking Kroft on last night, out loud, I said, Thank you, God, for having sent America this president at this time.
1
Would the world be a safer place had Obama left a couple of infantry divisions in Afghanistan and sent a Marine division or so to Syria? Or is the world just getting more dangerous no matter what the United States does?
I congratulate Mr. Cohen's discernment in understanding the risks for America in abdicating its leadership role. I don't understand why he hasn't extended this line of thinking to the Iran nuclear deal. Even within the narrow framework of the argument posed by Obama that the agreement only addresses the nuclear issue and not Iranian aggression in the region, the agreement is still flawed. It is based on the idea that Iran is so invested in its existing stock of refined Uranium and centrifuges, that if we monitor them carefully, Iran's path to the bomb is blocked. But what if there is another, unmonitored path, one in which an outside power covertly provides new supplies of Uranium and centrifuges? Russia is in a position to do so. During the cold war, the Soviet Union provided nuclear technology to its allies, most noticeably China. Are we so sure that Russia would not do the same to cement its relationship with its new ally?
Tell me Roger Cohen how many kids are you willing to kill off? 100, 1000, 10,000 and how much money are you willing to spend? Maybe the Russian people enjoy enjoy killing off their kids to glorify Putin.
2
To mr. Cohen and shalom freedman I would say, thankfully we have a president who is acting in the best interest of the American people not Israel, aipac and the Saudis sixty years of being drawn into the quagmire of the Middle East is enough, I have a feeling Bibi will change his antagonistic demeanor once he understands that he no longer can count on Americans dying and paying for his aggressive policies it can't be soon enough and most American Jews as well as Israelis if election results in Israel were any indication will be glad to show Bibi and adelson the exit.
2
"Obama’s Doctrine of Restraint reflects circumstance and temperament. He was elected to lead a nation exhausted by the two longest and most expensive wars in its history."
- We have listened as this President and supporters told us how tired we are of war, even as chances of war increased. We shunned our military, weakened our offensive and defensive capabilities, hid as Russians and Chinese advanced, and allowed our allies to be pushed, killed, and left without backup.
"But when the most powerful nation on earth and chief underwriter of global security focuses on its limitations … instability can become contagious."
- Nature abhors a vacuum, and those who seek advantage will take it in any such vacuum.
"The world is more dangerous than in recent memory. Obama’s skepticism about American power, his readiness to disengage from Europe and his catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria have left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture, Europe unstable and Putin strutting the stage."
- Obama is responsible for the problems manifest on his watch. The Mideast's dissolution into near anarchy and the rise of Iran are his. Blaming today’s events on George W. Bush prior to 2004 is unconvincing. Iraq was stable then, and was even better up to Obama's troop withdrawal. His mismanagement of Libya and Syria, his bungling of Iran nuclear talks, his misguided effort to bring the Castro brothers legitimacy as their power was ebbing - these are all owned by Obama.
- We have listened as this President and supporters told us how tired we are of war, even as chances of war increased. We shunned our military, weakened our offensive and defensive capabilities, hid as Russians and Chinese advanced, and allowed our allies to be pushed, killed, and left without backup.
"But when the most powerful nation on earth and chief underwriter of global security focuses on its limitations … instability can become contagious."
- Nature abhors a vacuum, and those who seek advantage will take it in any such vacuum.
"The world is more dangerous than in recent memory. Obama’s skepticism about American power, his readiness to disengage from Europe and his catastrophic tiptoeing on Syria have left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture, Europe unstable and Putin strutting the stage."
- Obama is responsible for the problems manifest on his watch. The Mideast's dissolution into near anarchy and the rise of Iran are his. Blaming today’s events on George W. Bush prior to 2004 is unconvincing. Iraq was stable then, and was even better up to Obama's troop withdrawal. His mismanagement of Libya and Syria, his bungling of Iran nuclear talks, his misguided effort to bring the Castro brothers legitimacy as their power was ebbing - these are all owned by Obama.
1
Abandoning Israel to embrace the Iranian nuclear deal is not an example of courage. It is a clear example of bullying a staunch ally of the United States into acquiescence. There was no risk involved. In fact it was a grand display of cowardice. Israel has now been driven to establish closer relations with the "New Soviets". Israel is now looking toward other nations for arms and trade. Israel can no longer trust America.
The so-called "Doctrine of Restraint" has created power vacuums across the globe that Mr. Obama cannot understand. The red-line that was drawn in Syria was nothing more than a green light to Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad. Mr. Obama's failure to defend the red line that he brazenly offered up to stop the use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad only encouraged and indeed, empowered Mr. Assad. One hundred years of the banning of the most horrific means of mass destruction was undone by Mr. Obama's infamous red line.
Other nations have taken measure of Mr. Obama and found him wanting. China builds and militarily fortifies artificial islands. North Korea is now capable of launching long range nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. Crimea is fallen. Ukraine is next as is the rest of Eastern Europe. Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are doomed. Turkey's air-space is deliberately violated. Russia bombs our allies, the rebels in Syria. Iraq and Afghanistan are lost.
The cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high. And we will pay even more dearly in the future.
The so-called "Doctrine of Restraint" has created power vacuums across the globe that Mr. Obama cannot understand. The red-line that was drawn in Syria was nothing more than a green light to Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad. Mr. Obama's failure to defend the red line that he brazenly offered up to stop the use of chemical weapons by Mr. Assad only encouraged and indeed, empowered Mr. Assad. One hundred years of the banning of the most horrific means of mass destruction was undone by Mr. Obama's infamous red line.
Other nations have taken measure of Mr. Obama and found him wanting. China builds and militarily fortifies artificial islands. North Korea is now capable of launching long range nuclear tipped ballistic missiles. Crimea is fallen. Ukraine is next as is the rest of Eastern Europe. Poland, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia are doomed. Turkey's air-space is deliberately violated. Russia bombs our allies, the rebels in Syria. Iraq and Afghanistan are lost.
The cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high. And we will pay even more dearly in the future.
1
If the world was REALLY more dangerous, then why is:
the price of oil falling.
the price of gold falling.
the dollar strengthening.
inflation no where to be found.
the financial sector strong
and:
US Treasury Bills, despite their down grade a few years ago, still the gold standard investment around the world?
I heard a conservative say they other day that the Federal Reserve's consistently low interest rates in this country is causing uncertainty.
In what alternative universe does consistency breed uncertainty?
the price of oil falling.
the price of gold falling.
the dollar strengthening.
inflation no where to be found.
the financial sector strong
and:
US Treasury Bills, despite their down grade a few years ago, still the gold standard investment around the world?
I heard a conservative say they other day that the Federal Reserve's consistently low interest rates in this country is causing uncertainty.
In what alternative universe does consistency breed uncertainty?
2
"rudderless reality" as opposed to what? Just about everything has been tried in the Middle East and failed. The least you can do is to try restraint. Carter was goaded into trying forcefully to retrieve American hostages from Iran. The result was disastrous. Reagan tried to keep the peace in Lebanon, and had to eat crow in the process. H.W. Bush knew when to stop in Iraq and did so. His son, George, did not, and the consequences of his bluster is still on-going after trillions of dollars and tens of thousand American lives and countless Iraqi lives, the reality we now know is that there was no weapon of mass destruction. Russia dared tread where more sanguine powers have trodden before in Afghanistan, an adventure which greatly contributed to the unraveling of the Soviet Union. That region is one where common sense does not make sense. Maybe American policy should apply common sense for a while. There will always be abundant time to revert to other means. Let Putin herd the cats.
The Russian-Iranian Blitzkreig in Syria is a direct consequence of the Iranian Economic Rescue Plan aka Iranian Arms Control Deal. The American hostages fester in prison while previously embargoed billions roll into Tehran. Meanwhile, an Arab civilian invasion into Europe continues unabated. Welcome Iranian Spring.
1
More propaganda from Cohen: "Obama has seemed beset by ambivalence... the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high."
Obama has used restraint (diplomacy) in situations which would lead to further WASTE of our resources, or all-out WAR (as in World War III).
Why does the NYT Times consistently pander for more military involvement?
Obama has used restraint (diplomacy) in situations which would lead to further WASTE of our resources, or all-out WAR (as in World War III).
Why does the NYT Times consistently pander for more military involvement?
1
Cohen says "Yet the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high.....the world is more dangerous than in recent memory. "
Cohen's one dimensional cause/effect thesis takes down his entire argument.
Cohen's one dimensional cause/effect thesis takes down his entire argument.
Obama is right not to commit American lives and treasure to Syria. Where is the compelling national interest? Obama removed all of Assads chemical weapons from the battlefield without firing a shot! The United States should pivot away from the Middle East and away from an oil based economy.
2
With a notable lack of bipartisan support, Obama has never enjoyed anything other than a singular foreign policy operating out of the White House. There is no consensus anywhere in the U.S. political realm on a coherent approach to the ME, Iran and Ukraine. So, what policy there is is Obama's vision, which is more cautious than the hawks demand and more restrained than the Pentagon wants, and less truculent than the media expects.
Which to me means he has it about right, especially to those who don't want to see more American lives squandered and dollars wasted in a futile pursuit of "consensus."
Which to me means he has it about right, especially to those who don't want to see more American lives squandered and dollars wasted in a futile pursuit of "consensus."
1
REJECTING THE VALIDITY OF THE DOCTRINE OF RESTRAINT
Against Obama’s so-called doctrine of restraint
Roger Cohen lodges a complaint,
but I don’t see restraint in his empowering
Iran with weapons it will soon be showering
on adversaries in the orient, who include
our Saudi allies, while the Syrian dude
who caused the dread mess that generated
refugees he’s not incinerated
or poisoned with the gas whose use he said
had crossed a line that he had said was red
is now it hardly could be more bizarre---
is propped up by a former Red, now czar.
What Roger sees as doctrine of restraint
I do believe unfortunately ain’t.
Our President has loosed the dogs of war:
opening for them their tribal door.
If only he had shown, indeed, restraint,
I would not have been writing this complaint.
[email protected]
Against Obama’s so-called doctrine of restraint
Roger Cohen lodges a complaint,
but I don’t see restraint in his empowering
Iran with weapons it will soon be showering
on adversaries in the orient, who include
our Saudi allies, while the Syrian dude
who caused the dread mess that generated
refugees he’s not incinerated
or poisoned with the gas whose use he said
had crossed a line that he had said was red
is now it hardly could be more bizarre---
is propped up by a former Red, now czar.
What Roger sees as doctrine of restraint
I do believe unfortunately ain’t.
Our President has loosed the dogs of war:
opening for them their tribal door.
If only he had shown, indeed, restraint,
I would not have been writing this complaint.
[email protected]
Although Cohen contends that the costs of the doctrine of restraint have been high, I don't think that we can tote up the costs yet. The main thrust of Obama policy in the region is to give the Islamic nations the opportunity to fight ISIS. That is exactly what ISIS doesn't want, because it delegitimates ISIS to fight other Islamic nations. ISIS wants to be viewed as a nation that is fighting an apocalyptic war agains the super powers, because ISIS wants to attract foreign fighters and local Islamists to believe that it is the authentic guardian of the faithful against the crusader. The opposite of the doctrine of restraint is boots on the ground. Cohen doesn't tell you that. But boots on the ground plays into ISIS's propaganda and its hopes. ISIS is thinking just like Ossama when bin Laden said of the Iraq War: "it was a great gift," that galvanized a sundered al-qaeda. Would Cohen play directly into ISIS hand? Is that the strong way to go? Last time US intervened in a major way, that's what created a great political vacuum. Herding that louse Putin is not a pleasant task, but is it really on part in significance with creating yet another major power vacuum for the latest terrorist mutation?
As far as I know,Obama is not to be blamed for any actions or mishaps that were undertaken in his term. There is a huge difference between the presidency of George W. Bush and the presidency of Obama. This President did not come from the same background as the last President . George W. Bush was totally involved directly and indirectly with every action that was undertaken in his term. Why ? Because he grew up into the system. Obama was not born into the same family structure that Bush family grew up. He was not born into politics like both the father and son from the Bush family was born into. So nothing that Obama does is not from his own ideas . It's the Clinton's people who're running this country and Obama is taking all the blame.Everybody should think of Obama like I do and spare him the blame . Like MLK famously said ,"we should not judge a person by the color of his skin but by his deed. " I rest my case.....tkb.
1
The liberal mindset is that if you can't see if, it's not happening. If the U.S isn't involved, everything is just okey-dokey. It's the head-in-the-sand mentality. But can you claim peace if your neighbor is beating his/her spouse? Just because you've washed your hands of it? The withdrawal from Iraq which created a vacuum is equivalent to leaving Vietnam and the horrors that ensued. Same with the horrors that took place in Central Africa while Clinton was preoccupied with Lewinsky.
Sick. You liberals are so proud of yourselves.
Sick. You liberals are so proud of yourselves.
I no longer understand America's Middle East foreign policies. I don't know what we're trying to achieve there. This article by Mr Cohen seems to say only that we're doing nothing. I guess that is okay considering that we've done nothing right over there for the past 14 years.
1
"The world is more dangerous than in recent memory?" Where have you been hiding, Roger? Obviously you've forgotten Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD), the Stasi pitting two-thirds of its East German citizens against the other third and the destruction of the American navy by the Japanese in WWII. And pray tell, what have Syria's problems got to do with the madness of Shiite-Sunni crazies hell bent on eliminating/exterminating each other and all Jews as well? Blaming Obama for a world gone mad with the assistance of W' s and Cheney's adventurism in Iraq and that of previous administrations in South Vietnam and Korea? This column is a sad excuse for "fair and balanced".
1
If the current instability in the Middle East is President Obama's fault, then it is America's fault. If all global instability is America's fault, then the country is saddled by an unaffordable and unsustainable burden. Let other nations pick it up. As for Russia in particular, history tells us that a large power can project military might despite a catastrophic domestic economy. The rarely lamented extinction of the old USSR teaches us this.
But we know how the Soviet Union turned out. It took decades but that sclerotic system of economics and politics crumbled fatally of its own self-inflicted cardiac arrest (sorry Ronald Reagan; you did not single-handedly tear down that wall). On this point, Obama seems to be right. Channeling the footsteps of his hero, Stalin, Putin has put his Russia on the same path with a 21st Century military far weaker than that of his Soviet forebears.
Whose shoes would we rather fill: Putin's or Obama's. My tootsies would select the latter pair, feet-down. We are very lucky with the leader that we have.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
But we know how the Soviet Union turned out. It took decades but that sclerotic system of economics and politics crumbled fatally of its own self-inflicted cardiac arrest (sorry Ronald Reagan; you did not single-handedly tear down that wall). On this point, Obama seems to be right. Channeling the footsteps of his hero, Stalin, Putin has put his Russia on the same path with a 21st Century military far weaker than that of his Soviet forebears.
Whose shoes would we rather fill: Putin's or Obama's. My tootsies would select the latter pair, feet-down. We are very lucky with the leader that we have.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
1
Putin may like the swagger of military intervention, but he fails to see that he is stepping into a quagmire. Returning Assad to power won't end the disruption unless Russian troops stay in Syria to keep Assad there.
1
Who and when and why? Not bad questions and nobody seems to have the answers for us to spend blood and treasure now, so for now , I agree with the President. We need an end game first!
What are the credible alternatives to President Obama's Doctrine of Restraint?
Really, I am truly interested in any well-considered alternatives...anyone?
Really, I am truly interested in any well-considered alternatives...anyone?
This is pure foolishness from people that are supposed to know better. Entering solo into Syria would have been the most rash of policies and this pundit and his sources are well aware that their call for more stringent action means an active military evolvement on the ground. Assad has always a Russian puppet and Putin's thrust may well solve our perceived problem. By solidifying the opposition to Assad around a viable opposing group. Our own quandary has always been which of the multiple opposition groups were going to be better for us and still fight Assad? They are all bad players the opposition is merely ISIS in different forms. The snobbish punditry displayed here only glosses over this reality. they would advocate a rash policy of intervention a la Iraq et. al. with no clear end game. Quite frankly we ar getting rather tired of that.
1
Whatever the state of international power politics we Americans will remain incoherent as a player until we take up telling the truth about our own military history. Particularly the fact that we have failed to win a war since World War II.
Yet we continue push for ever more wars.
Military-Industrial Complex indeed!
Yet we continue push for ever more wars.
Military-Industrial Complex indeed!
9
Putin is merely the embodiment of centuries of Russian ambition. It is a mistake to believe that Russia will stop its expansionism -- as long as we give them opportunity, they will.
Obama's foreign policy has failed in three ways: 1) it didn't recognize that the cold war was merely a setback for Russia, they weren't defeated, merely dormant; 2) we and our allies in western Europe have a strategic interest in the middle east; 3) Passivity, or being nice, only enables and encourages our enemies. In order to operate on the world stage you must project power and a willingness to use it.
It will take years to undue Obama's mess. His weak kneed responses to Putin's advances are an embarrassment. And what Obama doesn't understand is that we can't escape the consequences of our inaction.
While I agree with most of Cohen's column, can't agree that the Iran deal was good or showed that Obama has courage. Ultimately, we are merely postponing a confrontation with Iran until a later date long after Obama has left the stage, but the Iran we will confront then will be stronger and even more determined to attain hegemony.
Obama's foreign policy has failed in three ways: 1) it didn't recognize that the cold war was merely a setback for Russia, they weren't defeated, merely dormant; 2) we and our allies in western Europe have a strategic interest in the middle east; 3) Passivity, or being nice, only enables and encourages our enemies. In order to operate on the world stage you must project power and a willingness to use it.
It will take years to undue Obama's mess. His weak kneed responses to Putin's advances are an embarrassment. And what Obama doesn't understand is that we can't escape the consequences of our inaction.
While I agree with most of Cohen's column, can't agree that the Iran deal was good or showed that Obama has courage. Ultimately, we are merely postponing a confrontation with Iran until a later date long after Obama has left the stage, but the Iran we will confront then will be stronger and even more determined to attain hegemony.
7
There are only 143 million citizens in Russia with the ethnic Russian Orthodox majority rapidly aging and shrinking. While the non-ethnic Russian natives and neighbors are growing and more youthful Muslims. The Soviet Union lost 27.5 million dead during World War II. China and India with their billions of peoplr are rising.
Japan has 127 million citizens with the 3rd world nominal economic GDP. The EU with 503 million people and a nominal GDP of 18.5 trillion GDP makes up 7% of Earthlings and 24% of world wealth
America spends 8x what Russia does on it's military. With the 320 million Americans making up 5% of the planet's people, America's 16.8 trillion nominal GDP, America has 22% of worldly wealth.
Your opinions are historically and currently inaccurate.
Japan has 127 million citizens with the 3rd world nominal economic GDP. The EU with 503 million people and a nominal GDP of 18.5 trillion GDP makes up 7% of Earthlings and 24% of world wealth
America spends 8x what Russia does on it's military. With the 320 million Americans making up 5% of the planet's people, America's 16.8 trillion nominal GDP, America has 22% of worldly wealth.
Your opinions are historically and currently inaccurate.
Did Dick Cheney submit a NYT column under the name of Roger Cohen?
What matters in the world today is economic power, international alliances and leadership in existential issues like climate change.
Russia has one ally, Syria. The US has treaties and alliances with over 60 nations. Russia has two export goods, fossil energy and military equipment while the US has a diversified export economy and the world's reserve currency.
Russia is experiencing a deep recession, devalued currency, capital flight, brain drain and a lot of empty glittering skyscrapers in Moscow, one of which houses a $25 a night youth hostel.
Russia is so alienated from the G-20 and UN that Putin doesn't even spend the night when he attends global summits because no one wants to talk to him.
But somehow, guys like Cohen want us to imagine that Putin is "winning".
What matters in the world today is economic power, international alliances and leadership in existential issues like climate change.
Russia has one ally, Syria. The US has treaties and alliances with over 60 nations. Russia has two export goods, fossil energy and military equipment while the US has a diversified export economy and the world's reserve currency.
Russia is experiencing a deep recession, devalued currency, capital flight, brain drain and a lot of empty glittering skyscrapers in Moscow, one of which houses a $25 a night youth hostel.
Russia is so alienated from the G-20 and UN that Putin doesn't even spend the night when he attends global summits because no one wants to talk to him.
But somehow, guys like Cohen want us to imagine that Putin is "winning".
26
I will pile on to the criticism of Cohen. Obama is doing exactly what he said he would do, that is to advance the USA's interest by becoming a team player and by pulling back from unpopular, unwinable wars. The countries in the Moslem middle east must come to grips with their own problems which are enormous and include medieval religious conflict, lack of education for the young, lack of jobs, and a lack of consensus on form of government. Which country is better off for inserting itself into this witch's brew? I think we learned our lesson and know the answer to that.
Honestly, war is only effective for conservative political support; it rarely has any positive external outcomes (attention: Hillary Clinton). Whether the war is initiated by Russia or the United States is irrelevant. Unless there is a clear and present danger to the boundaries of nation states as they have largely existed since 1945, the United States has very little rationale for committing vast amounts of Federal dollars to a lost cause in the desert. This should be doubly true during our present domestic political crises; as the Freedom Caucus believes it is in America's best interest to default on our imaginary debt and send the world into another Great Recession. This lunacy, of course, is the price of our perfect democracy.
10
Why must we be in the Middle East at all? What advantage does it give us? How much have we lost in blood and treasure already? Why continue down this endless path?
76
The world economy is dependent on Middle East oil and that is not going to change in the next few decades.
Dear Carolyn,
Because if you won't be there it may be in the hands of really bad people. It is not only about oil, but about creating a massive refugees in Europe, controlling trades. Stop be naive. Look at what Chavas would have done to the US given the opportunity. Look at what Saddam Hussein did to his neighbors. Looks at what Ahmadinejad would have done if he could.
Because if you won't be there it may be in the hands of really bad people. It is not only about oil, but about creating a massive refugees in Europe, controlling trades. Stop be naive. Look at what Chavas would have done to the US given the opportunity. Look at what Saddam Hussein did to his neighbors. Looks at what Ahmadinejad would have done if he could.
All this has said to Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping that this is a time of wound-licking American incoherence.
[ This is a crude and malicious passage, no more than that ]
[ This is a crude and malicious passage, no more than that ]
18
It is far more than that.
It is a claim that IN FACT Russian and chinese leaders do not know what US policy is--which is inherwnt,y destabilizing--and think that it is a good time to take advanatge by doing things they otherwise would not.
For pity's sake, there is a reason there is something known as foreign policy, that probably went bakcwards when it became international relations, and definitely when it became IR. One reason it is a real diacipline is that PERCEPTION MATTERS.
It matters in the Ukraine. In Syria. In fake south china sea islands. In The DMZ. In Iraq. In afghanistan. In Pakistan. For pity's sake this is basic.
It is a claim that IN FACT Russian and chinese leaders do not know what US policy is--which is inherwnt,y destabilizing--and think that it is a good time to take advanatge by doing things they otherwise would not.
For pity's sake, there is a reason there is something known as foreign policy, that probably went bakcwards when it became international relations, and definitely when it became IR. One reason it is a real diacipline is that PERCEPTION MATTERS.
It matters in the Ukraine. In Syria. In fake south china sea islands. In The DMZ. In Iraq. In afghanistan. In Pakistan. For pity's sake this is basic.
4
Cohen characterizes President Obama's foreign policy as " wound-licking American incoherence." Cohen is more comfortable with 4,200 slain Americans in Iraq and others in Afghanistan. Of course, Cohen's comfort reflects his comparative safety inside a newspaper office.
74
What's his response to his children being introduced to this insanity?!
It may be worthwhile to summarize the many fine comments, already saying in detail what is wrong with this column, as: This is possibly Cohen's worst column ever. Mr. Cohen, stay away from seductive neocons. You have been right and wrong, insightful and way off base, but write your own thoughts.
53
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't an ill considered and ill advised military foray in the enigmatic and unstable Middle East unleash the forces currently dissecting the region? I highly recommend Tom Friedman's recent column lauding Obama's approach, and predicting a quagmire for "muscular" Putin. His reasoning resonates far more with me.
98
Then we have Chris Christie asserting he would shoot Russian planes down over Syria. Brilliant, just brilliant
"Don't do stupid stuff" isn't a legitimate policy position if you then consider every single possible move to be "stupid." That's just avoidance.
4
Begging the question is stupid stuff.
You prefer, perhaps, The Charge of The Fools Brigade into Iraq, led by Viet Nam dodging cowards Bush and Cheney on their way to being war criminals?
Their wasting of the lives of 4,489 GI's, the lifetime maiming of 13,000 GI's, the lifetime of PTSD and TBI of hundreds of thousands of GI's?
Not to mention the slaughter of a couple of hundred thousand absolutely innocent Iraqi civilians?
Their wasting of the lives of 4,489 GI's, the lifetime maiming of 13,000 GI's, the lifetime of PTSD and TBI of hundreds of thousands of GI's?
Not to mention the slaughter of a couple of hundred thousand absolutely innocent Iraqi civilians?
4
Roger Coheb's record in Wikipedia:
"Cohen supported the American-led invasion of Iraq."
"(Cohen) criticised Democratic candidate Barack Obama's calls for a 16-month withdrawal from the country, calling it irresponsible."
"On 12 July 2011, Cohen, published a New York Times Op-Ed piece called "In Defense of Murdoch". The article lauds Murdoch's "loathing for elites, for cozy establishments and for cartels", and praised Murdoch's "no-holds-barred journalism". Cohen states that the enterprising Murdochs have been "good for newspapers over the past several decades...and... good for free societies and a more open world".
Wrong then, wrong now.
"Cohen supported the American-led invasion of Iraq."
"(Cohen) criticised Democratic candidate Barack Obama's calls for a 16-month withdrawal from the country, calling it irresponsible."
"On 12 July 2011, Cohen, published a New York Times Op-Ed piece called "In Defense of Murdoch". The article lauds Murdoch's "loathing for elites, for cozy establishments and for cartels", and praised Murdoch's "no-holds-barred journalism". Cohen states that the enterprising Murdochs have been "good for newspapers over the past several decades...and... good for free societies and a more open world".
Wrong then, wrong now.
138
Sun Txu wrote 2500 years ago in his Art of War --
When strong appear weak. No doubt it invites people like Putin to move in, but he cannot succeed only deplete his energy - people and treasure.
When strong appear weak. No doubt it invites people like Putin to move in, but he cannot succeed only deplete his energy - people and treasure.
Many supported the Iraq War because we didn't think Bush was lying to us about such an important matter. It's nothing to be ashamed of.
You 're batting pretty bad. Need to bench Mr. Cohen here.
Mr Cohen, I am a big supporter of yours as you are one of the few who has the balls to write truthfully about Israel and her desperate situation, but... when you start questioning the will and insight of Obama in regards to the Syrian mess I must say you are walking a careless line.
I openly admit that his 'red line' remarks were foolish and obviously undressed him, but he did, maybe out of desperation, throw the issue of intervention to congress and they said, "Oh No".
The reason that I appreciate Obama's reluctance to dance with mess in Syria has much more to do with with Sykes _ Picot that it has to do with Assad or the Alwites.
The jurisdiction of Syria after WW1 was as a French Mandate. The Arab Republic of today's Syria came into being in late 1961 after December 1 constitutional referendum, and was increasingly unstable until the Ba'athist coup d'état, after which the Ba'ath Party has maintained its power. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.[11] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1970 to 2000.
This is but another example of victors spoils turned sour. This state, once the essence of Mesopotamia, has been bought and sold and raped for over a century and anyone who thinks that we can venture into this mess hasn't done their homework.
I openly admit that his 'red line' remarks were foolish and obviously undressed him, but he did, maybe out of desperation, throw the issue of intervention to congress and they said, "Oh No".
The reason that I appreciate Obama's reluctance to dance with mess in Syria has much more to do with with Sykes _ Picot that it has to do with Assad or the Alwites.
The jurisdiction of Syria after WW1 was as a French Mandate. The Arab Republic of today's Syria came into being in late 1961 after December 1 constitutional referendum, and was increasingly unstable until the Ba'athist coup d'état, after which the Ba'ath Party has maintained its power. Syria was under Emergency Law from 1963 to 2011, effectively suspending most constitutional protections for citizens, and its system of government is considered to be non-democratic.[11] Bashar al-Assad has been president since 2000 and was preceded by his father Hafez al-Assad, who was in office from 1970 to 2000.
This is but another example of victors spoils turned sour. This state, once the essence of Mesopotamia, has been bought and sold and raped for over a century and anyone who thinks that we can venture into this mess hasn't done their homework.
63
good analysis.
Thank you for your paragraph #2 where you remind everyone that President Obama consulted with the congress on the matter of intervention and the Congress said "NO".
Putin hasn't seized "on this profound foreign policy shift in the White House." It's just that Syria is Russia's only ally in the region.
Simply, Putin likes to take risks. Conversely, President Obama doesn't like to take risks or do "stupid stuff" abroad.
And in Syria, so far, Putin's commitment, along with the military, financial and domestic political risk, is minimal. Things may get serious if Assad's ground operation sputters, which is likely. Then Putin will face a choice between really doubling down and sending ground troops and telling Assad that he could do no more and that it was time to negotiate a power transition.
Putin has proved to be a risk taker in Ukraine, and he will be tempted to take the first path. His generals and defense industry managers will be pushing him in that direction: There are plenty more weapons to test and crack troops to try in battle. The risk of a lengthy conflict, casualties and diplomatic losses in the Middle East would, however, be considerably higher than it is now.
By comparison, the second path would be painless: Russia would have brought Assad to the negotiating table and helped end the war, which could be sold as a victory both domestically and internationally.
At this point, Putin's options are open. He doesn't have a long-term plan or exit strategy. That won't last. Soon, almost certainly before the end of this year, Putin will need to decide whether to commit himself or end the game.
Simply, Putin likes to take risks. Conversely, President Obama doesn't like to take risks or do "stupid stuff" abroad.
And in Syria, so far, Putin's commitment, along with the military, financial and domestic political risk, is minimal. Things may get serious if Assad's ground operation sputters, which is likely. Then Putin will face a choice between really doubling down and sending ground troops and telling Assad that he could do no more and that it was time to negotiate a power transition.
Putin has proved to be a risk taker in Ukraine, and he will be tempted to take the first path. His generals and defense industry managers will be pushing him in that direction: There are plenty more weapons to test and crack troops to try in battle. The risk of a lengthy conflict, casualties and diplomatic losses in the Middle East would, however, be considerably higher than it is now.
By comparison, the second path would be painless: Russia would have brought Assad to the negotiating table and helped end the war, which could be sold as a victory both domestically and internationally.
At this point, Putin's options are open. He doesn't have a long-term plan or exit strategy. That won't last. Soon, almost certainly before the end of this year, Putin will need to decide whether to commit himself or end the game.
9
"Yet Obama does not lack courage. Nor is he unprepared to take risks. It required courage to conclude the Iran nuclear deal — a signal achievement arrived at in the face of a vitriolic cacophony from Israel and the Republican-controlled Congress."
Rog: the ink isn't even dry yet on this thing, and you're already proclaiming it a great moment in history. Understandable considering how much emotional investment you put into supporting the Iran deal. Of course, you conveniently left out the fact that the Gulf States were also strongly against it as was most of the Israeli Left -- not just your traditional buggaboo Netanyahu. Amos Yadlin who would have been Isaac Herzog's defense minister if he had won the election gives it about five years of advantage to Israel before it unravels.
Maybe it will prove to be a great moment in history. But if it turns out to be yet another example of an aggressive power correctly reading Obama vacillation and desire to disengage, let's see how much courage you'll show if/when you have to admit you were as fully wrong as you were with your early encomiums to the the Arab Spring as well as to the mullahs of Iran pre-brutal crackdown of the reform movement there -- caught literally flat-footed in Iran yourself while busy with your Netanyahu paranoia columns.
Rog: the ink isn't even dry yet on this thing, and you're already proclaiming it a great moment in history. Understandable considering how much emotional investment you put into supporting the Iran deal. Of course, you conveniently left out the fact that the Gulf States were also strongly against it as was most of the Israeli Left -- not just your traditional buggaboo Netanyahu. Amos Yadlin who would have been Isaac Herzog's defense minister if he had won the election gives it about five years of advantage to Israel before it unravels.
Maybe it will prove to be a great moment in history. But if it turns out to be yet another example of an aggressive power correctly reading Obama vacillation and desire to disengage, let's see how much courage you'll show if/when you have to admit you were as fully wrong as you were with your early encomiums to the the Arab Spring as well as to the mullahs of Iran pre-brutal crackdown of the reform movement there -- caught literally flat-footed in Iran yourself while busy with your Netanyahu paranoia columns.
5
It may be clear to Putin that "weakness lies in the White House", but it is clear to me that stupidity lies in Putin, and self and country preserving intelligence lies in the White House. Putin can "have at it" in Syria; just like Russia "had at it" in Afghanistan, and we stupidly "had at it" in Afghanistan and Iraq. These imbiciles , including apparently Steve Croft of 60 minutes, wanting us to go into Syria to "show how strong we are" and " to lead" , fortunately are not in charge, and fortunately President Obama Is in charge.
38
I'm glad someone else saw Steve Croft trying to zing the Prez!
How about calling a spade a spade. This is not a doctrine of restraint,but a doctrine of surrender. Congress should appoint an Independent Counsel to investigate evidence that Obama is guilty of treason. He has bypassed US intelligence agencies, conducting secret negotiations with Iran using people with documented links to Iranian intelligence (IRGC intelligence) officials. He has allowed Russia to push America around to a degree the USSR never dreamed of. I have documented evidence of everything I have said here, which I can supply upon request.
5
Maybe they could investigate the treason of the House.
Please do-cite your sources.
Treason? Yeah, you'd like that. But there's one problem: Putin's not a natural-born U.S. citizen.
Mr. Cohen's analysis is fatally flawed, and this is unusual for him. Russia's intervention in Syria is qualitatively different from what even the biggest Syria hawks have envisioned. Russia is intervening in SUPPORT of Assad, and with the all-important logistical support for military operations, especially air bases. As the US would have intervened AGAINST Assad, we would have needed more distant and totally unreliable/unavailable logistical bases either in Turkey, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or Isreal. All, for various internecine Middle East political reasons, are not options. Waging war from offshore carriers is the Libya model, and would be have even worse outcome in Syria. So, get your military and geo-political strategic ducks in a row before lobbing bombs at the Obama strategy.
18
The liberal press scoffs at republican hardliners who demonize conservative policy proposals by contrasting them with maximalist but undefined alternatives. But now liberal thought has a similar meme: that Putin's reckless adventurism somehow shows up President Obama as being insufficiently macho. These assertions pay lip service to his policy of restraint, which has stanched America's fruitless outpouring of blood and treasure in the Middle East. What the articles do not explain is how the US can conduct an effective military campaign in Syria. Air power alone can't win a war - that was firmly established in WWII. Arming and training freedom fighters can help them take over a country, but once they win, they will govern for the benefit only of themselves and their clan/sect/ethnicity. Alternatively, America could invade and conquer Syria. But then what? Conquered populations bear no love for their conquerors. We watched the USSR learn this lesson in Afghanistan; tragically, we also had to learn it for ourselves. And Putin is no role model: unlike the US, he is not bound by the inalienability of human rights. Is there really a military strategy that would produce a desirable result for Syria, in a way, cost and timeframe we would consider acceptable? Before minimizing the value of a prudent foreign policy, please explain - how, exactly, could we win in Syria?
30
Bashing Mr. Obama seems to be the objective here. The restraint does not show weakness, rather it shows strength to avoid chest pounding stupidity which seems to want us to get into yet another war. Not good.
46
Weakness is not the opposite of chest pounding. Weakness is demonstrated by not taking any action until it's too late, by drawing red lines and then doing nothing when they are crossed. One may describe human culture and greed as stupidiy, but folding your arms and doing nothing is just as bad.
When Mr. Cohen writes, "...but the world is more dangerous than in recent memory" I feel he must have a very short memory. How does he support this conclusion? Just a gut feeling he has, I suppose.
18
Maybe a gutless feeling.
Every empire has the problem that when it gets vast, everything becomes a threat because everywhere is a border where the reputation is at stage. The American problem isn't restraint, it's an inconsistent refusal to let other people wrestle with their own problems. Ukraine, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan -- they can't keep out, and yet their interventions are hopeless and dangerous. The British had the same problem, as did the Romans, as did the…..
21
I knew we were in trouble when Daddy Bush made his New World Order speech.,
Yes, Mr. Cohen, the situation in the Mideast does cry out for a new Vietnam-style American intervention. But for my part, I have had it with the Dick Cheneys of this world who promise easy victories without having workable plans of occupation or a credible endgames. Obama has done the most important thing: he has rebuilt US power so that it will be ready when real crisis comes. Would you actually prefer full-steam-ahead 'patriots' to return to the command of US armed forces, and for Israel to call the tune while we pay the piper? I would rather see 'Nothing in excess,' a motto that is especially relevant in countering military adventurism. It's not a crime to sit out the dance of dance, nor do we accrue guilt by letting the madmen have their day without shedding American blood. The Department of Defense is there, as its name strongly suggests, to defend US territory, not to involve itself in the bloody international conflicts of the moment, and there is nothing more destructive of the DoD's mission than placing our defenses too far forward. If you, Mr. Cohen, prefer to find a foreign fire and throw yourself in, you are welcome to be my guest. But please don't urge my nation to follow your example.
52
"Obama has done the most important thing: he has rebuilt US power so that it will be ready when real crisis comes."
NOT SO, our Dear Leader has done everything in his power to reduce the US nuclear stockpile and reduce the size of our armed forces.
NOT SO, our Dear Leader has done everything in his power to reduce the US nuclear stockpile and reduce the size of our armed forces.
1
1) The world, including the Middle East, is not more dangerous because of Obama's policies. If this is what Cohen implies in the last paragraph, I completely disagree. As far as the MidEast is concerned, Bush's war based on lies and deceit did far more to make that region less safe.
2) If you were to ask me whether I wished it were American air force jets flying over Syria right now and dropping bombs instead of Russia's, I would not hesitate to say of course not.
3) Obama's detractors seem to be making the argument--a valid one, I think--that in foreign policy WORDS ARE POLICY, whereas in domestic politics they are far less so. But given Obama's ambiguity at times between words and actions, I, for one, support Obama's restraint in action. Consider the alternative with Syria and his "red line in the sand" phrase: he'd be lambasted for going into Syria with the military just because he limited his options by using that phrase.
The second president, John Adams, kept the U.S. out of war with France but gets little credit for it except by historians. Similarly, I think time will prove Obama's restraint against adventurism not only reasonable but in the nation's interest.
2) If you were to ask me whether I wished it were American air force jets flying over Syria right now and dropping bombs instead of Russia's, I would not hesitate to say of course not.
3) Obama's detractors seem to be making the argument--a valid one, I think--that in foreign policy WORDS ARE POLICY, whereas in domestic politics they are far less so. But given Obama's ambiguity at times between words and actions, I, for one, support Obama's restraint in action. Consider the alternative with Syria and his "red line in the sand" phrase: he'd be lambasted for going into Syria with the military just because he limited his options by using that phrase.
The second president, John Adams, kept the U.S. out of war with France but gets little credit for it except by historians. Similarly, I think time will prove Obama's restraint against adventurism not only reasonable but in the nation's interest.
54
Cohen flings a widely touted but smelly red herring here. Comparing President Obama's restraint to Putin's actions is grossly false equivalence. Putin is attempting to preserve some remnants of his footprint, his only client-state in the Middle East. Does anyone seriously believe Obama would stand by idly while one of our long-standing clients (Iraq and Afghanistan don't qualify) was under a sustained attack similar to that arrayed against Syria? The lust for more US-driven regime change is a neocon push (a significant number of neocons were urging an invasion of Syria as early as 2004); resisting that call signifies strength, not weakness.
48
What is the obsession with American Power? and it's retention? Give me American Excellence, please! For that has certainly waned in the pursuit of American power.
75
Brilliant observation, and expertly expressed.
Is is achievable and is it in our interest?
Very little in the M.E. has been affirmative to those two questions in the past decade.
Let's look at a single spot: Libya.
Had we put thousands of soldiers in Libya perhaps the diplomats would still be alive today or perhaps they would have been killed on another day in another way. Imagining a Libya where thousands of US soldiers are stationed one must imagine fire fights, roadside bombs, and kidnappings. How many US would be dead in that scenario? Many more than we actually lost. And, what would be the state of Libya today if we had put 5000 or 10,000 troops on the ground? Would Libya be a stable Democracy?
No, their would only be different dead people and refugees desperate for different reasons. The outcome no matter how we play this game is always going to be the same - chaos flamed by zealots who kill and kill and kill.
Very little in the M.E. has been affirmative to those two questions in the past decade.
Let's look at a single spot: Libya.
Had we put thousands of soldiers in Libya perhaps the diplomats would still be alive today or perhaps they would have been killed on another day in another way. Imagining a Libya where thousands of US soldiers are stationed one must imagine fire fights, roadside bombs, and kidnappings. How many US would be dead in that scenario? Many more than we actually lost. And, what would be the state of Libya today if we had put 5000 or 10,000 troops on the ground? Would Libya be a stable Democracy?
No, their would only be different dead people and refugees desperate for different reasons. The outcome no matter how we play this game is always going to be the same - chaos flamed by zealots who kill and kill and kill.
35
And now they are invading Europe. And Mr Cohen wants to bring them in freely there and to the USA as well.
1
By what right does the Us get to arbiter of Libya's fate in the first place?
World War II was vastly more expensive than Iraq or Afghanistan, and Vietnam also cost much more. This may be obscured by their smaller nominal-dollar figures for cost, since inflation has been several hundred percent since both wars, but a simple total of soldiers sent and how long they were sent easily reveals how much more expensive those wars were.
7
Restraint is another word for realism. I prefer reality based policy, not itchy trigger finger policy.
Syria is harvesting the wrath of decades of brutalizing their neighbors and their own people. It isn't the United States job to police the world.
Syria is harvesting the wrath of decades of brutalizing their neighbors and their own people. It isn't the United States job to police the world.
207
But, it is the United States' responsibility to clean up or at least help clean up messes its policy created - ISIS being one of them.
I see the seeds of the current situation in the Middle East as having been sown by our reaction to 9/11.
25
Agreed. An over reaction and I foolishly bought into the Afghanistan war. I had regained my senses to be firmly opposed to Iraq.
I see it starting when the world started giving all the money and power to Saudi Arabia and others in exchange for cheaper oil and commercial access.
Bush's Follies only worsened the situation.
Bush's Follies only worsened the situation.
1
"Catastrophic tiptoeing", my eye. When is this country- starting with the American opinion pages- going to wake up to the new Middle East reality that we don't need their oil anymore? None of what is going on over there has anything to do with us whatsoever, and outside of some twisted third derivative slop about the world not being a safer place (blah blah blah) the Syrian conflict has had absolutely zero effect on American national security interests. If Putin wants to start shipping young Russian bodies home to mom in body bags, that's his decision, and has nothing to do with us. "Catastrophic" would be any decision other than to continue to stand back and let them act the way they seem to need to act when we're not inviting them to shoot Americans instead.
10
Their latest downturn notwithstanding, China got it right. Economic power is the dominance of the future. Yes, we should maintain the stainless-steel strength of our military, to protect our borders and our interests. But we should not let ourselves be baited into long, deadly, costly quagmires in the Middle East. Let Russia have it. Putin can take on that region and see how far he gets in an area exploding with religious warfare and old sectarian rivalries. Meanwhile, the United States needs to stay financially sharp and innovative. For example, scalable renewable energy sources might just keep our economy dominant in 20 years ... and help us divorce ourselves from the Middle East, once and for all.
5
Have you been in vacation for the past 15 years, Mr Cohen? President Bush destroyed US credibility in Europe. Into that void stepped Mrs Merkel, who has made it clear that she will block anything which Germany has not proposed. Since Germany is allergic to foreign policy initiatives, this means nothing gets done in Europe except when disaster forces Germany's hand.
Mr Putin has been destabilising neighboring states for many years before Mr Obama became President. Before Ukraine they just happened to be small enough that President Bush could present not to notice.
What direct action do you want to see the President take to end the Syrian civil war? Insert US forces? Remember Iraq? Heavily bomb the cities they are embedded in? Remember Iraq? Back local strong men you know nothing about? Remember Iraq?
"Don't do stupid stuff" is a pretty good starting point for any policy. In the meantime, Mrs Merkel, Germany and Europe have a chance to learn to grow up, Mr Putin is digging himself deeper and deeper into all sorts of mess he can't reverse out of and at least the United States is not making the lives of Syrians even worse while it waits for the opportunity to do something that might actually help. You might find this patience and judgementjusdgement thing frustrating, but it is part of the solution, not the problem as you assert.
Mr Putin has been destabilising neighboring states for many years before Mr Obama became President. Before Ukraine they just happened to be small enough that President Bush could present not to notice.
What direct action do you want to see the President take to end the Syrian civil war? Insert US forces? Remember Iraq? Heavily bomb the cities they are embedded in? Remember Iraq? Back local strong men you know nothing about? Remember Iraq?
"Don't do stupid stuff" is a pretty good starting point for any policy. In the meantime, Mrs Merkel, Germany and Europe have a chance to learn to grow up, Mr Putin is digging himself deeper and deeper into all sorts of mess he can't reverse out of and at least the United States is not making the lives of Syrians even worse while it waits for the opportunity to do something that might actually help. You might find this patience and judgementjusdgement thing frustrating, but it is part of the solution, not the problem as you assert.
14
Not vacation, mr Cohen was residing on another planet where war is the only means to peace and everything is topsy turvy meaning earthly laws of cause and effect do not apply there.
1
So where are the Ukraine and Syria in the big picture, really? The elephant in the room is China.
2
yep, China's watching all this on the evening news, even as they've made themselves the indispensable manufacturer of all computer chips that control US military aircraft, and on and on . . . an elephant never to be noticed by the Grey Lady or any other living in that growing shadow . . .
An act of desperation is not courage.
The iran deal was an act of desperation as Obama tacitly admitted when hes asked, what is the alternative?
The iran deal was an act of desperation as Obama tacitly admitted when hes asked, what is the alternative?
1
Just epically dumb, like most DC foreign policy punditry. Ukraine happened because the US retrenched? Everyone else, like Putin for example, has argued that Putin acted to stave off NATO expansion to include UKR. (Plus, as Obama says, to throw a circus to distract Russians from the lack of bread). What the president has done is follow something like a doctrine of asking first, what is America's strategic interest here, and is it readily achievable? It's when he gets emotional and deviates from that -- i.e. the Syrian "red line" comment -- that he gets into trouble. It's a Doctrine of Asking First What You Are Fighting For, and declining to waste blood and treasure merely to battle for the good opinion of paper warriors in Washington who fancy themselves tough but are merely heedless.
10
I wonder if Russia's foray into Syria will not end up bring back memories of it's predecessor State, USSR, being irretrievably bogged down in Afghanistan.
3
Yes, Putin yearns to return to the glory days of the Soviet Union and their great success in Afghanistan.
Let Putin get Russia involved in the war in Syria hastening Russia's economic demise.
No good has come, or will come, from US entanglement in the middle east.
Let the locals fight it out. We should cut war spending, (we should also stop calling it defense spending), which will go a long way toward balancing the budget.
Let Putin get Russia involved in the war in Syria hastening Russia's economic demise.
No good has come, or will come, from US entanglement in the middle east.
Let the locals fight it out. We should cut war spending, (we should also stop calling it defense spending), which will go a long way toward balancing the budget.
9
Seriously, what part of the U.S. misadventures in the Middle East have really worked out well? After our hapless invasion of Iraq the residents of the region look at us as a cash cow for corruption, aiders and abettors of the worst elements in their cultures and purveyors of everything they despise. We took on a job the British and French made a hash of and we have made no true friends for all our meddling, blood and money. Let Putin bury his sad career there with a huge outlay of military might that his cash-strapped nation can no longer afford. Let's save what's left of our good name and try to give succor to the victims while we lick our national wounds.
At last count there were 36 regional conflicts in various hot spots around the world including civil wars, military coups and violent power struggles in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. While John McCain, Lindsey Graham and other GOP hawks never saw a war they didn't love, President Obama's Doctrine of Restraint sensibly may have avoided unnecessarily filling U.S. body bags and hundreds of billions of wasted treasure.
Mr. Cohen, if you believe in armed conflict and the projection of U.S. power to the world's conflict zones, please tell us to which U.S. Army or Marine units your sons and daughters are assigned, and where they are currently fighting.
Mr. Cohen, if you believe in armed conflict and the projection of U.S. power to the world's conflict zones, please tell us to which U.S. Army or Marine units your sons and daughters are assigned, and where they are currently fighting.
21
I am a bit sick of people who won't have a death in the family if we put boots on the ground defining power as starting wars and sending troops in to countries wherein the humans hate us no matter what we do. I am tired of the fake cheerleaders who want to paint Obama as an international savior. He has been willing, in my opinion, during his administration to fight for one thing the TPP.
He needs to be fighting for Americans not corporations and their greed. He needs to be fighting for Americans not the Saudi theocrats who want us to do their dirty work in Syria and elsewhere. We need to allow the ME to sort itself out and we need to recognize that the people in the ME have been killing each other over religion for centuries with short truces brought on by strong men or short periods of colonial power, not that I approve of it, that put a stop to the violence.
Our mistake is that we are arrogant and clueless. The humans in the ME don't actually want a secular democracy. Most want a theocracy, they just want their form of Islam to be the guiding force. I'm sorry some won't like that but it's a fact. Of course the unfortunate Christians have been targets for all sides.
I say let the Russians have the ME. They won't like it nor will their lovely allies like having a relationship with them they deserve eat other. They deserve each other!
He needs to be fighting for Americans not corporations and their greed. He needs to be fighting for Americans not the Saudi theocrats who want us to do their dirty work in Syria and elsewhere. We need to allow the ME to sort itself out and we need to recognize that the people in the ME have been killing each other over religion for centuries with short truces brought on by strong men or short periods of colonial power, not that I approve of it, that put a stop to the violence.
Our mistake is that we are arrogant and clueless. The humans in the ME don't actually want a secular democracy. Most want a theocracy, they just want their form of Islam to be the guiding force. I'm sorry some won't like that but it's a fact. Of course the unfortunate Christians have been targets for all sides.
I say let the Russians have the ME. They won't like it nor will their lovely allies like having a relationship with them they deserve eat other. They deserve each other!
5
This column reminds me of a veterinary surgeon who did a consult for my pet. After examining my pet's problem, he said, verbatim, "I can't make her better. I might make her worse. You can probably find someone who will operate, but it won't be me."
As long as I live, I will admire him for that. He would have earned a high fee for his work. Instead, he chose to do the ethical thing, the smart thing, the humble thing. That is the "Doctrine of Restraint" in action. I'm glad Obama practices our nation's foreign policy that way. I wish George Bush had.
As long as I live, I will admire him for that. He would have earned a high fee for his work. Instead, he chose to do the ethical thing, the smart thing, the humble thing. That is the "Doctrine of Restraint" in action. I'm glad Obama practices our nation's foreign policy that way. I wish George Bush had.
8
Let's talk first about the desired end result, then about how to get there -- Plan A, B and C, the projected costs in $s and American blood, and the tax(es) required to pay the bill -- debt does matter; no more putting trillions more of debt on the credit card and passing the payment, with interest compounded, on to our children and grandchildren.
And remember, the Constitution clearly and explicitly places with Congress the power to take the U.S. to war with a declaration of war. Per the constitution, the President asked Congress for the required authorization to initiate war against Assad's Syria, initially with missile strikes. The GOP Congress did not vote the authority. The GOP Congress has also not voted a declaration of war (or equivalent) against ISIS. So, thanks to Congress, we have not constitutionally undertaken a 3rd war in the Middle East.
Perhaps the President and the GOP Congress have, through different routes, achieved wisdom about engaging the U.S. in another war in the Middle East.
And remember, the Constitution clearly and explicitly places with Congress the power to take the U.S. to war with a declaration of war. Per the constitution, the President asked Congress for the required authorization to initiate war against Assad's Syria, initially with missile strikes. The GOP Congress did not vote the authority. The GOP Congress has also not voted a declaration of war (or equivalent) against ISIS. So, thanks to Congress, we have not constitutionally undertaken a 3rd war in the Middle East.
Perhaps the President and the GOP Congress have, through different routes, achieved wisdom about engaging the U.S. in another war in the Middle East.
2
The news media is all crazy about the Syria mess and Russia’s new involvement in it and asking the Obama Administration for an answer. The Obama Administration doesn’t have an answer and is waiting it out because there is no good answer. The moderate Muslims in Syria are simply way too weak to take control whether Assad or ISIS goes down. So in the current situation, if you beat Assad, ISIS takes control, and if you beat ISIS, Assad maintains control. Now of course if you apply the full military might of the United States, we can occupy Syria, but is there really anyone out there who wants to see the U.S. fight off Assad and ISIS guerilla attacks while spending trillions of dollars for years to come? That’s the reason we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan. The more the U.S. gets involved with Syria now, the more likely some major military accident/incident happens with Russia that makes a bad situation potentially far worse. So yeah, the refugee crisis is horrible and we should do everything we can to help the refugees, but expending major military resources against Assad and ISIS is a waste of those resources. Putin wants to enter a quagmire and invite terrorist attacks on Russia? Let him. A lot of the U.S. media seems to think not showing macho displays of force is a sign of weakness. No, wasting money in useless macho displays of force is a sign of weakness.
8
Thank God we have a Pesident who shows some restraint on foreign battlefields. It seems that Obama is the only sane person in Washington who does not want the USA to fight a series of never ending wars to fill the coffers of the corporate war machines. We elected him to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Thanks to the dimwitted decisions of Cheney and Bush which were supported by lies and untruths, our country has spent trillions on wars no one supports at home.
Having lived in the Middle East for five years (Jordan and Turkey), it quickly became obvious to me that no amount of US interference will save the Middle East countries from themselves. Each country has to figure out their own destiny just as we did during the American Revolution. We are not and should not be the caretaker of the world. Indeed, we can't even keep our own citizens safe from guns in our own country, thanks to the NRA, Congress, and the corporate gunmakers. Whether it's warfare here or abroad, it comes down to greed and profits for a handful of people who thrive on the misery of others. Eisenhower warned us long ago, but it seems that the Republicans failed to listen to one of their most admired Presidents.
Having lived in the Middle East for five years (Jordan and Turkey), it quickly became obvious to me that no amount of US interference will save the Middle East countries from themselves. Each country has to figure out their own destiny just as we did during the American Revolution. We are not and should not be the caretaker of the world. Indeed, we can't even keep our own citizens safe from guns in our own country, thanks to the NRA, Congress, and the corporate gunmakers. Whether it's warfare here or abroad, it comes down to greed and profits for a handful of people who thrive on the misery of others. Eisenhower warned us long ago, but it seems that the Republicans failed to listen to one of their most admired Presidents.
10
Yep, it's all the gunmakers', NRA's, and Congress's fault! No, criminals, nor criminally insane here in the good old USA under Obama. "Nothing to see on that score, so move along!" (LOL)
1
Roger Cohen, I absolutely disagree with your opinion piece. Yes, Obama has shown restraint but that is exactly what the American people elected him to do. He was elected twice for his foreign policy being the exact opposite of the Bush years where we foolishly got into 2 unfunded wars that are quagmires lasting longer than WW2- with nothing to show for it except loss of lives and treasure. Moreover, the entire ME got destabilized as a direct result of the Bush/Cheney war in Iraq. in fact, Obama should be treading carefully in the ME since it is a landmine full of unintended consequences. Syria is in a civil war- and Obama should not have even done what he did with his training program. he should have been less involved- not more. Obama promised removing the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and he is doing that because it is the right thing to do. The end of our military involvement in the ME cannot come fast enough.
If Putin wants to get involved- let him. He'll regret it soon enough.
We have better things to do with our young people and our money- like rebuilding infrastructure and taking better care of veterans to name just 2.
If Putin wants to get involved- let him. He'll regret it soon enough.
We have better things to do with our young people and our money- like rebuilding infrastructure and taking better care of veterans to name just 2.
10
Rudderless? The President has chosen a clear course. Stay out of conflicts that do not affect our national security. Our only interest in Syria is a humanitarian one. Whether Assad is in control or some other faction, chaos will continue. Neither Mr. Cohen nor any other critic of the Administration's policy have enunciated what they would do to solve the problem. Any intrusion into this maelstrom of chaos will only lead to disaster. As for our perceived "weakness" and "incoherence," the world knows full well that any true threat to America's security interests will be met with a decisive and devastating response. Do you not believe that if ISIS were deemed a threat to American security, we would not put boots and tanks on the ground and annihilate them? Neither Putin nor our allies are misled by our reticence in this arena.
18
Gee Roger, you left out Boko Haram. We probably need to fix that mess too? I think most Americans have had enough of the notion of nation building and resolving every conflict abroad. We spend trillions of tax payer dollars, kill or tragically wound our troops, and over the past 14 years have nothing to show for it. The perception of appearing "weak" or "indecisive" does not trouble me on bit. The ongoing saber-rattling, red-scare rationale does.
12
Obama's restraint reflects the lack of desire of most of his fellow citizens to do the work of other nations in confronting their enemies. We didn't need to go into Iraq or Afghanistan -- or Vietnam for that matter. Other cheered us on and were happy that those were our body bags being shipped home with our sons and daughters and not theirs. And we paid for nearly all of it to boot.
Let the Saudis send their own troops against Assad and Iran, and not simply sponsor and fund ISIS. We are neither Shia nor Sunni and have no place being caught between the various factions in a struggle that has gone on for more than 1200 years.
Putin is doing us a favor by rushing in where we rightly fear to tread. He has forgotten Afghanistan apparently. The rest of us have not.
Let the Saudis send their own troops against Assad and Iran, and not simply sponsor and fund ISIS. We are neither Shia nor Sunni and have no place being caught between the various factions in a struggle that has gone on for more than 1200 years.
Putin is doing us a favor by rushing in where we rightly fear to tread. He has forgotten Afghanistan apparently. The rest of us have not.
14
What nonsense concerning that the US must lead! Lead what? A ragtag coalition without a unifying purpose? What we are experiencing is the release of long festering frustration of ethnic and religious groups held to a low simmer by the geopolitics of the cold war. The Balkans, long held to such a simmer, exploded once the cold war ended. The US invasion of Iraq blew the top off the pressure cooker and despite our "best" efforts we could not put humpty dumpty back together again.
I believe what we are seeing now is Mr. Putin acting as a catalyst for the unification of Shia power. Unlike the US, he is not trying to get the Sunni and Shia to "play nice". He recognizes the situation for what it is, a religious civil war that has effectively eradicated the post world war one political borders.
What will be the long term effect? I can postulate that a Russian/Iraq/Iran/Kurd coalition will yield Russia powerful influence over the natural resources of the middle east and the central asian republics. None of this is surprising. It is in line with Russian goals for the region since the time of the Romanov czars. It seems the US plays checkers while Mr. Putin plays chess.
I believe what we are seeing now is Mr. Putin acting as a catalyst for the unification of Shia power. Unlike the US, he is not trying to get the Sunni and Shia to "play nice". He recognizes the situation for what it is, a religious civil war that has effectively eradicated the post world war one political borders.
What will be the long term effect? I can postulate that a Russian/Iraq/Iran/Kurd coalition will yield Russia powerful influence over the natural resources of the middle east and the central asian republics. None of this is surprising. It is in line with Russian goals for the region since the time of the Romanov czars. It seems the US plays checkers while Mr. Putin plays chess.
3
Not to worry. The U.S. And the Suadis are busy bleeding Russia down with sanctions and massive oil pumping. Another two years of these actions should really put them on their heels!
So the ethnic and religious sects are going to embrace the Russians because.......? Methinks you're wishing and/or hoping for an outcome that is not quite based on reality.
What about the Europeans? They are now suffering the consequences of inaction. But they too could have got together a force to give aid to the rebels three or four years ago. I do not know how successful it would have been. A no-fly zone might have helped at that time but it could not have ended the conflict. The Right-leaning governments that dominate in much of Europe (except for the Germans) are all xenophobic to some degree and it would be very difficult to reverse this during election cycles--perhaps three years ago the European governments could have made a case for action in order to stave off the massive refugee crisis but now it is too late. Again it is not clear what and how much intervention would have worked back in 2011. We needed some parallels from Roger Cohen not just laments. Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Libya? But they were much easier to solve (or with Rwanda easier to ignore). Point to a successful intervention in the Middle East recently. We forget too how deleterious the pre-Iraq situation was for Iraqis. The choice was letting Sadaam stay in power and retaining a blockade on his people, stability but suffering, or supporting his downfall (Clinton initiated that policy) and then...nobody knew. When it did happen it occurred under the auspices of a mendacious and brutal team of incompetents. So what should our policy be, how much will it cost, what are its chances? Until then we should open our arms to the refugees, matching at least Germany's committment.
2
Mr. Cohen often speaks truth in his columns, even if those truths hurt. However there is one 'truth' which he glibly glossed over. If Mr. Cohen and Mr. Haas are willing to send their children or grandchildren to the killing fields, they can have their truth. If not, don't ask me to send mine.
20
Do you recall our worry and consternation about "chemical weapons" and yes!-even thoug many comments about our Leader's "weakness"--they stopped.
Wait...recognize good efforts... quit fueling divisiveness in this fragile world, Roger Cohen.
Wait...recognize good efforts... quit fueling divisiveness in this fragile world, Roger Cohen.
9
I thinking sitting back and watching Russia embrace the tar babies in the middle east, hopefully drawing Iran and Saudi Arabia into the mess, is the right approach. Let's see these folks spill some of their blood and waste some of their treasure. Iran and Saudi Arabia sit back and use their proxies to suck us into conflicts that just make us an even bigger boogie man to Islamic extremists on both sides of the Sunni / Shiite divide.
12
I was waiting for this yawn from Mr. Cohen since Putin sent missiles into Iran ("Oooo, look at me, I've got the missiles to knock out whoever I want to knock out!!!!"). I'm glad Cohen at the least inserted a paragraph about President Obama's courage. How about President Obama's sense of responsibility to The People. You know, the ones who ARE the United States of America? We, the People? W did NOT care about us, created an "unrestrained" America that let loose not just the dogs of war, but the crazies of ISIS upon the world. The nastiness W caused goes in a direct line from the irrational behavior of his getting rid of Richard Clark (who knew that Bin Laden was up to), to 9/11, to the stupid/craven attack on Iraq (with no plan for "the day after"), to the economic disaster that fighting all those wars off the books created at home, to our weird pact with Saudi, to the Syrian refugees. Sorry, no, President Obama does not exaggerate the limits of power, he just presided over the obvious egregious misunderstanding of those limits that ALMOST led to our doom. Wake up and learn the difference between ambivalence and no good choices. Just "reacting" is not leadership. I hope Putin enjoys himself: I hope Putin knocks himself out. I think President Obama is still the smartest guy in the room. How the GOP can continue to treat our President the way they do is beyond belief when they have W on their consciences. But they really seem to have no shame.
25
We have been fighting someone for the last 65 years at great expense .Lives are lost, countries are destroyed, and treasure spent. We have won nothing and lost much.Eisenhower saw it coming and gave warning, but no one listened. Who could have imagined the fools who would follow? And now we should follow the Netanyahus and the Putins into another losing engagement? We are as mysterious as lemmings.
22
History will prove Obama was one of the few wise and pragmatic adults on the world stage during this time .. Let's hope we get lucky again with leadership like that provided by Obama.
37
Obama's submission to totalitarian Iran is not an act of courage but his major act of withdrawal and retreat. It has already enabled a joint Iranian- Russian strategy on Syria. Iran just yesterday tested a new advanced long-range missile in violation of certainly the spirit of the nuclear deal.
Obama is the President who is not solely responsible for but has done to bring about the disintegration of the Middle East.
The 'Doctrine of Restraint' is in fact the 'Doctrine of Retreat and Failure'.
Obama is the President who is not solely responsible for but has done to bring about the disintegration of the Middle East.
The 'Doctrine of Restraint' is in fact the 'Doctrine of Retreat and Failure'.
4
Israelis not only want billions of America dollars for their military, but want America to do their fighting for them. Then calls us names when we don't jump up and attack Isreal's enemies. Geez
2
No shalom president Obama is representing Americans for a change and sending Bibi and the Saudis a clear message the American people including many American Jews are tired of cleaning up the mess your aggressive policies seem to create, for me the last straw is the coverup of Israeli involvement in a he Ukraine and the chutzpah ehibited by trying to suck us into a situation created by a few Russian Jewish oligarchs. Strange that the only news source reporting on this is haaratz the excellent Israeli daily that adelson is trying to put out of business. Our president is a hero in my eyes especially when compared to a he dreck that got us involved in the Middle East to begin with, get used to it shalom or do the right thing and dump bibi
2
A bit upset about the fact that Putin put an end to your strategy on Syria eh?
The disintegration of Middle East came about with Bush's war on Iraq. You know, the war that was pushed for and supported by a single other country: yours!
The disintegration of Middle East came about with Bush's war on Iraq. You know, the war that was pushed for and supported by a single other country: yours!
5
Maybe it's Russia's turn to be on the wrong side of history for a change.
21
"Doctrine of Restraint" is more accurately called a "Doctrine of Limitations." Restraint implies a strategy and some actions that are curbed. Limitations better capture many of President Obama's opposition to taking action.
The president is very good at finding reasons why we shouldn't do something. Sure, he tries to make it sound like he's actually fighting bad guys, but his actions belie his words.
As for courage, the president has endless courage when it comes to his personal ambitions. We see the bravest Obama during his "campaigns". When it comes to the country's, suddenly all those limitations appear and dominate his judgment.
The president is very good at finding reasons why we shouldn't do something. Sure, he tries to make it sound like he's actually fighting bad guys, but his actions belie his words.
As for courage, the president has endless courage when it comes to his personal ambitions. We see the bravest Obama during his "campaigns". When it comes to the country's, suddenly all those limitations appear and dominate his judgment.
1
Is there no limit, no restraint for your blood thirst in the name of American 'exceptionalism'?
Obama has played it exactly right. Open your eyes and see the world as it is, not as you fear it to be.
Obama has played it exactly right. Open your eyes and see the world as it is, not as you fear it to be.
3
Word up, AA! Thanks to Obama's treasonous inactions. Osama bin Laden still stalks the Middle East.
Wait, what's that? Bin Laden's dead? Must be another lie from the librul media.
Wait, what's that? Bin Laden's dead? Must be another lie from the librul media.
"..the Iran nuclear deal — a signal achievement arrived at in the face of a vitriolic cacophony from Israel and the Republican-controlled Congress." Yup, that's Roger, can't help hisself. Blame "the Jews". "A vitriolic cacophony." Funny how vitriolic a party can be when threatened with annihilation. Meanwhile, the Iranians wasted no time partnering with our foes on intelligence and air air rights for Russian missiles and testing one of their own, a possible violation of the so-called, possibly illegal "agreement" - where we agreed to nuclear program, in any direction they choose if they simply agree to provide face-saving cover by reducing the temporary pace of acceleration. Who's kidding who? When you have a novice behind the wheel you can practically count on crashing.
5
Cohen didn't say Jews. He said Israel, referencing the present government, which as far as I am told is the government of a democracy, not solely of the Jews.
Can't have it both ways: Be deeply involved on things, openly, vocally, or quietly behind the scenes with your operatives in government, and then try and say, Hey! Don't blame me! I wasn't really involved. That' just weak.
Can't have it both ways: Be deeply involved on things, openly, vocally, or quietly behind the scenes with your operatives in government, and then try and say, Hey! Don't blame me! I wasn't really involved. That' just weak.
Novice behind the wheel...could you possibly be referring to GW Bush? Or perhaps R. Reagan? What with their many fiascos (read huge, costly wars).
So Obama's "restraint" caused generational conflict in the Middle East, instability in Europe, and Putin's aggression? What about the decades of brutal dictatorships, an unprecedented attempt to create a unified Europe, and Russia's undisguised ambition to be a major military power (as they were for most of the last 200 years)?
4
Mr. Cohen ominously observes that "the fact remains that Putin has reasserted Russian power in the vacuum," and "appears determined to shape the outcome in Syria," as if that were ipso facto a problem for the US. But what if that actually creates a problem for Putin, in the long (or more likely, medium) term? My prediction is that Russia will get as much benefit from intervening in Iraq & Syria as the US did, but in greater measure proportionate to the brutality of their intervention. Remember the famous quote from Napoleon, "Never interfere with an enemy while he’s in the process of destroying himself."
5
It's odd to square Cohen's passive-aggressive Hawkism here with his perma-dhimmi insistence that Israel debase itself in order to make peace with Palestinian terrorists that have no interest in making peace with Israel.
2
Lacking in every critique of Obama's foreign policy as "weak" or "ambivalent" is an interventionist's roadmap to something bette. "Yet the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high." Mr. Bruni: How do you propose to know that!?
2
One slight correction: The column was written by Roger Cohen, not Frank Bruni, but "How do you propose to know that?"
There is nothing harder than actually doing something. In the absence of a massive, on-the-ground military presence in Syria and Iraq, what, precisely, can the USA do to assure effective outcomes in these places? Cohen, nor any other harrumphers are American swagger, offer any real answers. It's easy to pound the table asking for military intervention when doing so isn't actually your call.
5
In the past we have embraced dictators like the Shah, for our power political reasons seemingly in total ignorance of the impact his/our secular policies were having on the vast majority of the Iranian people. Like other colonial powers, we seem to have great difficulty understanding how our supposedly "good" and self-centered intentions in the Middle East have harmed the vast majority of the population in that area. Then we are shocked and surprised that these people do not like us.
4
Wrong as could be! Rudderless, not exactly, the way i see it. Neocons and their AIPAC, allies steared a hapless President into a 2 trillion dollar war, and 300,000 dead.That started civil war that is inflaming the region between shite and sunni. The same cabal that lead us to War #1 tried to get us to War#2.Best money any foreign power spent was feathering the nest of our corrupt congress. Bibi and his ilk failed at that due to RESTRAINT. So what has our ally done, seized more land as usual , now annexing the golan heights, another 1000 acres from Gaza, more encroachment and settlements in Palestinian land. Meanwhile the Israeli warlord is coming back with more demands for $$.
11
Russia will find itself in the same deep hole the we got into with Iraq. Right now, Russia gets the sugar high of adventurism that the U.S. got at the beginning of the Iraq war. In a year or two, things won't look quite so glamorous.
4
The Middles East is a festering cauldron of warring peoples, nations and cultures that do not like each other and do not trust each other . . . this scenario has existed for many centuries. The less the United States has to do with the Middle East, the better off we will be.
9
No one, politician or policy wonk, who votes for or supports war ever goes to one. If you don't cry when you see the coffins of dead soldiers or crippled and maimed ones there's something horribly wrong with you. We've had enough tears shed for the foolish ventures of politicians. We've spent enough money on this stupid wars to house, feed, educate and take care of our medical needs for this generation and the next.
You want a war? Then you should have to go too.
You want a war? Then you should have to go too.
7
There is a difference between assisting and enabling. It is time for the Middle East to find their own solution to the ancient Arab - Iranian (Sunni - Shiite) ethnic war and work together to solve their own problems. Frankly we no longer need their oil and are exhausted trying to drag them out of the 12th century. The Middle East is Russia's neighbor and the two have a long history of wars and intrigue. The Iraqi Shiites are now dubbing him "Shiek Putin" and know that he and Iran are committed to punishing Saudi Arabia. Sadly, I tend to agree with Thomas Friedman that we need to "disengage and contain" in this black hole of hatred and violence. We would be wise to follow China's lead in this and stand back waiting for the dust to clear. As Abraham Lincoln said; "It is better to remain silent and thought a fool, rather than to speak and remove all doubt."
6
As long as there is Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, there will never be peace in the Afghanistan or in the middle east. Saudi Arabia finance, train extremists. Taliban is helped and trained in Pakistan and ISIS is training in saudi arabia. 19 of the hijackers were saudi national, including bin laden.
4
And you propose...what? When W. destroyed Iraq, he began the whack a mole that has become the MIddle East. I say, "Have at it, Vlad. You deal with the quagmire." Vlad will have no more luck than he did in Chechnya and Afghanistan or, for that matter, than we did. I applaud Obama's restraint. A few months from now, Mr. Cohen, you'll be writing about the mess that was exacerbated by Vlad's misadventure.
9
Please read "The Limits of Power" by Andrew Bacewicz. http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=735
The Middle East was an unstable mess long before Obama was elected. How did that Lybian intervention work out? How did that Syrian non-intervention work out? And don't even get me started on Iraq, where our withdrawal was negotiated by the idiots who started that misbegotten adventure. Let the Russians see what they can do with this. Obama's reluctance to engage in more foreign entanglements is what got him elected and re-elected. The American people are smarter than all of the War Party pundits.
The Middle East was an unstable mess long before Obama was elected. How did that Lybian intervention work out? How did that Syrian non-intervention work out? And don't even get me started on Iraq, where our withdrawal was negotiated by the idiots who started that misbegotten adventure. Let the Russians see what they can do with this. Obama's reluctance to engage in more foreign entanglements is what got him elected and re-elected. The American people are smarter than all of the War Party pundits.
20
America is the richest nation in world history; the strongest nation in world history; the safest large nation in world history. We are a huge helping hand in the world, from the safest sea lanes in history which we maintain, to our massive response to natural and human disasters. Huge numbers of people and enormous amounts of investment capital want to reside within our borders. Despite 9/11 and the massacres from out-of-control gun lunacy, and our currently dysfunctional governance, more people want to be Americans than we can possibly accommodate. Our national security is not existentially threatened by Russia or ISIL or Syria, or even China. We are only stepping back from the world in terms of militarism and boots on the ground. We are still "all in" in terms of diplomacy, productive partnerships, world trade, and world stability where we can achieve it somewhat peacefully. And, thankfully, we are lucky enough to have a President who reflects and supports this military retrenchment, who thinks "partners" instead of "antagonists," who sincerely cares for the lives and well-being of individual people, not their death and destruction. He does not make pawns of human beings, as so much of the rest of the world has historically done and continues to do. Amen.
15
American foreign policy is not incoherent, far from it. Thanks God we have Obama at the helm. His restrain is not just because the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan consumed trillions without yielding victory. It is more than that. Among our presidents, Obama has the worldliest orientation. He spent his childhood overseas and has been exposed to other cultures and people more that any other American president. His global insight is realistic. He is skeptical of the efficacy of military force and understands that no foreign power will be effective in Syria. Let’s Putin shape the outcome in the region and pay for it. I still remember Russia’s fiasco in Afghanistan. Syria and the Middle East will be much worse.
10
“I think Obama exaggerates the limits and underestimates the upside of American power.....
^ I hate dishonest comments made in euphemism.
Obama has used American power - to force Iran to the table to disarm it's Nuclear program, and reduce the Russian economy to rubble.
We are discussing -> military force, not power.
Now...please provide examples of the efficacy of American military power in the middle east.
I only know of two - the operation to support the rebels in Afghanistan who threw the Soviets out and helped bring down the Soviet Union, and- the operation Obama authorized to take out Bin Laden. [who was trained via the former operation].
And - what else?
^ I hate dishonest comments made in euphemism.
Obama has used American power - to force Iran to the table to disarm it's Nuclear program, and reduce the Russian economy to rubble.
We are discussing -> military force, not power.
Now...please provide examples of the efficacy of American military power in the middle east.
I only know of two - the operation to support the rebels in Afghanistan who threw the Soviets out and helped bring down the Soviet Union, and- the operation Obama authorized to take out Bin Laden. [who was trained via the former operation].
And - what else?
10
Even at that one of the interventions wasn't devoid of unintended consequences that so often arise from foreign policy decisions. We armed the mujahideen which gave rise to Al Quada and bin Laden.
"the cost of the Doctrine of Restraint has been very high. How high we do not yet know". Actually, we don't know that it has been high at all compared to the alternatives. We do, however, have a pretty clear idea of what we have gotten for all of our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan - not much - just as Russia did when it was involved in Aghanistan. Given that we have not found anyone to support who can fight effectively and that our supposed ally with the best army in the region (Turkey) has chosen to do very little, it is not clear what we can do without committing significant ground troops. Even if we did so, it is not clear how we would achieve our double goal of getting rid of both ISIS and Assad and it is equally unclear what would follow. This is just another example of a pundit waving his arms and saying we have to do something but having no idea what.
Let's watch for a while.
Let's watch for a while.
29
At least you are consistent, Mr. Cohen; if I recall correctly, you weren't in favor of restraint when Bush went into Iraq, which paved the way for the instability that now afflicts the entire region.
If we don't show restraint now, we could end up in serious war against the Russians or their proxies much closer to their home turf than ours. Cool heads on both sides avoided such an outcome during the cold war.
If we don't show restraint now, we could end up in serious war against the Russians or their proxies much closer to their home turf than ours. Cool heads on both sides avoided such an outcome during the cold war.
32
It did not take courage to conclude the Iran treaty. If Iran built a bomb, Obama would be blamed. Alternatively, in order to avoid the political hit to himself, he would have to take military action which he had no intention of doing. So he made a deal wherein he thought Iran might not build a bomb during his presidency and he was willing to agree to anything, including the farce of having iran inspect itself to do so. No courage, just political expediency.
6
Even Nixon figured it out—after years of war in Vietnam, here’s what he wrote Kissinger: “K. We have had 10 years of total control of the air in Laos and V.Nam. The result = Zilch. There is something wrong with the strategy or the Air Force.”
How many times to we have to repeat this mistake?
How many times to we have to repeat this mistake?
21
The aspect that was not discussed is that all of these conflicts have checks and balances. ISIS is opposed by Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. Syria is the most capable of fighting the Islamic State because of where it is. The whole Middle East has Sunni and Shiite forces balancing each other. The strategy of, "Let them kill each other" seems to resonate in Europe and the US. China is not ready to shed blood over that region. They have North Korea to restrain. Our new policy of non-intervention unless a clear and present American interest is there seems right for these times. Let it breathe.
20
These pundits wants the USA to be in perpetual war and conflict just to prove we are manly or whatever that means. If we listen to the pundits we would be immersed in another Middle East war and other petty wars around the world. Our country would be impoverished if we didn't have a President like Obama who practiced restraint. Look what Bush 2 brought us, two losing wars, trillions of dollars in deficit spending to fund these wars, the economic collapse of the US and world economies in 2008 and untold deaths and maiming's of US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. I for one choose President Obama's restraint over what the pundits proposed and chest pounding. After all the pundits and the GOP war machine will not serve in these wars, their kids will not serve, nor will they suffer from the economic loss these wars impose on the rest of the average USA citizenry.
38
I want to say this carefully.
The last time the Black community faced the levels of poverty, suffering and violence as a race in America greater than any other racial group was during slavery. The Black community is suffering more than any race in America under Barack Obama at levels unseen since slavery.
It borders on criminal ignorance to sit here and boast that Obama has saved America from poverty when the Black community is suffering more under Obama than anyone else. Restraint? Really? You do realize Obama started the Syrian crisis don't you? You do realize it was Obama playing Chickenhawk in Chief with Assad don't you? You do realize Obama taunted ISIS don't you? Restraint?
Get serious.
The last time the Black community faced the levels of poverty, suffering and violence as a race in America greater than any other racial group was during slavery. The Black community is suffering more than any race in America under Barack Obama at levels unseen since slavery.
It borders on criminal ignorance to sit here and boast that Obama has saved America from poverty when the Black community is suffering more under Obama than anyone else. Restraint? Really? You do realize Obama started the Syrian crisis don't you? You do realize it was Obama playing Chickenhawk in Chief with Assad don't you? You do realize Obama taunted ISIS don't you? Restraint?
Get serious.
1
Our problem in Syria is that the forces opposed to Assad are all our enemies or opportunistically aligned with our enemies (the exception being the Kurds, who have no intention of moving beyond their own areas).
Putin doesn't have this problem with Assad, making it easier to intervene on the Syrian regime's side.
In Iraq, we are effectively the Shiite air force. There was a time when we could have established and built up an autonomous Sunni area in Iraq by fiat (the Biden approach), but that is no longer possible. ISIS dominates there now.
Putin has an end game: a Syrian rump state with Sunni entities to the east.
Our end game, if we succeed in bringing down Assad, is likely to be a radical Sunni state comprising all of Syria and western Iraq.
Putin doesn't have this problem with Assad, making it easier to intervene on the Syrian regime's side.
In Iraq, we are effectively the Shiite air force. There was a time when we could have established and built up an autonomous Sunni area in Iraq by fiat (the Biden approach), but that is no longer possible. ISIS dominates there now.
Putin has an end game: a Syrian rump state with Sunni entities to the east.
Our end game, if we succeed in bringing down Assad, is likely to be a radical Sunni state comprising all of Syria and western Iraq.
7
Putin's end game requires getting through the middle game. ISIS theology is to expect an attack from the north. Unless Putin and Assad are capable of completely annihilating ISIS, and if he is then thank you Putin, he will manage to get ISIS, and the ISIS Islamic radicals everywhere, to focus on Assad and Russia as its main enemy; again thank you Putin.
Russia is burning through its monetary reserves and may last another year or two unless oil goes back well over $60 bbl, unlikely with US reserves and Iran coming back to market.
Putin's end game may involve a dacha someplace for him to retire to when things go south.
Russia is burning through its monetary reserves and may last another year or two unless oil goes back well over $60 bbl, unlikely with US reserves and Iran coming back to market.
Putin's end game may involve a dacha someplace for him to retire to when things go south.
The best way to peace is to stay out of other people's wars . If Israel wants a war in Syria or Iran , Israel can have at it .
I believe most Americans have had their fill of war .
I believe most Americans have had their fill of war .
35
Where is it likely to lead - to a Republican interventionist in the White House!
1
I wonder what Sam Power really thinks. After reading "A Problem from Hell," I can't help but believe that she wants, and has long wanted, a more muscular approach from the Obama administration. But that's what memoirs are for.
Liberals screaming "neocon!" is not very convincing. Obama has had difficult choices to make at a time of great war weariness on the part of the American public. And I, too, was opposed to intervention in Syria from the very beginning, just as he was; but I was wrong, and so was he. Obama would say, "Suppose we were in a quagmire in Syria right now, tens of thousands of troops on the ground, what then would be the image of my administration's foreign policy?"
And that's true; Republicans would now be talking about the reckless Obama who got America marooned in ANOTHER Middle East war. But it's also a red herring. None but the most hawkish think we need THAT kind of intervention, but we do need SOME kind of intervention. And in Ukraine, we should have provided weaponry. That, I've long believed. The administration could have done so, didn't. They feared, wait for it, "escalation."
That's always the excuse of do-nothingists. Doesn't seem to factor into Putin's calculations. Russia is weak, acts strong. America, strong, acts weak. Syria is going to burn for a long time. Hillary, thanks be to God, has greater interventionist instincts than Obama. Yes, it's hard. But we can't walk away. No matter how long it takes or how much it costs, we can't walk away.
Liberals screaming "neocon!" is not very convincing. Obama has had difficult choices to make at a time of great war weariness on the part of the American public. And I, too, was opposed to intervention in Syria from the very beginning, just as he was; but I was wrong, and so was he. Obama would say, "Suppose we were in a quagmire in Syria right now, tens of thousands of troops on the ground, what then would be the image of my administration's foreign policy?"
And that's true; Republicans would now be talking about the reckless Obama who got America marooned in ANOTHER Middle East war. But it's also a red herring. None but the most hawkish think we need THAT kind of intervention, but we do need SOME kind of intervention. And in Ukraine, we should have provided weaponry. That, I've long believed. The administration could have done so, didn't. They feared, wait for it, "escalation."
That's always the excuse of do-nothingists. Doesn't seem to factor into Putin's calculations. Russia is weak, acts strong. America, strong, acts weak. Syria is going to burn for a long time. Hillary, thanks be to God, has greater interventionist instincts than Obama. Yes, it's hard. But we can't walk away. No matter how long it takes or how much it costs, we can't walk away.
2
What is not mentioned here is the cost and inefficiency of our being the world's policeman.
Every dollar spent directly on the military is a dollar not spent on building up strength at home, which proved more important in both World Wars.
The Middle East? Rather than our misadventures there, it would have cost comparatively nothing to set up dozens, even hundreds, of schools to foster democracy and counter the hate-mongering madrassas funded by our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
Europe? We have a much larger military by far than the European Union does. Do we really want to bail them out yet again because they are too cheap to stand up to a dictator or to protect their access to oil?
Never mind, of course, that the choice for a powerful country has always been between being a republic or being an empire.
I think Obama has been exactly right in his policies. Let somebody else do the stupid stuff.
Every dollar spent directly on the military is a dollar not spent on building up strength at home, which proved more important in both World Wars.
The Middle East? Rather than our misadventures there, it would have cost comparatively nothing to set up dozens, even hundreds, of schools to foster democracy and counter the hate-mongering madrassas funded by our "friends" in Saudi Arabia.
Europe? We have a much larger military by far than the European Union does. Do we really want to bail them out yet again because they are too cheap to stand up to a dictator or to protect their access to oil?
Never mind, of course, that the choice for a powerful country has always been between being a republic or being an empire.
I think Obama has been exactly right in his policies. Let somebody else do the stupid stuff.
44
Would it not be more definitive to describe the foreign policy of Predident Obama as the" Doctrine of Rational Thinking" ?
40
Isn't this just another, albeit milder, version of American isolationism. We didn't join the League of Nation after WW ! and retreated in the 1930's only to have to make up for it with a two front war from 1941-1945. Now we are sick from Iraq and Afghanistan and need a rest. But does the world. Putin doesn't. We won't know for years whether Obama is right but we'll find out at some point. For now Obama can SOUNDS tough. As for his accomplishments, Obamacare, iran deal. There is no risk now which suits him just fine.
3
Mr. Cohen, you are a thoughtful journalist and your columns seem to have a long time perspective on human and political issues — most often constructive and aimed at peaceful means of conflict resolution.
Your position today contradicts all that. It is full of stereotypes that only extend the persistence of conflict. You offer that you will have some revelations in your next column: please do tell us that you had a bad dream — it will be refreshing.
Your position today contradicts all that. It is full of stereotypes that only extend the persistence of conflict. You offer that you will have some revelations in your next column: please do tell us that you had a bad dream — it will be refreshing.
24
Let us all remember that these are wars that cannot be won. They have been festering for thousands of years. Obama has taken the position of letting the Russians deplete what little resource they have left while their economy is in free fall.. He said it best on 60 minutes(proving that he is so much smarter than the antagonistic reporters)that Putin is not filling an American vacuum, he is desperately trying to hold his position as a world leader at any cost. Let him use up what he has , then we will see who is left standing.
1
Americans are constitutionally isolationists, but the phrase about people who don't remember history being condemned to repeat it is as true as ever.
Anyone remember Munich, and "peace in our time."
How can ignoring the turmoil in the Middle East and the increasing reach of Islamofascism can be considered a wise foreign policy course?
Anyone remember Munich, and "peace in our time."
How can ignoring the turmoil in the Middle East and the increasing reach of Islamofascism can be considered a wise foreign policy course?
2
Very few are alive today who have an actual adult memory of the Munich Pact event. I have knowledge of it as an historian. What actually happened was that Britain cold-bloodedly sacrificed their supposed ally Czechoslovakia in order to buy time to build fighter aircraft. "Peace in our time" was a comforting lie which neither Chamberlain nor anyone else in government believed. NC continued to serve as PM until the Norway fiasco and after in trusted positions until his health failed. In the time they bought, Chain Home was finished, pilot training was centralized, and production was switched from bombers to fighters. Gee sort of like they were getting ready for a war.
Putin is boring and Obama is a black Bush.
If wisdom looks weak, it just goes to show how much wisdom is lacking.
23
President Obama "was elected [and re-elected] to lead a nation exhausted by the two longest and most expensive wars in its history. Iraq and Afghanistan consumed trillions without yielding victory."
Let's not forget that one of those wars was manifestly unnecessary and unjustified, as well as poorly planned and profoundly costly in terms of both blood and treasure. George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq -- and the cynically mendacious path by which he and de facto President Cheney took us there -- should give any subsequent President pause before launching another military adventure.
Let's not forget that one of those wars was manifestly unnecessary and unjustified, as well as poorly planned and profoundly costly in terms of both blood and treasure. George W. Bush's war of choice in Iraq -- and the cynically mendacious path by which he and de facto President Cheney took us there -- should give any subsequent President pause before launching another military adventure.
54
Up to 15% of Russia's population is Sunni Muslim. Three of its Eurasian Economic Community members are Sunni Muslim states. I don't think this makes Putin or Russia very canny when it intervenes on the side of a Shi'ite minority.
2
Roger - I think the scope of your analysis is too limited. It's important to remember that much of what Putin has done over the past fifteen years have been reactions to the Bush Admin's foreign policy. Obviously this includes the invasion of Iraq, but it also includes allowing the ABM treaty to lapse, showing only a lukewarm interest in continuing the ongoing arms reduction regime (as evidenced in SORT), and promising Ukraine and Georgia NATO membership at the Bucharest Summit. Obviously, none of this is any excuse for the horrific actions that Putin has taken, nor does it mean that the Obama Administration hasn't made mistakes of its own. But the wheels of this standoff were already well in motion by the time Jan. 20, 2009 rolled around.
6
We are so used to bombast that we cannot hear or feel the nuances of Obama, but some day he will be given a place beside Abraham Lincoln for wisdom and saving the Union.
16
The trouble with Mr. Cohen and people of his ilk, is that he continues to preach the doctrine that whether it be foreign policy, politics or anything else for that matter, in America there always has to be winners and losers. I guess one must ask the question nowadays, at what price?
3
Obama wants to fight "climate Change" (typical ambiguity as the chances of global warming are the same as global cooling) and not fight ISIS which resulted in 4 millions on the move invading Europe on US. Roger, you make me laugh.
2
Isn’t it clear by now that bombing from the air, except by nuclear bombs, has won any war without an accompanying number of boots on the ground?
It seems clear that nobody wants to send their sons and daughters in large enough numbers in a war for Democracy, or even security, in the Mid-East.
To me, this is the underlying key point that Mr. Cohen is not understanding.
In the age of world-wide instantaneous images, the citizens of advanced democracies are no longer susceptible to calls to some cauldron of mass action by their children.
Given this truth, what is the leader of a democracy supposed to do to ‘show strength’? Re-impose the draft? Pay our volunteer forces ‘contractor wages’?
The U.S. electorate is not going to buy either of those option. Europeans, much close to the dangers, won’t. Not even Iraqis are submitting ‘manpower’ to train and fight within their own borders.
Russia is, for now, in a different position. They shielded their citizens from the images and bombard them with 20th century-style nationalist propaganda. However even the Soviet leadership was not immune to public intolerance for their own internal human toll in Afghanistan.
We civilized folks are certainly horrified by the bloodshed. But we intrinsically know that only truly massive human intervention shared the Western nations could put a cover on the region-wide Sunni-Shiite wars.
In short, no President can convince his or her citizens to sign onto a Mid-Eastern WWI.
Tim, Forest Hills
It seems clear that nobody wants to send their sons and daughters in large enough numbers in a war for Democracy, or even security, in the Mid-East.
To me, this is the underlying key point that Mr. Cohen is not understanding.
In the age of world-wide instantaneous images, the citizens of advanced democracies are no longer susceptible to calls to some cauldron of mass action by their children.
Given this truth, what is the leader of a democracy supposed to do to ‘show strength’? Re-impose the draft? Pay our volunteer forces ‘contractor wages’?
The U.S. electorate is not going to buy either of those option. Europeans, much close to the dangers, won’t. Not even Iraqis are submitting ‘manpower’ to train and fight within their own borders.
Russia is, for now, in a different position. They shielded their citizens from the images and bombard them with 20th century-style nationalist propaganda. However even the Soviet leadership was not immune to public intolerance for their own internal human toll in Afghanistan.
We civilized folks are certainly horrified by the bloodshed. But we intrinsically know that only truly massive human intervention shared the Western nations could put a cover on the region-wide Sunni-Shiite wars.
In short, no President can convince his or her citizens to sign onto a Mid-Eastern WWI.
Tim, Forest Hills
8
Leaders can make good decisions, bad decisions or no decisions. They can also send ambiguous messages. Mixed messages are the very worst. Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Putin or Bashar Assad do not understand ambiguity or nuance. For them, it is a black or white world, and nuance is a synonym for weakness. Saddam Hussein was told that his dispute with Kuwait was a local problem to be worked out between neighbors. The invasion of Kuwait followed. Assad was told he could not cross the red line of chemical weapons, and nothing happened when he did. How likely is Putin to bet the mortgage when we next make a declaration, whether on Ukraine, Syria or the Baltics. President Obama needs to stop playing Hamlet and declare an unambiguous foreign policy instead of saying "don't do stupid."
14
The clever dance Obama is doing is to sound tough while doing little. That "red line" was a narrative that got away from him. (His latest narrative is that Putin is weak.)
He does not want to act. Period. Never mind what his inaction is doing to the USA's position and relationships in the Middle East. He doesn't seem to care about any of that. He wants out of the Middle East unless there's a Nobel in it for him.
He does not want to act. Period. Never mind what his inaction is doing to the USA's position and relationships in the Middle East. He doesn't seem to care about any of that. He wants out of the Middle East unless there's a Nobel in it for him.
"Be tough" is not a coherent policy just like "hope" is not a plan. You think lobbing a few missiles into Syria would do the trick?
"The world is more dangerous than in recent memory."
The implication here is that American military engagement in multiple theaters would make the world manifestly less dangerous. With all due respect to Richard Haas, the GW Bush administration made very clear the limits of American power.
This column is right about one thing: President Obama doesn't lack courage, including the courage to implement a badly needed doctrine of restraint following his predecessor's doctrine of reckless adventurism.
The implication here is that American military engagement in multiple theaters would make the world manifestly less dangerous. With all due respect to Richard Haas, the GW Bush administration made very clear the limits of American power.
This column is right about one thing: President Obama doesn't lack courage, including the courage to implement a badly needed doctrine of restraint following his predecessor's doctrine of reckless adventurism.
36
As you noted: the two longest and costliest (in terms of money) wars in American history, and what do we have to show for it? More people in the Middle East hate us than ever before, and more people there are dying.
Putin's adventurism will be the death knell of his ambition to make Russia a global player again. It will cost the Russian people blood, treasure, and unfortunately, terrorism at home.
Putin's adventurism will be the death knell of his ambition to make Russia a global player again. It will cost the Russian people blood, treasure, and unfortunately, terrorism at home.
9
We actually made mistakes helping the mujaheddin fighting the Russians in Afghanistan and helping the Kuwaitis (Saudis) fighting Sadam Hussein. We should have said to the belligerents, let's see if we can help you sort this out, but we aren't going to get involved, "It's your problem."
4
Be it a Doctrine of Restraint or better yet, Doctrine of Reality, I'm convinced Obama has pursued a measured, sensible, and effective foreign policy strategy over his time in office. All these so-called hard line "experts" clamoring for the U.S. to use its power and military might would be wise to revisit their past recommendations. Be it Vietnam, Afghanistan, or Iraq all the hard line arm chair warriors have proven to be terribly misguided. Their views have led to repeated tragic outcomes--both in lives and treasure. Why heed their advice again?
For those war hawks who want to flex U.S. muscle and power, I suggest they move from talk to action and begin volunteering to put their lives at the head of the combat line. Let's see if they're willing to suffer the consequences of battle. Relax and take a depth breath, Roger Cohen. Obama's polices may not be what you want, but they are what I want, and I believe so many other Americans want, too.
For those war hawks who want to flex U.S. muscle and power, I suggest they move from talk to action and begin volunteering to put their lives at the head of the combat line. Let's see if they're willing to suffer the consequences of battle. Relax and take a depth breath, Roger Cohen. Obama's polices may not be what you want, but they are what I want, and I believe so many other Americans want, too.
19
I "love" the negative comments here, because it's clear to me in most cases these same naysayers would be blasting Obama if he put troops into Syria, put troops here, put troops there, spending trillions here and there, all the while accomplishing nothing but the creation of thousands of new anti-American terrorists doing everything they could to kill more Americans in ever-more spectacular terrorist scenes and more American troops as they fulfill an empty strategy of "what?" No matter what Obama does - and it's a decision weighing pros and cons, his haters will seize on the cons and blast away.
Every Putin move shows an inability on his part to understand that he puts his country in an ever-deepening hole - the kind of hole which foretold the revolution that brought down the Berlin wall. Also, the kind of hole that Obama's critics want us to enter by entering a war in Syria- but they refuse to acknowledge the "pros" because putting the country in a bad position is always secondary to attacking that black man in the White House.
Every Putin move shows an inability on his part to understand that he puts his country in an ever-deepening hole - the kind of hole which foretold the revolution that brought down the Berlin wall. Also, the kind of hole that Obama's critics want us to enter by entering a war in Syria- but they refuse to acknowledge the "pros" because putting the country in a bad position is always secondary to attacking that black man in the White House.
13
The Soviets bankrupted themselves "exerting power & influence".
The US lost trillions of dollars "exerting power & influence" in wars in which we had no skin.
Now it's Putin's turn. Better him than US...
The US lost trillions of dollars "exerting power & influence" in wars in which we had no skin.
Now it's Putin's turn. Better him than US...
5
You write that "The center cannot hold because there is none."
Do take full account of that contemporary truth in your follow up column.
It means that there are no moderates --- in Syria or Iraq, nor in most of the rest of region, in the sense of a countervailing element or a cadre that can be martialed to any effect.
In Syria there have long been only two paths to choose between: blow up the country as we did to Iraq; or "adopt Assad". Russia looks to have forced us to "adopt", as Russia maneuvers thus remotely against its own Islamic subversives.
Do take full account of that contemporary truth in your follow up column.
It means that there are no moderates --- in Syria or Iraq, nor in most of the rest of region, in the sense of a countervailing element or a cadre that can be martialed to any effect.
In Syria there have long been only two paths to choose between: blow up the country as we did to Iraq; or "adopt Assad". Russia looks to have forced us to "adopt", as Russia maneuvers thus remotely against its own Islamic subversives.
1
President Obama appears to have read Lawrence Freedman's recent book on Strategy, particularly chapters 16 and 17 which deal with the modern limitations of military and political force. Evidently Mr. Cohen, the general staff and most of the policy establishment have no clue about this and continue to deceive themselves that we still live in a prior age. After surveying the multiple complexities of the Middle East and the catastrophic failures of this century the President has evidently come to the conclusion that nothing can be achieved militarily at present. He is the first Grand Strategist we have seen in our lifetimes and we are likely to collapse back into folly when he is gone.
7
I knew a successful man who made fortune in sheet metal and HVAC business. He kept a picture of a hobo on his desk to which he attached a caption, "I was always the lowest bidder." Given our penchant for getting involved everywhere since the end of WWII, Americans might as well keep the hobo and change the caption to "I spent it all to be the world's cop."
The problem is not Obama's restraint but the mess left by the previous administration's foray into the Middle East creating power vacuums. What is the compelling reason for us to put troops on the ground now? There is NONE! Do you see Chinese officials spending money on anything that is not directly in their monetary interests? No! We can frack ourselves into energy independence. Let the people of the Middle East settle it themselves.
The problem is not Obama's restraint but the mess left by the previous administration's foray into the Middle East creating power vacuums. What is the compelling reason for us to put troops on the ground now? There is NONE! Do you see Chinese officials spending money on anything that is not directly in their monetary interests? No! We can frack ourselves into energy independence. Let the people of the Middle East settle it themselves.
5
Restraint is laudatory, but drawing a line in the sand, and then walking away, is altogether different.
Syria and the Mideast is unraveling because the US is not longer believed to act on its word.
Syria and the Mideast is unraveling because the US is not longer believed to act on its word.
4
Congress said no to military intervention in Syria. Do you think he should have defied them?
I think years from now we will thank Obama for keeping us out of Syria.
7
It seems as if Obama has NO CLUE as what to do ( Another President would have at least sent the 6th Fleet off Syria ).. or Obama does not want to do anything - and is silently acquiescing to the Syrian - Russian - Iranian - Hezbollah position in Syria and the Middle East which will have profound Negative consequences for not only the Middle East, but also the World..
Wasn't it just a short while ago that Obama was ready to take on Russia over Ukraine ( "We have your Back" - Remember..) I wonder what the Ukrainians are thinking about now ... and how about the other Easter European Countries.. ? .. and how about the Israelis ( after the Iran Deal ) .. and what about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Countries .. ? and what about Japan, South Korea vs. N. Korea.. ? ... and what about Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam vs. China ...? Why should any of these Countries at Risk, or potentially at Risk - not "go Nuclear" .. ? - because Obama says - He has their "Back" ? .. and thinking about Iran ? .. why should Iran not "sprint" for the Bomb ? - because Obama says "All Options are on the Table" - Really ? .. ... and they are already upgrading their Missiles..
Let's face it - Obama's Foreign Policy has been a Disaster for the World and America.. 250,000 Dead in Syria .. ISIS in Syria and Iraq.. Turmoil in Libya... War in Yemen..
14 Million displaced Refugees ... Thousand of Refugees arriving daily in Europe..
"Peace in our Time" -Really ..?
15 Months.. and counting ..
Wasn't it just a short while ago that Obama was ready to take on Russia over Ukraine ( "We have your Back" - Remember..) I wonder what the Ukrainians are thinking about now ... and how about the other Easter European Countries.. ? .. and how about the Israelis ( after the Iran Deal ) .. and what about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf Countries .. ? and what about Japan, South Korea vs. N. Korea.. ? ... and what about Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam vs. China ...? Why should any of these Countries at Risk, or potentially at Risk - not "go Nuclear" .. ? - because Obama says - He has their "Back" ? .. and thinking about Iran ? .. why should Iran not "sprint" for the Bomb ? - because Obama says "All Options are on the Table" - Really ? .. ... and they are already upgrading their Missiles..
Let's face it - Obama's Foreign Policy has been a Disaster for the World and America.. 250,000 Dead in Syria .. ISIS in Syria and Iraq.. Turmoil in Libya... War in Yemen..
14 Million displaced Refugees ... Thousand of Refugees arriving daily in Europe..
"Peace in our Time" -Really ..?
15 Months.. and counting ..
4
People are dying but all our political elites are doing is praising themselves and patting each other on the back. Accepted, you leave a vacuum, it would get filled quickly. You want to retreat - an enemy would take your place.
1
How do you know your country is the evilest empire ?
When your oligarchy president who bombs 7 countries and plays a terrible game in Ukraine is accused of "restraint".
"Abzug aller US- und UK-Truppen sowie US-Befehlsstellen aus Deutschland" is a nice petition even if your signature won't legally count.
When your oligarchy president who bombs 7 countries and plays a terrible game in Ukraine is accused of "restraint".
"Abzug aller US- und UK-Truppen sowie US-Befehlsstellen aus Deutschland" is a nice petition even if your signature won't legally count.
1
The pundits are in disarray. The NY Times liberal commentators present diametrically opposite evaluations of President Obama’s Syria policy. And the carnage goes on unabated. The Russians are in and no one is sure why or if it’s good or bad. Absolutely no one has suggested a clear and practical way of winding down the mayhem.
For good reason!
There is no viable short term solution!
Powerful historic forces are at play which are impervious to the maneuvers of peripheral powers.
The decay in the cultures of the Islamic world has been obvious for hundreds of years. The response of the West was colonialism, exploitation, disdain. There was an unexpressed belief that these backward societies could make the transition to modernity by some magical mimicry, a transition that took the West a millennium. In reality, the colonial powers prevented any substantial progress. Now the pent up frustrations have exploded into an orgy of bestiality seldom seen in human history.
Once a nuclear bomb reaches it’s critical point, it cannot be neutralized. It’s monumental destruction must run its course. And so it is in the Moslem Middle East .
For good reason!
There is no viable short term solution!
Powerful historic forces are at play which are impervious to the maneuvers of peripheral powers.
The decay in the cultures of the Islamic world has been obvious for hundreds of years. The response of the West was colonialism, exploitation, disdain. There was an unexpressed belief that these backward societies could make the transition to modernity by some magical mimicry, a transition that took the West a millennium. In reality, the colonial powers prevented any substantial progress. Now the pent up frustrations have exploded into an orgy of bestiality seldom seen in human history.
Once a nuclear bomb reaches it’s critical point, it cannot be neutralized. It’s monumental destruction must run its course. And so it is in the Moslem Middle East .
6
Russian intervention has caused the price of oil to escalate, benefitting both Russia and Iran. Pretty simple.
Just as George W Bush evidently forgot to take Lemonade 101 en route to an MBA from Harvard, Richard Haass -- in his self-serving book "War of Necessity, War of Choice" -- ALSO unduly forgets the better option; i.e., no war! And now Roger Cohen? Gentlemen: Did ANY of you serve in Vietnam, or did you ALL mindfully choose an Obama-like "restraint" given that war hasn't accomplished anything since WWII?
9
The author William Goldman gave the best piece of advice ever written to guide national military strategy. From the character Vizzini in The Princess Bride:
NEVER GET INVOLVED IN A LAND WAR IN ASIA.
Truer words were never spoken. Obama understands this and is not a man of hubris who thinks he/we will beat the odds. Putin does not heed this maxim and will pay for it. G.W. Bush ignored it, and we are all paying for it.
NEVER GET INVOLVED IN A LAND WAR IN ASIA.
Truer words were never spoken. Obama understands this and is not a man of hubris who thinks he/we will beat the odds. Putin does not heed this maxim and will pay for it. G.W. Bush ignored it, and we are all paying for it.
15
So - just how bored are we down in Times Square? And the members lounge at the Counsel on Foreign Relations? I can hear the ice cubes being swirled around empty glasses in anxious frustration. What's a pundit to do when there's no saber rattling?
So the Middle East is burning (again) and the President is hesitant about our ability to intervene militarily and politically stabilize countries that don't want to be stabilized? Would it be too naive to ask where the other Middle East nations are? Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest military budget in the world. Where is their presence in this conflict in their backyard? Or the other gulf states. I would like to hear musters Cohen and Haas opine on that - instead of the dusky dated obsession with the Russian bear.
So the Middle East is burning (again) and the President is hesitant about our ability to intervene militarily and politically stabilize countries that don't want to be stabilized? Would it be too naive to ask where the other Middle East nations are? Saudi Arabia has the 3rd largest military budget in the world. Where is their presence in this conflict in their backyard? Or the other gulf states. I would like to hear musters Cohen and Haas opine on that - instead of the dusky dated obsession with the Russian bear.
6
A doctrine of restraint seems like an excellent idea to me. I get so tired of neo con policy people and war hawk Republicans cajoling the public to support American intervention in the mideast. Enough please from those who refuse to recognize the terrible mistake that Iraq was and justify that debacle with a "Saddam was a terrible dictator" whose demise benefited only Iran. So the US lost thousands of its own soldiers and went deeply into debt to do Iran a big favor. Boy was that a display of savvy US foreign policy and power superiority!
11
I have endless appreciation for President Obama's foreign policy on war and American involvement in the Mideast. When it comes to Russia and Syria I say let them have it. The outcome for Russia in Syria will be no different than France then America in the Indochina wars. No different than Britain, Russia and America in Afghanistan. When it comes to Russias involvement in Syria, throw the dog a bone. In this case, the bone will bury the dog. Let's just make sure we are not the dog that gets buried by Syria.
8
I'd ask how many of the chest-thumpers are willing to go fight themselves and to have their taxes raised for all this pax Americana, but I pretty mich know the answer.
Zero.
Zero.
19
"I am not a scientist" but I can recognize rubbish what I read it. This is ridiculous, Obama went along to bring Gaddafi down, what do we have to show for it? Should we go for more war plus nation building over Syria? I feel sorry for them, but it is hotbed of jihads, can we fix it? Putin is grandstanding, like he is the savior, that takes chutzpah, first, he invades Ukraine and to distract us from it he goes to "save" Syria. Do you think that Putin is a real leader because he walks on the ledge? That is Fox News, no sorry Fox Commentators position, that is rich. I agree with Obama, don't do stupid stuff, that takes real courage.
19
History in tme will tell us if Mr. Obama decisions were correct or not. In the meantime there is one fact in my mind that is correct. The US cannot be in a constant state of war for years to come. Being at war over decades will destroy the fabric of America and will leave nothing at home, bridges, roads, education, families, heath care and a normal American life for our people to live.
Did the war in Iraq make Iraq any safer or the US safer? Any different result with Afghanistan?
Did the war in Iraq make Iraq any safer or the US safer? Any different result with Afghanistan?
19
Mr. Cohen fails to recognize that our track record as "chief underwriter" is badly tarnished. Even if the mantle of global arbiter still fit, it's never been ours alone to claim and it's been a long time since a US military intervention anywhere made things better. Since the mid '60s, we have squandered our place in the world in useless wars (like the nonsense one in Iraq that Mr. Cohen supported) and the nation has no appetite for adventures that kill our young people, further darken our name, run up our debt and threaten to open the door to wider conflict. The danger of throwing one's weight around at the drop of a hat is far greater than choosing one's battles. (May they be few.) Right now, I don't see any that clearly qualify.
19
I don't think it's ambivalence so much as a clear change in policy in between Obama's first and second terms, which also coincided with Hillary Clinton's replacement by John Kerry as Secretary of State. Clinton pursued a much more assertive foreign policy, getting us deeply involved in Libya and Syria without a real game plan or strong allies. Kerry, much more skeptical of the country's ability to accomplish anything lasting through unilateral action, has instead focused on strengthening alliances and cutting deals, which was probably Obama's inclination all along anyway.
9
"the world is more dangerous than in recent memory". WHAT? really? more dangerous than in 2001 on 9/11? more dangerous than when we invaded Iraq and waited for the drones with bio weapons spewing disease all over america? more dangerous than when Bin Laden was calling for attacks on the US? More dangerous than when Iran was possibly creating a nuclear weapon as Israel prepared to bomb them unilaterally? Sure, Russia using military force may be a source of some danger to the world ( although not really to the USA), and needs to be watched. But the world seems like a much safer place than it was in 2008 to me. The biggest danger to the world would be an economically unstable USA throwing their weight around whenever a problem arose.
23
And that's just the 21st century. Is it more dangerous than in the 1970s? the 1960s? the 1940s? Or, well, any century prior? And dangerous for whom?
You're right -- it was a silly claim on the author's part.
You're right -- it was a silly claim on the author's part.
Why are you assuming that Iran is not possibly creating a nuclear weapon? Just because they said so? Just because they signed a treaty? A fools errrand
Yes, Alan, the world is more dangerous now than on 9/11. That was a huge, dramatic event, largely because that terrorist act, somewhat accidentally knocked down the twin towers1 But the rise of ISIS is much more, far more dangerous to the entire world than the 9/11 event. This was preventable, but 9/11 was hardly so.
1
So long as Putin is not shooting down passenger planes with hundreds of men, women and children on board, and if it's long enough past to forget, then he's alright?. A world leader that shows spine?
Just so long as he is not shooting down planes, right?
Just so long as he is not shooting down planes, right?
2
The US shot down passenger planes to in the Gulf of Hormuz...does that make our President a bad actor?
Obama is doing what he was elected to do. Those who voted for him wanted to get out of Iraq and Afghan wars, restore US reputation abroad, rebuild US economy, save US auto industry, pass financial reforms to prevent future bank failures and fix health insurance. These things, taken together, they all make US stronger, not weaker. Stronger at home, makes us stronger abroad in the long run. He will leave his successor with more policy options than his predecessor did.
Tightening of sanctions on Iran and ultimately working together with P5+1 coalition to conclude Iran nuclear deal and conclusion of TPP are prime examples of leading with partners as opposed to Bush unilateralism.
West went directly into Iraq and Afghanistan for regime change and it was a mess, indirectly supported regime change in Libya and it is a mess, stayed out of Syria and it still a mess. US is not weak because Putin supports his ally in Syria. He will find out that getting in is easy, getting out is not. US doesnt have an ally in Syria to support. Restraint is the best option. A strong US has bigger fish to fry in Asia.
Tightening of sanctions on Iran and ultimately working together with P5+1 coalition to conclude Iran nuclear deal and conclusion of TPP are prime examples of leading with partners as opposed to Bush unilateralism.
West went directly into Iraq and Afghanistan for regime change and it was a mess, indirectly supported regime change in Libya and it is a mess, stayed out of Syria and it still a mess. US is not weak because Putin supports his ally in Syria. He will find out that getting in is easy, getting out is not. US doesnt have an ally in Syria to support. Restraint is the best option. A strong US has bigger fish to fry in Asia.
36
"Yet Obama does not lack courage. Nor is he unprepared to take risks. It required courage to conclude the Iran nuclear deal — a signal achievement arrived at in the face of a vitriolic cacophony from Israel and the Republican-controlled Congress...."
No courage required for the above "achievement."
There is an anti-Israel atmosphere on the Democratic party left, and its been there for years. Often, it veers toward historical Antisemitism. Further, this strain flirts with Islamic fascism, and justifies it as a logical reaction to "Western colonialism," and other tripe, ala this President's lecture that current ISIS barbarity is no less repugnant than Christian barbarity form the tenth century (thanks Mr. President for the revealing glimpse into your thoughts).
While supposedly saving the US "treasure" in lives lost, this moral abdication of the Left will only end up costing ever more "treasure" in the future. Except, as usual, the "treasure" will not belong to the elites from either party.
This President's recent revealing 60 minute interview yielded this gem, in answer to the question, "Yes, I would definitely be re-elected if I could run again."
Somebody tell Mr. Obama that history waits for no man, and that he could be re-elected only if you believe that the Russians did not time their recent bombardment of Syria with the completion of the "Iran deal."
No fool like an incumbent.
No courage required for the above "achievement."
There is an anti-Israel atmosphere on the Democratic party left, and its been there for years. Often, it veers toward historical Antisemitism. Further, this strain flirts with Islamic fascism, and justifies it as a logical reaction to "Western colonialism," and other tripe, ala this President's lecture that current ISIS barbarity is no less repugnant than Christian barbarity form the tenth century (thanks Mr. President for the revealing glimpse into your thoughts).
While supposedly saving the US "treasure" in lives lost, this moral abdication of the Left will only end up costing ever more "treasure" in the future. Except, as usual, the "treasure" will not belong to the elites from either party.
This President's recent revealing 60 minute interview yielded this gem, in answer to the question, "Yes, I would definitely be re-elected if I could run again."
Somebody tell Mr. Obama that history waits for no man, and that he could be re-elected only if you believe that the Russians did not time their recent bombardment of Syria with the completion of the "Iran deal."
No fool like an incumbent.
5
How many left leaning anti Israel folks have you sat down with and spoken to?
3
Better a partner than an active particpant in an area where we cannot win.
20
From your article it appears the President is correct. His leadership is based on what is real; not some abstraction. Do you have a solution?
25
After two terms of Bush doctrine (all war all the time, to the benefit only of military contractors and arms suppliers), I am heartened and relieved to have a bit of caution and hesitance to engage the US in more war and unnecessary belligerence. As an important aside, of the current candidates for President, only Rand Paul and Bernie Sanders show the same thoughtful restraint.
46
The American People have spoken. We are not sending our boys over there to try and stop them from killing one another or engage in nation-building.
We 'saved' the Iraqis, how did that turn out? We 'saved' the Benghazianzs, how did that turn out? The only results we have achieved so far in the region is that they hate us more then ever and are killing each other faster and in more savage ways than ever imagined. And we're supposed to double-down?
Americans, by and large, seem to support the President.
We 'saved' the Iraqis, how did that turn out? We 'saved' the Benghazianzs, how did that turn out? The only results we have achieved so far in the region is that they hate us more then ever and are killing each other faster and in more savage ways than ever imagined. And we're supposed to double-down?
Americans, by and large, seem to support the President.
105
Obama doesn't underestimate our capabilities. His clear understanding of our capabilities leads him to his course. Here are just a few reasons;
1. We have learned that we are not the world's police force.
2. Other countries more directly affected watch while we take the responsibility. This President no longer plays that game.
3. If we want clear and convincing military victories, we must engage to our full capability, short of the nuclear option.
4. As a nation, we are no longer willing to suffer the concomitant costs associated with military victories.
Russia could may find itself in a descending spiral of increasing engagement with decreasing results. They are failing to win friends and influence countries. Meanwhile, Obama's perceived weakness could taken as wise and admirable restraint, allowing Russia to enter into this morass of no return. Our intelligence predicted this Russian move way before they made it.
We should not rush to what seems the obvious, a weak President leading a country unwilling to "get involved". So far, Russia has managed to carry out a few airstrikes. Airstrikes alone are not going to keep Assad in power. Syria will require troops on the ground.
Putin's only interests are to keep himself in power, increase his wealth and re-establish Russia as a super power. But Russia may have to disengage from Syria, much as they did in Afghanistan. Could this be the beginning of a very bad movie for Putin.
1. We have learned that we are not the world's police force.
2. Other countries more directly affected watch while we take the responsibility. This President no longer plays that game.
3. If we want clear and convincing military victories, we must engage to our full capability, short of the nuclear option.
4. As a nation, we are no longer willing to suffer the concomitant costs associated with military victories.
Russia could may find itself in a descending spiral of increasing engagement with decreasing results. They are failing to win friends and influence countries. Meanwhile, Obama's perceived weakness could taken as wise and admirable restraint, allowing Russia to enter into this morass of no return. Our intelligence predicted this Russian move way before they made it.
We should not rush to what seems the obvious, a weak President leading a country unwilling to "get involved". So far, Russia has managed to carry out a few airstrikes. Airstrikes alone are not going to keep Assad in power. Syria will require troops on the ground.
Putin's only interests are to keep himself in power, increase his wealth and re-establish Russia as a super power. But Russia may have to disengage from Syria, much as they did in Afghanistan. Could this be the beginning of a very bad movie for Putin.
Roger Cohen is the Chicken Little Guy. He's always predicting that the sky will fall in, and pulling issues out of thin air to wring his hands about. So I take his predictions of doom with a grain of salt.
President Obama is right in his restraint. There is no evidence that our many costly interventions over the last few decades have produced a scintilla of progress in the Middle East.
All this talk of a power vacuum ressulting from American pull-back is nonsense. Let the Russians get mired down. When they beat back the rebels, they will face the far stronger Islamic State, which is already moving into areas vacated by retreating rebels, according to The NYTimes.
Therein lies a peril for the U.S. As our goals and those of the Russians converge on ISIS, we risk being tarred with Russian excesses. One answer is for the U.S. to suspend all military activities in the region, and let the Russians become the "heavies." Write about that, Chicken Little Guy. It's a REAL issue of concern.
There
President Obama is right in his restraint. There is no evidence that our many costly interventions over the last few decades have produced a scintilla of progress in the Middle East.
All this talk of a power vacuum ressulting from American pull-back is nonsense. Let the Russians get mired down. When they beat back the rebels, they will face the far stronger Islamic State, which is already moving into areas vacated by retreating rebels, according to The NYTimes.
Therein lies a peril for the U.S. As our goals and those of the Russians converge on ISIS, we risk being tarred with Russian excesses. One answer is for the U.S. to suspend all military activities in the region, and let the Russians become the "heavies." Write about that, Chicken Little Guy. It's a REAL issue of concern.
There
35
Mr. Cohens has confused reticence with strategy. Obama has been strategic in his use of American military power. He is a realist versus a steroidal leader such as Putin. I'm quite sure that the Russians will inflame the situation, cause more deaths and may wind up at best with an Alawite mini state that needs full time Russian military assistance at the cost of many billions of rubles and Russian lives. I'm confident that The Obama strategy and Tow missiles will make the Russian blunder obvious
In the annals of time, which will be written long after we are dead and gone, Obama's 'Doctrine of Restraint' will be championed, not vilified, as some of his political opponents, none of whom even served in the military, even if they were of the age, do. To many of them, war is the first option, not the last. Did the US want war with Japan? No! Did Japan and its fascist leaders force the issue? Yes!
We are finally out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we need not to entangleourselves to any other wars in the MIddle East, or elsewhere.
We are finally out of Iraq and Afghanistan and we need not to entangleourselves to any other wars in the MIddle East, or elsewhere.
5
The pundits are in disarray. The NY Times liberal commentators present diametrically opposite evaluations of President Obama’s Syria policy. And the carnage goes on unabated. The Russians are in and no one is sure why or if it’s good or bad. Absolutely no one has suggested a clear and practical way of winding down the mayhem.
For good reason!
There is no viable short term solution!
Powerful historic forces are at play which are impervious to the maneuvers of peripheral powers.
The decay in the cultures of the Islamic world has been obvious for hundreds of years. The response of the West was colonialism, exploitation, disdain. There was an unexpressed belief that these backward societies could make the transition to modernity by some magical mimicry, a transition that took the West a millennium. In reality, the colonial powers prevented any substantial progress. Now the pent up frustrations have exploded into an orgy of bestiality seldom seen in human history.
Once a nuclear bomb reaches it’s critical point, it cannot be neutralized. It’s monumental destruction must run its course. And so it is in the Moslem Middle East .
For good reason!
There is no viable short term solution!
Powerful historic forces are at play which are impervious to the maneuvers of peripheral powers.
The decay in the cultures of the Islamic world has been obvious for hundreds of years. The response of the West was colonialism, exploitation, disdain. There was an unexpressed belief that these backward societies could make the transition to modernity by some magical mimicry, a transition that took the West a millennium. In reality, the colonial powers prevented any substantial progress. Now the pent up frustrations have exploded into an orgy of bestiality seldom seen in human history.
Once a nuclear bomb reaches it’s critical point, it cannot be neutralized. It’s monumental destruction must run its course. And so it is in the Moslem Middle East .
5
Mr Cohen, you make points that are worthy of note and discussion. I agree that Mr. Obama's restraint had consequences. His intervention in Syria and aggressive saber rattling in Ukraine also. Given that the good guys are very hard to tell from the bad guys in Syria, and given our complex strategic relationships, would we have been better off putting boots on the ground in Syria? Would that have made a difference? How about the Ukraine? Mr. Cohen, you and many seem concerned about Putin -- even though Putin's strategy has gained him what exactly? Yeah, he inserts himself and grabs headlines, but do you project that Putin's strategy to kick the Sunni hornets nest is a wise one long term for Russia? Do you think we should have somehow blocked that by intervening more directly ourselves?
The reality and frustration for the US is that leading using military solutions alone has not worked and will not work without being willing to sometimes sit out or play a more passive role as things evolve and develop. That takes enormous courage for a President because, as you demonstrate, the critics are almost always interventionists who label such a strategy as weakness, not wisdom.
The reality and frustration for the US is that leading using military solutions alone has not worked and will not work without being willing to sometimes sit out or play a more passive role as things evolve and develop. That takes enormous courage for a President because, as you demonstrate, the critics are almost always interventionists who label such a strategy as weakness, not wisdom.
7
This argument begins by listing reasons for the president's caution. You cite specifics and seem to understand the decisions. When it comes to the failures, as you see them, it's all vague generalities about situations that it's nor clear how any geopolitical player could determine the outcome without incurring severe and possibly unacceptable costs. Then you say, next time I'll explain all that. All we are left with is a vague, "trust me on this," accusation. There is a name for this kind of argument. I think it's unconvincing.
4
Obama is unbelievably wise and courageous to start reining in American global interference. As with population control, someone has to do it, and the initial stages are bound to be unpleasant no matter how it's done. That said, it would help if he was a lot clearer and more forceful about underlying policies. He's already realized it's stupid to draw lines in the sand (a blunder from which, with unbelievable irony, Putin saved him). But merely to say, as he did last night on 60 Minutes, that the policy is "America's interests first" is far too fuzzy (just what are NATO members, especially in the former eastern bloc, supposed to make of that ?!). The lack of simple American dominance has to be replaced with far smarter diplomacy, both in public and behind the scenes. It is plausible that really good diplomacy could result, say, in Russia and the U.S. finding some mutually-agreeable way to get rid of Assad without totally trashing Russia's bases and influence in Syria. I hope Obama is more forceful, and imaginative, behind the scenes than he currently is on stage.
4
Excellent analysis!
The US president's role in the world is exceptional. Both active participation in world affairs with meddling and trying to direct them towards US gain, and disengagement from world events pretending that they are not our concern, can be disastrous.
GW Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq, which led to all the current problems, most consequential being the rise of ISIS. President Obama went in the opposite direction when it came to Syria. We had no business in getting our feet wet in Libya. Assad's and/or his gang's reign of terror in Syria must have been prevented with the FULL U.S. MIGHT, regardless who says what. It was difficult but doable.
One problem, which not many talk about is Obama's tendency to be disengaged from affairs unless he is compelled. Even during the 2012 preparation, he reportedly told his advisors, "I can't do this!" He barely escaped from a disastrous debate performance, after performed poorly in the first debate. That disengaging tendency has cost him, rather the world dearly.
Then again, it's so easy to be critical of someone from afar. On balance, despite his mistakes, president Obama achieved so much. If he can decimate ISIS, regardless of the cost, and save Syria from deepening misery, he is likely to be judged as among the greatest presidents of the USA.
The US president's role in the world is exceptional. Both active participation in world affairs with meddling and trying to direct them towards US gain, and disengagement from world events pretending that they are not our concern, can be disastrous.
GW Bush unnecessarily invaded Iraq, which led to all the current problems, most consequential being the rise of ISIS. President Obama went in the opposite direction when it came to Syria. We had no business in getting our feet wet in Libya. Assad's and/or his gang's reign of terror in Syria must have been prevented with the FULL U.S. MIGHT, regardless who says what. It was difficult but doable.
One problem, which not many talk about is Obama's tendency to be disengaged from affairs unless he is compelled. Even during the 2012 preparation, he reportedly told his advisors, "I can't do this!" He barely escaped from a disastrous debate performance, after performed poorly in the first debate. That disengaging tendency has cost him, rather the world dearly.
Then again, it's so easy to be critical of someone from afar. On balance, despite his mistakes, president Obama achieved so much. If he can decimate ISIS, regardless of the cost, and save Syria from deepening misery, he is likely to be judged as among the greatest presidents of the USA.
1
@A. G. Alias - in lieu of sloganeering, maybe you can provide cogent answers to the following questions:
1. What does FULL US MIGHT wrt Syria mean? Invading yet another ME Muslim nation and overthrowing its leader?
2. Just why, exactly? SPECIFICS, please. Include references to recent history and specifics as regards the various rebel factions and religious rivalries in the region. Overthrowing another leader will male is heros in the region
3. Just HOW, exactly. Again, with specific references to all parties and stakeholders involved. Include casualty and cost estimates. Explain in detail how we would deal with Iran and Hezbollah. Specifics as to how long we would need to base troops in Syria and ongoing future casualty and cost estimates.
4. What is the end-game? How do you define success? Just the overthrow of Assad? What about the follow-on power struggle? Do we just leave them? If so, what would we have accomplished? Or is the end-game the stationing of hundreds of thousands of US troops in Syria for the forseeable future? Your estimate as to how said troops would be received?
4. Why us, exactly? I kmow we are bigger than everyone else, but let's focus on the moral equation, that is, why is and not Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc.
I follow the Syrian issue daily in numerous online, televised, and dead-tree media outlets and I have never seen or heard an answer to ANY of these questions by the endless array of blow-hard pundits that would put us over there.
1. What does FULL US MIGHT wrt Syria mean? Invading yet another ME Muslim nation and overthrowing its leader?
2. Just why, exactly? SPECIFICS, please. Include references to recent history and specifics as regards the various rebel factions and religious rivalries in the region. Overthrowing another leader will male is heros in the region
3. Just HOW, exactly. Again, with specific references to all parties and stakeholders involved. Include casualty and cost estimates. Explain in detail how we would deal with Iran and Hezbollah. Specifics as to how long we would need to base troops in Syria and ongoing future casualty and cost estimates.
4. What is the end-game? How do you define success? Just the overthrow of Assad? What about the follow-on power struggle? Do we just leave them? If so, what would we have accomplished? Or is the end-game the stationing of hundreds of thousands of US troops in Syria for the forseeable future? Your estimate as to how said troops would be received?
4. Why us, exactly? I kmow we are bigger than everyone else, but let's focus on the moral equation, that is, why is and not Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, etc.
I follow the Syrian issue daily in numerous online, televised, and dead-tree media outlets and I have never seen or heard an answer to ANY of these questions by the endless array of blow-hard pundits that would put us over there.
I remember Xmas of 1944, when American families had to stop decorating their trees to answer the door for all those war department telegrams. Thanks to our president's "restraint", Americans can sit down to Xmas dinner this year without having to watch their son's heads being chopped off. Of course, Xmas of 2017 may be different if the clown car rolls in.
13
Roger Cohen supported the invasion of Iraq, and as late as 2009, still maintained, "I still believe Iraq's freedom outweighs its terrible price." You would think his monumentally poor judgment and stubborn denial of reality would give him pause...but no. He even insists on distorting recent history by criticizing President Obama's policies, ascribing the current problems in Afghanistan to "a surge undermined by a date certain for Afghan withdrawal," when, in 2009, even General Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, said, the U.S. cannot provide an "endless surge" of combat forces in Afghanistan. How often must Roger Cohen be proved wrong before he stops giving foreign policy recommendations?
28
"Diplomatic breakthrough with Cuba"? We gave them what they wanted, and we got...
release of political prisoners? No
freer speech in Cuba? No
freer press in Cuba? No, still no freedom at all
right of Cubans to emigrate? No
Nothing at all.
One-sided concessions aren't a breakthrough.
release of political prisoners? No
freer speech in Cuba? No
freer press in Cuba? No, still no freedom at all
right of Cubans to emigrate? No
Nothing at all.
One-sided concessions aren't a breakthrough.
7
Over 50 years of a boycott and you expect instantaneous results? At least they are now talking and the Castro boys are getting considerably older and their days are numbered. Have some patience, I am sure the next generation of leaders in Cuba will probably be dancing to a different tune in the future.
What did Cuba get from America, aside from reestablished diplomatic relations?
According to Wikipedia, "The United States, however, continues to maintain its commercial, economic, and financial embargo, which makes it illegal for U.S. corporations to do business with Cuba, although the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has called for the ending of the embargo but U.S. law requires congressional approval to end the embargo."
The only "concessions" are the establishment of embassies in both countries. Hardly a one-sided deal. But nevertheless, it is, as the editorial states, a diplomatic breakthrough.
According to Wikipedia, "The United States, however, continues to maintain its commercial, economic, and financial embargo, which makes it illegal for U.S. corporations to do business with Cuba, although the U.S. President, Barack Obama, has called for the ending of the embargo but U.S. law requires congressional approval to end the embargo."
The only "concessions" are the establishment of embassies in both countries. Hardly a one-sided deal. But nevertheless, it is, as the editorial states, a diplomatic breakthrough.
Such restraint is wise and highly effective for a great power like the United States, but not new: In the early sixties President Kennedy said, "Let us exercise our [power] with wisdom and restraint and seek to achieve for our time and for all time that ancient vision of peace on earth...."
President Obama said on 60 Minutes last night that his primary goal is "To keep America safe." His entire strategy has been designed to create and use advantage in ways that keep America safe so Americans can enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness in peace. In spite of popular belief to the contrary, Russia's participation in Syria is not inconsistent with Obama's strategy. In fact, if Putin does eventually help oust Assad, as I believe he will, Rusia's participation in Syria will measurably strengthen Obama's wise and effective strategy of retraint.
President Obama said on 60 Minutes last night that his primary goal is "To keep America safe." His entire strategy has been designed to create and use advantage in ways that keep America safe so Americans can enjoy life and liberty and pursue happiness in peace. In spite of popular belief to the contrary, Russia's participation in Syria is not inconsistent with Obama's strategy. In fact, if Putin does eventually help oust Assad, as I believe he will, Rusia's participation in Syria will measurably strengthen Obama's wise and effective strategy of retraint.
9
Thank goodness our president is so much wiser than hacks like Hass and Cohen who like to go on about "power vacuums" and other such nebulous concepts. As Obama explained last night on 60 Minutes, don't you think Putin would have preferred that Assad could win without the Russians having to wade into this mess? Putin's move is a sign of desperation and weakness. Strength is understanding that military power is not the answer to everything. In regard to Syria, "arming the rebels" never works. Especially in a case like this where we can't even tell one rebel group from another. "Assad Must Go" is a political statement from the US about a dictator that slaughters protesters. It does not mean it's our job to remove him. Finally, "zero follow up in Libya". Follow up how? By occupying another mideast hellhole? Where's the UN? We know the cost of "boldness" and intervention. I for one am happy to wait and see how this doctrine of restraint thing turns out.
48
Thank you, Mr. Cohen, for saying so astutely what needs to be said. And It's past time: Criticism from the left of the power vacuum left by Obama's waffling abroad and how Putin is filling it. The Democrats need to wake up to how vulnerable they have become thanks to Obama's failed foreign policy. The Republican presidential candidate will put the following question to voters over and over again: "Do you feel safe?" The answer is going to be a real problem for Democrats. The way Obama has thrown Ukraine under the bus and destabilized Syria for the next generation is not only a national disgrace, it makes me (and I'm sure many other Americans) uneasy and feeling threatened for the first since the end of the cold war. And mind you: I'm a liberal Democrat.
4
None of the recent events in Ukraine make me feel "unsafe" at all. Its not in our sphere of influence and we are not the worlds police. Same with Syria. Russia has a base there. We have little reason to get into another endless brainless conflict. Terrorist attacks on us at home can be carried out regardless of Ukraine or Syria. Terrorists don't always need a supportive state especially home grown ones.
You sew paranoia and get us into wasteful endless conflict form which there will never be a "winner".
Obama is right to show significant skepticism in getting us into further quagmires.
Your attitude will make us more enemies, not less. Why don't you send yourself or your children to foreign wars to feel "safe". Go join.
You sew paranoia and get us into wasteful endless conflict form which there will never be a "winner".
Obama is right to show significant skepticism in getting us into further quagmires.
Your attitude will make us more enemies, not less. Why don't you send yourself or your children to foreign wars to feel "safe". Go join.
Do you honestly think that Putin will send any troops in to Syria? I would not count on it.
It is hard to know when wisdom turns into laziness. Wasn't there a way to more forcefully oppose Assad and diminish ISIS, without necessarily invading Syria? It is incomprehensible that thousands of very expensive sorties inflict so little damage on a band of gangsters. It incomprehensible that the ISIS finances have not been dried out by now, with all the means at the disposal of Western allies. Isn't here a way to interdict vehicular movement and telecommunications in ISIS-controlled areas, and to find and exploit the many weak links in their mode of operation? My guess is that the Obama team is rather amateurish and indecisive - "lagging behind" rather than "leading from behind" when faced with fast-paced historical developments.
4
You got to be kidding. Lazy? or Realistic? Americans are sick of war, of seeing young men and women do the work of killing for old white deluded men. Are you one of those? Obama understood how little is accomplished with wars of choice that lack a real need such as defeating Hitler. All of our wars since then have been driven by ideology such as avenging 9-11 or stopping Communism. The lives and money wasted. Think of the tax cuts we could have had but for Bush's folly in the Middle East to give Cheney a present which he would then give to Halliburton and US Energy companies.
22
I am not advocating for war. Criticism of Obama's inefficiency in the ME is not necessarily war-mongering. For a superpower with an overwhelming advantage in technology an brainpower not to have utterly destroyed ISIS by now is appalling, I like Obama and would have voted for him twice. But facts are facts.
The President's attempt, and partial success, in pivoting away from the Middle East and toward the Asia/Pacific is smart - something we should have been doing in 2001 instead of starting unnecessary wars. China loved our distraction and made the most of it. But now, at last, their expansion of state capitalism and militarism is being countered. Smartest president in my lifetime.
38
Let's leave it to history to judge whether Obama's "doctrine of restraint" has been wise! He has been criticised for doing nothing to throw his weight behind the Syrian rebels, to force Assad to step down and to take military action after the red line was crossed.
Let's wait and see how much Putin achieves with his unilateral action in Syria. His failure would only serve to exonerate Obama.
Obama's "lead-from-behind military campaign to oust Libya's dictator with zero follow-up plan" wasn't a mistake. There was a sense of optimism and confidence that the interim government in Tripoli would manage the transition without foreign interference.
Let's wait and see how much Putin achieves with his unilateral action in Syria. His failure would only serve to exonerate Obama.
Obama's "lead-from-behind military campaign to oust Libya's dictator with zero follow-up plan" wasn't a mistake. There was a sense of optimism and confidence that the interim government in Tripoli would manage the transition without foreign interference.
4
“I think Obama exaggerates the limits and underestimates the upside of American power, even if the trend is toward a more difficult environment for translating power and influence,” Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, told me....
[ Richard Haass has been a definitive advocate of war, from Iraq on. I find the name, and wonder why after being so wildly wrong about foreign policy for so long the columnist or I should care a fig for what Haass says. ]
[ Richard Haass has been a definitive advocate of war, from Iraq on. I find the name, and wonder why after being so wildly wrong about foreign policy for so long the columnist or I should care a fig for what Haass says. ]
19
"(T)he world is more dangerous than in recent memory"? Are you kidding me?! What I hear the author saying is, "You pulled us out of two quagmires, righted an economy against enormous odds, established health care for millions, made the world incredibly safer through an agreement with Iran and our allies, kept us from putting boots on the ground where it hasn't been in our interests, but what have you done for me lately?"
With great thanks that our President is an adult this time, and in the words of the late Joan Rivers, "Grow up."
With great thanks that our President is an adult this time, and in the words of the late Joan Rivers, "Grow up."
62
Just a great summary of the truth, thank you
How did Russian strength work in their first Afghanistan adventure? They had more military strength back then and still failed miserably.
I think we should let the Russians stick their fists into another hornet's nest!
President Obama is doing very well in limiting involvements and disengaging. Anyone who disagrees with him should enlist in the army or marines and get on the pointy end of the spear!
I think we should let the Russians stick their fists into another hornet's nest!
President Obama is doing very well in limiting involvements and disengaging. Anyone who disagrees with him should enlist in the army or marines and get on the pointy end of the spear!
6
The American people thirst for peace but the establishment and their handmaidens in the MSM offer them more war. What exactly do they not understand from our history of regime change, democracy building and military intervention? It doesn't work plain and simple and in the end the situation is typically worse than before our meddling. I shudder to think what would have happened these last 8 years if we had had John McCain as POTUS. Obama has been smart enough not to get the US suckered into another quagmire and I thank him for that. The war amongst the Muslims can only be resolved by the Muslims.
5
In Ukraine there was nothing any president regardless of political philosophy could have done. Committing boots on the ground next door to the Russia's border would have been total folly. As for Syria, which was and seems to be Russia's only client state in the region, given the genocidal hatred among all the resident factions, is it not better to let it be the problem of other neighboring countries? Imagine the gleaming state of the U.S.A.'s infrastructure and generous social services had we used the trillions spent on these efforts for our domestic needs. Russia and others surely would've noticed that strengthening of our society.
5
Here is what Obama could have done. He could have a year ago sent the Ukrainian patriots laying down their lives to defend against a Russian invasion weapons they desperately needed: state-of-the-art, shoulder-fired anti-tank missiles (known as "Javelins") and state-of-the art counter battery radar to pinpoint the location of artillery and rocket emplacements. The Ukrainians have been repeatedly slaughtered by armored assaults and rocket barrages against which they have no effective defenses. Instead, and despite the repeated urging of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Congress (including many Democrats) Obama repeatedly said "No" to sending these arms because he was afraid of Putin's reaction. It was only after Putin invaded Syria and Obama, shortly thereafter, came away from meeting with Putin stunned at the man's intransigence and aggressiveness, that he finally -- tentatively, maybe, well, we'll see -- talked about sending the counter battery radar. Is that specific enough for you? It's a long way from "nothing."
Mr Cohen, you are most ready for the sacrifice of American lives and treasure on fruitless adventures. It really seems that Santayana's admonition will repeatedly be ignored.
3
In truth, our main enemy in the world is China. They are determined that this will be their century, and we -- through our corportacracy and our endless military actions-- have weakened us and simultaneously strengthened China. They are rubbing their hands with glee, watching our internal stupidity and this beating of war drums.
3
The state of Prussia was abolished in 1947 by the victors of WWII. It might help boosters of US war to look back at the history of Prussia and its bloody wars.
Before the Reformation, it was a small state with little power. By the time of Napoleon, Prussian territory covered much of Europe and had been amassed in bloody wars. The Franco-Prussian war (1870) was fueled by French resentment of the 1815 treaties. WWI had many causes, one of which was French resentment of Bismarck’s cruel settlement in 1871. WWII was fueled by the harsh treaty of Versailles.
We’d better learn—he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. We have better things to do than impose our uncertain and uneducated will on others.
Before the Reformation, it was a small state with little power. By the time of Napoleon, Prussian territory covered much of Europe and had been amassed in bloody wars. The Franco-Prussian war (1870) was fueled by French resentment of the 1815 treaties. WWI had many causes, one of which was French resentment of Bismarck’s cruel settlement in 1871. WWII was fueled by the harsh treaty of Versailles.
We’d better learn—he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. We have better things to do than impose our uncertain and uneducated will on others.
6
As President Obama said last night on 60 Minutes when asked if the world is a more dangerous place now, "America is safer."
It is only our role to be the world's police men because so many people indebted to the military industrial complex say it is.
If the America Association of General Contractors had the power of the m.i.c. we could be the world's highway and sewer builders. Which would actually be much more profitable and much safer for children.
Putin comes from the KGB, he is a Soviet, he wants to be Stalin, he wants Russia to be a world force again. He is probably a fool. Russia's economy is not big enough to support his ambitions.
There are two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who are the major powers in the Middle East and until they decide to get it done there will not be quiet in the region. The sooner we realize that the sooner America can get back to doing its business. In America.
It is only our role to be the world's police men because so many people indebted to the military industrial complex say it is.
If the America Association of General Contractors had the power of the m.i.c. we could be the world's highway and sewer builders. Which would actually be much more profitable and much safer for children.
Putin comes from the KGB, he is a Soviet, he wants to be Stalin, he wants Russia to be a world force again. He is probably a fool. Russia's economy is not big enough to support his ambitions.
There are two countries, Saudi Arabia and Iran, who are the major powers in the Middle East and until they decide to get it done there will not be quiet in the region. The sooner we realize that the sooner America can get back to doing its business. In America.
8
Obama has been right in his caution and wariness about the use of his military tools. The US military has consistently demonstrated a lack of aptitude for the type of conflicts that torment the Middle East.
They seem to have organized, equipped and trained their forces for the type of conflicts that have the very lowest odds of happening thus, are frustrated and confused by any type of conflict less that global war.
Additionally, Obama intuitively appreciates that the American public is in no mood for more long drawn out wars that are conducted with ineptitude and provide nothing but a trickle of American casualties.
This is especially true when it seems no vital American interests are at stake to justify the costs in both blood and treasure. The people have come to doubt the efficacy of using war to resolve what are essentially political and cultural problems.
They seem to have organized, equipped and trained their forces for the type of conflicts that have the very lowest odds of happening thus, are frustrated and confused by any type of conflict less that global war.
Additionally, Obama intuitively appreciates that the American public is in no mood for more long drawn out wars that are conducted with ineptitude and provide nothing but a trickle of American casualties.
This is especially true when it seems no vital American interests are at stake to justify the costs in both blood and treasure. The people have come to doubt the efficacy of using war to resolve what are essentially political and cultural problems.
12
Mr. Cohen: isn't it rather clear by now that armed intervention by the U.S. has not been effective or productive in several Mideast (socalled) countries? I m reminded of the definition of insanity as being a continuous repetition of the same futile actions while expecting different results. Wake up, sir. None of these tribal cesspools are worth one more American life.
23
It is one more symptom of the oligarchy in which we live that those who advocate the use of force are not the ones welcoming the coffins of their sons back to the US or holding their hands as they try to learn to walk again.
20
Good for President Obama.
Our reckless use of human and financial resources in the previous Bush administration cost our country too much, and made the world a far more dangerous place.
Restraint is a Presidential virtue to be applauded.
Our reckless use of human and financial resources in the previous Bush administration cost our country too much, and made the world a far more dangerous place.
Restraint is a Presidential virtue to be applauded.
19
What neither Mr. Cohen nor Mr. Haass can tell us is where the Middle East (including Syria) would be today had President Obama NOT followed the pathof restraint that he has. Hindsight is a one-way street.
3
The Middle East chaos requires a solution that no one has been capable of articulating except for some pundits who would recommit trillions of taxpayer dollars and an unspecified amount of American casualties. Given our disastrous experiences I will take Obama's retranchement anytime. If Putin wants it be it.
12
I am continually surprised at the number of commentators who are desperate for the United States to get into another war in the Middle East. The bloodlust of the commentariat knows no bounds.
32
Mr. Cohen correctly points out that the "Obama" doctrine of withdrawel from the Middle East using proxies to fight our wars is a failure.
He hints and dances around the fact that the vacuum created by our withdrawal is being filled by Russia and Iran to our our detriment. Looming is the investment by China in bringing back Iran's oil fields to life. The powers filling this vacuum are our enemies our rivals for world power and influence. Egypt once our strong allie is now rebuilding its military with arms from Russia due to our support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Presiden Kennedy wrote "Profiles In Courage", What courage did it require to kill Bin laden. None. Courage was required to take out Syria's poison gas faclities and weapons, that redline was abndoned and Russia became the top player.
If Libya is the prime example of leading from beind than we had better reconsider and find a better way.
The Iran deal a sign of courage? I don't think so. It was a failure to exercize strength and was just another retreat into "profiles in cowardise"
He hints and dances around the fact that the vacuum created by our withdrawal is being filled by Russia and Iran to our our detriment. Looming is the investment by China in bringing back Iran's oil fields to life. The powers filling this vacuum are our enemies our rivals for world power and influence. Egypt once our strong allie is now rebuilding its military with arms from Russia due to our support for the Muslim Brotherhood.
Presiden Kennedy wrote "Profiles In Courage", What courage did it require to kill Bin laden. None. Courage was required to take out Syria's poison gas faclities and weapons, that redline was abndoned and Russia became the top player.
If Libya is the prime example of leading from beind than we had better reconsider and find a better way.
The Iran deal a sign of courage? I don't think so. It was a failure to exercize strength and was just another retreat into "profiles in cowardise"
1
Sigh. You just cheerleaded for putting tens of thousands of American troops into Syria, something that even John McCain and Lindsey Graham don't support.
I'd mention that we never supported the Muslim Brotherhood--we supported the "right of the People peaceably to assemble"--but you guys are allergic to reality.
I'd mention that we never supported the Muslim Brotherhood--we supported the "right of the People peaceably to assemble"--but you guys are allergic to reality.
"The powers filling this vacuum are our enemies our rivals for world power and influence."
I hear people talking all the time about this "power and influence" bit. Nobody ever talks about why we need it, though, and nobody ever seems to try to figure out what the cost of getting it is.
I hear people talking all the time about this "power and influence" bit. Nobody ever talks about why we need it, though, and nobody ever seems to try to figure out what the cost of getting it is.
Sooo...what should O have done? Send in the troops?
Sometimes there are only bad options.
And as far as: "the world is more dangerous than in recent memory" ... that's actually not true.
One example:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year...
Sometimes there are only bad options.
And as far as: "the world is more dangerous than in recent memory" ... that's actually not true.
One example:
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year...
4
"the world is more dangerous than in recent memory"
I remember sitting on the front porch during the Cuban Missile Crisis, listening to the adults talk about whether we were about to die.
The neighbors were from Poland, and very pessimistic.
That was worse.
I remember sitting on the front porch during the Cuban Missile Crisis, listening to the adults talk about whether we were about to die.
The neighbors were from Poland, and very pessimistic.
That was worse.
3
You are too kind to the president in this op-ed. The problem here is not restraint. The problem is that the president does not know (nor is he interested in) making tough choices and committing the full-weight of American (and European) military might to the cause. Of course we should use diplomatic means until they are exhausted, of course we should form alliances and coalitions. Sanctions are fine too.
But none of that does anything to stop what is happening in Ukraine. Why has this president not given lethal aid to Ukraine's Western-leaning government? Why has he not forged a bond with NATO and the EU to put NATO troops on the ground to defeat the Russian-back militias and, if necessary, to kick Russian troops out of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? These are things that should have been on the table from the very beginning but were never considered.
You mentioned the "red-line" in Syria. You cannot say "if you do this we will respond" and then do absolutely nothing about a problem. It shows us as being weak regardless of the political realities on the ground.
I also don't think it's cowardice. I think Obama really believes that this is the best way to do things, but it's not surprise that his Hawkish Secretary of State (Clinton) left when she did. How could she deal with a president who was unwilling to even commit American military might to challenge and respond to our enemies?
But none of that does anything to stop what is happening in Ukraine. Why has this president not given lethal aid to Ukraine's Western-leaning government? Why has he not forged a bond with NATO and the EU to put NATO troops on the ground to defeat the Russian-back militias and, if necessary, to kick Russian troops out of Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? These are things that should have been on the table from the very beginning but were never considered.
You mentioned the "red-line" in Syria. You cannot say "if you do this we will respond" and then do absolutely nothing about a problem. It shows us as being weak regardless of the political realities on the ground.
I also don't think it's cowardice. I think Obama really believes that this is the best way to do things, but it's not surprise that his Hawkish Secretary of State (Clinton) left when she did. How could she deal with a president who was unwilling to even commit American military might to challenge and respond to our enemies?
4
You just cheered for getting NATO into a shooting war with Russia.
Good grief.
Good grief.
1
the red lines specifically pertained to chemical weapons, which have been removed. red line crossed, chemical weapons removed.
"The problem is that the president does not know (nor is he interested in) making tough choices and committing the full-weight of American (and European) military might to the cause."
Define American military might. Do you mean by "military might" that only the children of the poorest few percent of American citizens will be sent into battle, while everyone else gets to carry on shopping as usual?
Or do you mean that all able-bodied personnel will be called on to fight or otherwise aid the battle? And every civilian use of assets that conflicts with the prosecution of that battle would be curtailed?
Supposing they do decide to "commit America's full military might", who will make the argument to the people that this level of commitment is warranted?
After all there is military might and Military Might, you know.
Define American military might. Do you mean by "military might" that only the children of the poorest few percent of American citizens will be sent into battle, while everyone else gets to carry on shopping as usual?
Or do you mean that all able-bodied personnel will be called on to fight or otherwise aid the battle? And every civilian use of assets that conflicts with the prosecution of that battle would be curtailed?
Supposing they do decide to "commit America's full military might", who will make the argument to the people that this level of commitment is warranted?
After all there is military might and Military Might, you know.
Now we can add Mr. Cohen's voice to the cacophony (with the emphasis on "phony") of Obama critics who fail to provide any sort of credible alternative; just a bunch of generalized comments about weakness and the perpetuation of the myth that Mr. Obama drew a red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons and it was he who failed to follow through when it was a timid Congress that likes to talk tough but who would not put themselves on the line in case things went wrong. So, Mr. Cohen, spare us the vague critiques and propose a coherent set of alternative actions that Pres. Obama should take going forward (not a rehash of what he "should have done" with the benefit of hindsight).
And while you're at it, please also provide us with a piece on Mr. Putin, who has successfully deflected a cooperative press away from Ukraine, who has no real accountability to an electorate, an opposition or a domestic free press and who can put military "volunteers" into harm's way and hide their inevitable casualties. It is curious that the behavior of Mr. Putin is the yardstick by which you judge President Obama. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
And while you're at it, please also provide us with a piece on Mr. Putin, who has successfully deflected a cooperative press away from Ukraine, who has no real accountability to an electorate, an opposition or a domestic free press and who can put military "volunteers" into harm's way and hide their inevitable casualties. It is curious that the behavior of Mr. Putin is the yardstick by which you judge President Obama. Aren't we supposed to be better than that?
25
I say require all foreign military interventions to have the approval of Congress, that way the whole country has a vote (as it did in Iraq). The expected reticence of foreign involvement, due to the Iraq/Afghanistan hangover, cannot then be laid at any individual's door. Mistakes, such as Iraq, will be our fault, not his/hers.
3
The failure in Iraq and Afghanistan must have molded Obama's tepid response to foreign crisis; the Ukraine war and now the Syrian conflict in both instances Russians playing a pivotal role. The failure of Obama to curtail Assad's chemical weapons and the indiscriminate bombing killing innocent civilians was taken as a weakness by Putin. This was a crucial failure. The 'red line' definition and the call for 'Assad must go' has now became the defining moments of his presidency. it is time for Obama to save his presidency by showing boldness and keeping his promise to force Assad to leave and bring the fleeing population back.
1
Syria without Assad would just become another Libya or Iraq, failed states with corrupt, unstable governments. Once the strong-men are removed chaos and civil war are the inevitable result in the Middle East. The U.S. has not successfully imposed democracy at gunpoint since 1945.
1
Presidential red lines are made and broken all the time. The only thing worse than making a foolish one is trying to follow-through on it to avoid appearing foolish: that's doubly foolish.
1
Mr. Cohen claims that the cost of The Doctrine of Restraint has been "very high", fretting that Putin has undue influence in a few failed states.
But after the Bush Doctrine of Bring It On, costing several trillion dollars on the credit card and thousands of dead and permanently maimed soldiers, maybe Cohen should give it a rest.
But instead he blames Obama for Mid East "conflict and fracture" which has a thousand year history before his birth?
Then he proposes to divine the future of the world in his next column?
He is missing a perfect opportunity to be quiet on the topic of military force.
But after the Bush Doctrine of Bring It On, costing several trillion dollars on the credit card and thousands of dead and permanently maimed soldiers, maybe Cohen should give it a rest.
But instead he blames Obama for Mid East "conflict and fracture" which has a thousand year history before his birth?
Then he proposes to divine the future of the world in his next column?
He is missing a perfect opportunity to be quiet on the topic of military force.
34
Gore Vidal dubbed our foreign policy as"perpetual wars".
Engagement in war is good for the columnists, policy
analysts like Haas who will be on every TV show
giving a discourse on the rights and wrongs
of policy implementation and which local politicians
we should favor in the land of our military action.
We also became a mercenary militaristic nation
serving the interests of Israel,Saudis and other Gulf Arab
countries. President Bush complied with Saudi demand
to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and then out
of this world because Bush family was so closely
tied to Saudis and the oil. Obama has no such interests.
He probably asked one and only important question:
what did we gain by attacking Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya and what did those countries gain from our military
action and occupation. Answer: nothing. Both, us and
them, were losers. In global survey the opinion polls
showed USA as the greatest danger to international
security. Despite losing lives and spending trillions
we are perceived as the great danger to security.
Of course the arms manufacturers and other
contractors building Iraq and Afghanistan did well.
Mr. Cohen needs to understand that 20th century
policies of gun boat diplomacy won't work in 21st
century. Obama has steered USA away from the
foreign entanglements and hopefully new president
will keep it that way.
Engagement in war is good for the columnists, policy
analysts like Haas who will be on every TV show
giving a discourse on the rights and wrongs
of policy implementation and which local politicians
we should favor in the land of our military action.
We also became a mercenary militaristic nation
serving the interests of Israel,Saudis and other Gulf Arab
countries. President Bush complied with Saudi demand
to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and then out
of this world because Bush family was so closely
tied to Saudis and the oil. Obama has no such interests.
He probably asked one and only important question:
what did we gain by attacking Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya and what did those countries gain from our military
action and occupation. Answer: nothing. Both, us and
them, were losers. In global survey the opinion polls
showed USA as the greatest danger to international
security. Despite losing lives and spending trillions
we are perceived as the great danger to security.
Of course the arms manufacturers and other
contractors building Iraq and Afghanistan did well.
Mr. Cohen needs to understand that 20th century
policies of gun boat diplomacy won't work in 21st
century. Obama has steered USA away from the
foreign entanglements and hopefully new president
will keep it that way.
3
So where is the world more dangerous? And if answerable is it more so for us, our people, our nation?
Does it matter one whit where Mr. Putin sticks his nose in the European continent or what words Kim Jong-un spouts?
To some real degree we need to mind our own business and that business is here in North America. What are perceived as threats from whoever are as empty as the drums some beat for a return to US world power.
The real threat to us is from within, the betrayal by our own who have taken good industries off shore and in so doing essentially stolen from our workers to line their own pockets.
How fair is the "American Dream" when the disparity between wealth and poverty in our own nation is so marked that almost one in four of our citizens is on welfare?
Mind our own business. Get our house in order. Build on our strengths. We have played the world game of military and economic might until it has left us so deep in debt that future generations will be paying a bill throughout their lifetime that they didn't accrue to people they don't know. A fine legacy.
Donald Trump may have little to offer, but his plaintive cry to "Make America Great Again" is dead on.
Our perceived need for a strong defense is a smokescreen used by politicians who purport to represent those among us who still have jobs to cover the actual transfer of our tax dollars to the wealthiest among us.
Who needs let alone deserves a billion dollars for any reason to make it through life?
Does it matter one whit where Mr. Putin sticks his nose in the European continent or what words Kim Jong-un spouts?
To some real degree we need to mind our own business and that business is here in North America. What are perceived as threats from whoever are as empty as the drums some beat for a return to US world power.
The real threat to us is from within, the betrayal by our own who have taken good industries off shore and in so doing essentially stolen from our workers to line their own pockets.
How fair is the "American Dream" when the disparity between wealth and poverty in our own nation is so marked that almost one in four of our citizens is on welfare?
Mind our own business. Get our house in order. Build on our strengths. We have played the world game of military and economic might until it has left us so deep in debt that future generations will be paying a bill throughout their lifetime that they didn't accrue to people they don't know. A fine legacy.
Donald Trump may have little to offer, but his plaintive cry to "Make America Great Again" is dead on.
Our perceived need for a strong defense is a smokescreen used by politicians who purport to represent those among us who still have jobs to cover the actual transfer of our tax dollars to the wealthiest among us.
Who needs let alone deserves a billion dollars for any reason to make it through life?
Mr. Cohen misses some important aspects of the Syrian problem. First, Pres. Putin sees every Sunni in Syria as the enemy. He'll view Sunnis in Iraq the same way if he enters that fray. This is disastrous for both countries. Pres. Obama, however, has tried — so far unsuccessfully, I admit — to build a coalition of Sunnis, Kurds and Shia in Iraq and to support moderate Sunni rebels in Syria, the only strategy that has a peaceful future for these countries in mind. Second, Pres. Putin does not care how many civilians die in Syria or how many flee the country. The American approach tries to limit civilian casualties as much as possible. Third, President Putin sees nothing wrong with an autocracy; after all he heads one. He views democracy as a weak form of government, and considers America weak for this reason. In his view, Bashar al-Assad is a good leader if Assad can successfully control Syria with oppression. Pres. Obama believes that a democracy is the only viable future for Syria and that there must be a peaceful coalition of various sectarian elements in the country.
And by the way, I also disagree with Mr. Cohen that Pres. Obama in some way failed with regard to Syria's chemical weapons. Yes, he threatened Syria with the so-called red line, but that forced Russia to get involved, and the chemical weapons are now gone. That's a total success in my opinion. Not one bomb dropped; not one American life lost. It would be good if Russia and America could work together again.
And by the way, I also disagree with Mr. Cohen that Pres. Obama in some way failed with regard to Syria's chemical weapons. Yes, he threatened Syria with the so-called red line, but that forced Russia to get involved, and the chemical weapons are now gone. That's a total success in my opinion. Not one bomb dropped; not one American life lost. It would be good if Russia and America could work together again.
5
It's hard to take a characterization of a doctrine of restraint seriously when we're bombing a hospital whose GPS coordinates are known to us. Better luck next time, Roger.
3
The Russians are stirring trying to assert their own self interests in their neighborhood. They tried to do so during the cold war in eastern Europe and again in Afghanistan. They are big in area and atomic weapons, but have always lagged behind economically and especially now as oil prices fall and their revenues shrink. Are we to over react and try to project our power half way around the world once again?
The forces in the middle east are like yapping rabid dogs ruled by ideology and internecine squabbles Will Russia be more capable of taming this chaos than we have for the past 15 years? Do they plan a blood bath to impose their will for that is what it will take and even that is highly unlikely to do more than rile up the fanatics.
So are we to join Russia in this craziness? It does not matter what Putin thinks about Obama's more measured approach. Let the Russians sink once more into the quagmire, but we do not need to follow them..
The forces in the middle east are like yapping rabid dogs ruled by ideology and internecine squabbles Will Russia be more capable of taming this chaos than we have for the past 15 years? Do they plan a blood bath to impose their will for that is what it will take and even that is highly unlikely to do more than rile up the fanatics.
So are we to join Russia in this craziness? It does not matter what Putin thinks about Obama's more measured approach. Let the Russians sink once more into the quagmire, but we do not need to follow them..
5
Roger, every once in a while you puzzle me. But since you have promised a follow-up column, just be sure to do what number one Readers' Picks writer Michael - Pittsburgh asks you to do.
For my part the bravery I wish my President, Barack Obama, could be able to show would be to become free of our "ally" Saudi Arabia and to magically undo the settlements in what was to become one of two states as a result of the "Two-State Solution"
Since freeing the USA from Saudi Arabia probably depends on freeing us from our fossil-fuel addiction Barack Obama will not be able to carry off that brave action.
And since the Israelis have been allowed to "invade" the "State to be" with settlement after settlement there is not a chance for Barack Obama to bring off a brave action there.
But the last thing in the world we need now is a falsely brave action in Syria.
Come to your senses, Roger.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
For my part the bravery I wish my President, Barack Obama, could be able to show would be to become free of our "ally" Saudi Arabia and to magically undo the settlements in what was to become one of two states as a result of the "Two-State Solution"
Since freeing the USA from Saudi Arabia probably depends on freeing us from our fossil-fuel addiction Barack Obama will not be able to carry off that brave action.
And since the Israelis have been allowed to "invade" the "State to be" with settlement after settlement there is not a chance for Barack Obama to bring off a brave action there.
But the last thing in the world we need now is a falsely brave action in Syria.
Come to your senses, Roger.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen-USA-SE
5
The world may be "more dangerous than in recent memory", but to blame US foreign policy for global tectonic shifts in power is a gross oversimplification. Many, including myself, would argue that the Obama years have positioned us better economically, militarily, and strategically to handle this most certain upcoming "rudderless reality".
4
If you’re going to analyze the high cost of the Doctrine of Restraint, I hope you’ll weigh it against the known costs of intervention. We never know if intervention will produce the desired results, but we do know intervention will suck us into into a quagmire of unrelenting military expenses and loss of life. E.g., Iraq and Afghanistan. We live in a world of costly decisions, and that’s not Obama’s fault. His diplomatic efforts are more likely to produce desired results with fewer downside risks.
7
Restraint is a code word for fear. Obama fears confrontation. Instead he allows Putin to advance Russian influence in Crimea, Ukraine and now Syria, and he capitulates to Iran in their quest for nuclear weapons. The world is a tough place, but Obama is not up to the task of dealing with the despots who are taking over much of it.
I'm with Obama on this one. Sometimes it's wiser to retreat, heal your wounds and get ready to fight another day. What indeed will the new Imperial Russia gain from its foreign adventures while we do so? Knowing how brutal and unrestrained they are in war and everything else all they're buying is eventual trouble of the kind we've finally wised up to. The conservatives in the US are howling (this column faintly echoes those howls) because they're addicted to seeing US military hardware and soldiers in action. They have the mistaken idea that that's the way to get ahead in global politics. I'm glad Obama has shown restraint and that there is a better way than Bush/Cheney.
7
Mr. Cohen drags out the old, and false, canard that President Obama "failed" in regards to the red line regarding Syria's use of chemical weapons. Quite the contrary, like another great american persuader, Tom Sawyer, Mr. Obama somehow convinced Mr. Putin to remove those weapons with no American blood and minimal treasure expended. I believe that "shared fence painting endeavor" was perhaps one of the great foreign policy achievements in decades.
7
At least unlike the Bush wing of the war party President Obama actually engages in critical thinking before acting. This column just sounds like another drumbeat to how we need another middle east war which the Republican presidential candidates are all promising. The Republican war machine created the mess in the middle east from financing Bin Laden's start to the phony war in Iraq which uncapped the chaos in the middle east. Good for President Obama.
8
Obama has "left the Middle East in generational conflict and fracture, Europe unstable and Putin strutting the stage. " Do you remember a couple of guys called Bush and Cheney? What exactly did their bold assertive actions do for this country other than to empower Iran and weaken the U.S? The last administration proved the limits of hard power, not Obama's "Doctrine of restraint."
Here's a way to look at American power in the middle east: we invaded and occupied Iraq and it resulted in chaos. We used air power to intervene in Libya and help remove Quadaffi and it resulted in chaos. We left Syria to crumble on it's own and it resulted in, you got it, chaos. Maybe the problem in the middle east isn't the lack of American strength, leadership, or power; and I suspect Putin will learn this for himself. Lucky for him he doesn't have to deal with the congressional republicans.
Here's a way to look at American power in the middle east: we invaded and occupied Iraq and it resulted in chaos. We used air power to intervene in Libya and help remove Quadaffi and it resulted in chaos. We left Syria to crumble on it's own and it resulted in, you got it, chaos. Maybe the problem in the middle east isn't the lack of American strength, leadership, or power; and I suspect Putin will learn this for himself. Lucky for him he doesn't have to deal with the congressional republicans.
7
The United States Military Professionals can't stay out of a major conflict very long, even with the country as a whole after Viet Nam not wanting to do that all over again. Our wars since Korea have all been failures by the US, getting involved in Viet Nam after the French were soundly defeated. The measured action (this was not a war) by the first Bush may have been insightful because when the US met the goal of removing Sadam from Kawiat the US withdrew before destabilizing Iraq, that came about after the First Strike War of Bush/Cheney. Democracies do not first strike, empires do this.
There is an example of a country that may have learned to measure the use of their military, avoid armed conflicts, they were an occupied country ruthlessly and amorally treated by the Japanese. Today this country is investing in the economies of many countries in Africa and others around the world. This will grow their economy and influence in a peaceful manner. China.
The US should limit the military to maintaining a strong defense and a powerful, massive assault after a first strike from another country or terrorists organization. Less intervention militarily. Use the finacial resources now spent on unwinnable wars to rebuild our own economy and country and send large amounts of economic resources to other countries that are in need of such, African nations are a prime starting point, northern Africa included and every nation in the middle east should be included, even Iran.
There is an example of a country that may have learned to measure the use of their military, avoid armed conflicts, they were an occupied country ruthlessly and amorally treated by the Japanese. Today this country is investing in the economies of many countries in Africa and others around the world. This will grow their economy and influence in a peaceful manner. China.
The US should limit the military to maintaining a strong defense and a powerful, massive assault after a first strike from another country or terrorists organization. Less intervention militarily. Use the finacial resources now spent on unwinnable wars to rebuild our own economy and country and send large amounts of economic resources to other countries that are in need of such, African nations are a prime starting point, northern Africa included and every nation in the middle east should be included, even Iran.
2
Are you advocating military intervention in Syria and Ukraine? I guess it is about time for another senseless war that will yield the same result as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We do have to keep the world safe just as we did in those two countries, as long as “volunteers” can fight and die for us, while the affluent young men and women stay safe at home and promote greater involvement of the US as peacekeeper of the world.
2
I know it is politically incorrect to suggest but imagine what the Middle East would be like if there was a true reformation of Islam. There would be peace, there would be progress. For there are two root causes to all the problems in the Middle East (except as it concerns Israel): the split between Shias and Sunnis; the need to move into the 21st century from the 7th century. Both problems require a reformation of Islam for their solution.
Although I cannot prove it, I firmly believe we could have had iPhones in the 5th century, or by the 10th century at the latest without the intervention of Christianity. Now, I am not saying that the world is better off with iPhones. Not at all. In fact, I believe the world is better off with enlightened Christianity which came about well after the Reformation.
Religion plays a critical role in Middle East politics and the ones who want to move forward turn out, of necessity, to be dictators as they have to take on the Imams. It is not just incongruous that ISIS has access to modern media and technology, it is that because they never had any role in its creation, their only use for it is to spread a 7th century form of living and thinking.
It is best for secular or Christian countries to keep out of this fray.
Although I cannot prove it, I firmly believe we could have had iPhones in the 5th century, or by the 10th century at the latest without the intervention of Christianity. Now, I am not saying that the world is better off with iPhones. Not at all. In fact, I believe the world is better off with enlightened Christianity which came about well after the Reformation.
Religion plays a critical role in Middle East politics and the ones who want to move forward turn out, of necessity, to be dictators as they have to take on the Imams. It is not just incongruous that ISIS has access to modern media and technology, it is that because they never had any role in its creation, their only use for it is to spread a 7th century form of living and thinking.
It is best for secular or Christian countries to keep out of this fray.
1
So we're supposed to be fighting the Cold War, again, in Syria? Why? The Syrians almost all hate Assad. If Putin wins this war for Assad, Assad will never be able to keep power. Never. Read the stories from refugees about how Assad has behaved, how he has tortured families, how he has set homes on fire and then blamed it on ISIS. The Syrians will never accept his leadership. And then Russia will have to pay for the clean-up of Syria, and Russia will have to pay for the ensuing mess, and Assad will end up weak, Iran will end up weak, and Russia will end up weak.
Don't be fooled for one second. It's Obama playing the long game here.
Don't be fooled for one second. It's Obama playing the long game here.
13
Obama is only as strong militarily as the 0.75% of Americans who have volunteered to put on an American military uniform since 9/11/01. Only as strong as there is a military solution to foreign socioeconomic political educational ethnic sectarian civil wars.
Obama is only as powerful as his leadership tends to practice the long term virtuous American value of believing that all humans are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness most of the time in word and deed.
Unlike Putin, Obama leads a demographically growing young nation of 320 million people or 5% of humanity with 22% of planetary nominal GDP.
Putin stands at the head of a wispy shadow of a nation of 143 million with an aging and shrinking ethnic sectarian Russian Orthodox majority. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot closer by demography and geography to Russia and the growing and youthful non-ethnic Russian Muslim native and neighboring populations. Russia's only Middle Eastern ally is a minority Alawite Muslim Assad. The Alawites are a sect within the minority Shia Muslim faith that is closely allied with the minority Christians and the Druze.
Obama is only as powerful as his leadership tends to practice the long term virtuous American value of believing that all humans are divinely naturally created equal with certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness most of the time in word and deed.
Unlike Putin, Obama leads a demographically growing young nation of 320 million people or 5% of humanity with 22% of planetary nominal GDP.
Putin stands at the head of a wispy shadow of a nation of 143 million with an aging and shrinking ethnic sectarian Russian Orthodox majority. Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan are a lot closer by demography and geography to Russia and the growing and youthful non-ethnic Russian Muslim native and neighboring populations. Russia's only Middle Eastern ally is a minority Alawite Muslim Assad. The Alawites are a sect within the minority Shia Muslim faith that is closely allied with the minority Christians and the Druze.
4
I wish columnists would give up their nostalgia for a world that never really existed--do we really need a list of all the times that our throwing our weight around created an immense mess, from the Phillippine Insurrection on?--and maybe even quit flapping their arms about Vladimir Putin's supposed genius.
11
Roger thinks that the US is "... the chief underwriter of global security..."
We made the world secure by killing millions of Vietnamese, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, tens of thousands of Afghans, and probably thousands of Syrians so far. The world is now so secure that there are only ten's of millions of displaced persons.
Could global security be worse without our underwriting?
We made the world secure by killing millions of Vietnamese, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, tens of thousands of Afghans, and probably thousands of Syrians so far. The world is now so secure that there are only ten's of millions of displaced persons.
Could global security be worse without our underwriting?
8
We maybe the most powerful nation but why did we take up this thankless job of the chief underwriter for global security? No one really asked but we still took it upon ourselves.Far from making friends we have made more enemies. Even our so-called friends do not come to support us, instead being critical, interfering and thumbing our noses at every opportunity. The latest Iraqi support for Russia is a real, hard slap in our face. So why be there to support these ingrates? Let's just withdraw and leave the Middle East to deal with their future ( or no future ) to themselves. Besides, we'll witness Russia eat humble pie when they meet their inevitable Waterloo. Let's take care of ourselves. That would be money well spent and we will become the envy of the world. Only one sector will suffer - the weapon industry with it's in satiable needs for more modern weaponry, needs which would become moot if there is no enemy left standing. So let's get smart. Better late than never.
8
what did eisenhower do when the soviets invaded hungary? what did reagan do when they shot down a plane with american civilians aboard? what did gw bush do when russia invaded georgia? nothing, which is sometimes the best thing to do.
23
"nothing, which is sometimes the best thing to do."
Obama didn't do "nothing". He drew lines in the sand, essentially ignored ISIS (the junior varsity), encouraged rebels in Syria and Libya ("we came, we saw, he died" HRC, SOS), sang the praises of the Arab Spring (which only Egypt has had the sense to pull back from) and claimed to have ended the war in Iraq which was not ended, claimed to have left Iraq with a stable government which it didn't have and approved spending what comes out to about $500 million for a handful of Syrian rebel fighters.
Obama's Doctrine of Restraint? His restraint has left the Middle East in flames. But he's cool, calm and collected about it.
Obama didn't do "nothing". He drew lines in the sand, essentially ignored ISIS (the junior varsity), encouraged rebels in Syria and Libya ("we came, we saw, he died" HRC, SOS), sang the praises of the Arab Spring (which only Egypt has had the sense to pull back from) and claimed to have ended the war in Iraq which was not ended, claimed to have left Iraq with a stable government which it didn't have and approved spending what comes out to about $500 million for a handful of Syrian rebel fighters.
Obama's Doctrine of Restraint? His restraint has left the Middle East in flames. But he's cool, calm and collected about it.
33
oh
and Americans aren't dying over there.
you forgot that.
and Americans aren't dying over there.
you forgot that.
3
Jp blames Obama for Cowboy Bush's failures.
7
A balanced commentary on what's happened.
When i hear people lamenting that our power/influence has waned or that we are not the same militarily as we were, and offer Syria as proof the question is, to what end?
In Syria we had 2 options, go in and take out Assad and own the problem (see Iraq for probable outcome). The second option was to do nothing and get where we are today. It's a mess but it's not our mess....at least not immediately.
There was, and is, no great option in Syria. I suspect Russia will find that out as they get deeper into the quagmire there.
My last observation is that there don't seem to be clear victories in wars anymore. The last time I know of where we won a clear cut/decisive victory was WWII. the world has changed dramatically from the Newsreels of the 40's.
When i hear people lamenting that our power/influence has waned or that we are not the same militarily as we were, and offer Syria as proof the question is, to what end?
In Syria we had 2 options, go in and take out Assad and own the problem (see Iraq for probable outcome). The second option was to do nothing and get where we are today. It's a mess but it's not our mess....at least not immediately.
There was, and is, no great option in Syria. I suspect Russia will find that out as they get deeper into the quagmire there.
My last observation is that there don't seem to be clear victories in wars anymore. The last time I know of where we won a clear cut/decisive victory was WWII. the world has changed dramatically from the Newsreels of the 40's.
7
The Middle East is one big, oily "tar baby" best left un-kicked. The US kicked it a couple of times and ended up in the Briar Patch left by non-American colonialism. Let the so-called nations of the region along with Russia resolve their differences however they like. Nukes, genocide, chemical weapons, whatever dude. Not our problem even if we could help. The world won't stop spinning and eventually the radiation and toxic matter will dissipate and nature will return.
4
Act foolishly just to seem strong
Although it would be really wrong?
Non-restraint clever ain't
You can't make restraint faint
By singing a Dick Cheney song.
Although it would be really wrong?
Non-restraint clever ain't
You can't make restraint faint
By singing a Dick Cheney song.
5
This neo con obsession with taking Putin on is big on the macho and slow witted. The use of power is not a panacea but something that has to be used in a sparing intelligent manner. Hass of Bush Iraq fame calls for the uses of smart power implying that taking on Putin in Ukraine and Syria has some obvious merit which it does not. Much as supporting the mujahedeen in Afghanistan against the Russians was the use of smart power. But then again you end up with al Qaeda and the Taliban. Humanitarian aide and working for a diplomatic solution are the best choices.
14
This OP is Dr. Strangelove! According to the GOP and apparently Mr. Cohen, our foreign policy and our military has to be rebuilt because we no longer flex our muscles and intimidate the rest of mankind. I know we have some problems but any country who decides to challenge us will result in a revised map of our planet.
3
If the GOP win the presidency next November I imagine within a year after that you'll remember this time as safe by comparison. In fact if that happens I'll have to agree with Mr Chomsky that the US - and not Russia or China (and certainly not IS) - constitutes the greatest danger to human civilisation and existence. I'm half inclined to agree with him already. At least with his executive powers President Obama is doing what he can to reduce the USA's contribution to global warming.
You'll be ruing that you have your twenty-second amendment by then. (Seriously what part of "only the people should decide a change of government" do you people not understand?) Instead of trying to export democracy abroad you could try to improve the one you got at home. Yeah right - just like you could have embraced the metric system back in the '60's. Such a big, strong and dumb country you are - like Lennie in "Of Mice and Men". Thank goodness for President Obama.
For now.
You'll be ruing that you have your twenty-second amendment by then. (Seriously what part of "only the people should decide a change of government" do you people not understand?) Instead of trying to export democracy abroad you could try to improve the one you got at home. Yeah right - just like you could have embraced the metric system back in the '60's. Such a big, strong and dumb country you are - like Lennie in "Of Mice and Men". Thank goodness for President Obama.
For now.
3
Another neo-liberal buy-in to the right wing delusions of military grandeur. Syria, Yemen, Iraq are all just different manifestations of the Sunni-Shia schism as I learnt during a recent visit to the Middle East. Obama is wise to avoid the deluded swagger of W and his cronies.
There is something to the argument that gangsters like Putin will stir trouble when the big boy is not watching. It might be a cheap investment for Putin to deliver a poke in the eye to the West. We should consider some ways of ensuring he does not do too much damage.
There is something to the argument that gangsters like Putin will stir trouble when the big boy is not watching. It might be a cheap investment for Putin to deliver a poke in the eye to the West. We should consider some ways of ensuring he does not do too much damage.
2
or more subtly poke him back.
1
Where are we going, Roger? (I look forward to your next column!) I'm happy many of our 18-20+ year-olds will one day see their children, and they are not over in some hell hole trying to teach the greedy and selfish how to get along. I'm also, perfectly happy in helping those who are trying to escape such nonsense.
3
We can't fight religion with force much as the Roman's could not stop the Jews and Christians with force.
1
The Romans DID stop the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews with defeat and exile in 63 BCE. There was no further Jewish sovereignty until 1948 CE. The Christians fared a bit better, prevailing across Europe in the end.
The mideast and Africa are a conglomeration of "countr.ies" which were created in the period of European colonialism. These areas were always, and still are, more tribal oriented than nationalistic oriented. To expect these areas to behave democratically is always going to be a dream. As someone once said, and Putin reiterated recently, "Better to know the dictator we have than the unknown." These "countries" with their disparate tribes, or religious sects, can only be held together by a strong man, aka dictator. Thinking we can install a democratic regime is like putting ones head in the sand. The last decade of upheaval has proven that this is a dream. Better we should spend our resources here in the USA and supporting UN and charitable organizations that can create better conditions for the people of these areas. Arms and war have proven unsuccessful.
3
It's true that Middle Eastern and African national boundaries signify nothing but where colonial powers drew lines on a map.
But it's a mistake to replace one erroneous belief (in the legitimacy of Middle Eastern and African "nations") with another, the belief that the people of Africa and the Middle East are incapable of self-governance. When has the experiment been tried? When have these people been permitted to govern themselves without incessant foreign meddling by Americans, Europeans or Russians?
Without actual proof, your claim seems to be based on nothing but the same disregard for the lives and dignity of "colored peoples" that lead the various colonial powers to conquer and oppress so many in the Middle East and Africa in the first place.
But it's a mistake to replace one erroneous belief (in the legitimacy of Middle Eastern and African "nations") with another, the belief that the people of Africa and the Middle East are incapable of self-governance. When has the experiment been tried? When have these people been permitted to govern themselves without incessant foreign meddling by Americans, Europeans or Russians?
Without actual proof, your claim seems to be based on nothing but the same disregard for the lives and dignity of "colored peoples" that lead the various colonial powers to conquer and oppress so many in the Middle East and Africa in the first place.
This is one of those subjects in which I consistently disagree with Roger. The U.S. lost its ability to police a huge chunk of the world when its partner in world policing--the Soviet Union--collapsed. The U.S. has been underweight for the task entrusted to it ever since. This has nothing whatsoever to do with Obama, whose firm grasp of reality is what got him reelected in 2012 and would handily win him a third term in 2016 if that were an option.
Roger seems to be unable to grasp that the chaos in the middle east is primarily the consequence of the absurd military forays there by the U.S. prior to Mr. Obama, only to be exacerbated by his one adventure in Libya. Roger also seems to be unable to grasp that the U.S. public absolutely did not care about Assad or Syria at any time and if they do now it's only because of the death and destruction dealt by ISIS, not by Assad.
Our most obvious option to re-steady the world for the future is to groom the Chinese as a new global partner--yes even as an adversarial one like the Soviets--hence the pivot to Asia. And who thought of that?
Roger seems to be unable to grasp that the chaos in the middle east is primarily the consequence of the absurd military forays there by the U.S. prior to Mr. Obama, only to be exacerbated by his one adventure in Libya. Roger also seems to be unable to grasp that the U.S. public absolutely did not care about Assad or Syria at any time and if they do now it's only because of the death and destruction dealt by ISIS, not by Assad.
Our most obvious option to re-steady the world for the future is to groom the Chinese as a new global partner--yes even as an adversarial one like the Soviets--hence the pivot to Asia. And who thought of that?
2
If by "partner in world policing" you're being ironic, I agree. Otherwise you seem to be equating "policing" with "mass murder". What kind of "policing" was Vietnam? Afghanistan?
Any effort to recast Obama's foreign policy using the binary (some would say Mannacheaistic) paradigm of "restraint vs. interventionism" fails to grasp both the reality of our policy (as SW points out) as well as the complexity of the present historical moment for US interests. "Russian has had quagmires.?" Like the disastrous intervention of Afghanistan in the 1980s that led to the fall of the Soviet Union? This issue is not whether Obama has shown restraint (at times yes, at time no). This issue is whether restraint accomplished US foreign policy goals/served US interests or not. Staying out of direct military intervention has done so. Whether Putin's gamble succeeds is yet to be determined. My guess is it won't.
3
The Obama policy of "leading from behind" has been a disaster. I watched the interview with him on 60 Minutes and was embarrassed for our country at his reckless naivete. When challenged as a 'leader' by Steve Kroft, he cited 'global warming' as his example of "leading".
While Obama does not want us to be the world's cop, he cites this grand coalition of 80 nations. However, he has not taken an active leadership stance to get involved and get them on board with a strategy to eliminate these neo-Nazis running amok in the Middle East.
He is a pathetic example of leadership, and has basically ceded the word stage to Russia. They know they can do whatever they want and Obama and his sycophant, Kerry will simply stamp their feet, and shake their finger at Putin and do nothing. After the Middle East involvement by Putin, you 'ain't seen nothing yet" when he takes on the Balkans and other former Communist countries, unless we get a President into office, who will lead and to issue Red Lines to Putin, that have muscle behind them and not simply rhetoric.
A truly pathetic situation for America, and no Presidential candidate, Democratic or Republican has issued a comprehensive plan how to stop the madness in that region. How sad, how truly sad.
While Obama does not want us to be the world's cop, he cites this grand coalition of 80 nations. However, he has not taken an active leadership stance to get involved and get them on board with a strategy to eliminate these neo-Nazis running amok in the Middle East.
He is a pathetic example of leadership, and has basically ceded the word stage to Russia. They know they can do whatever they want and Obama and his sycophant, Kerry will simply stamp their feet, and shake their finger at Putin and do nothing. After the Middle East involvement by Putin, you 'ain't seen nothing yet" when he takes on the Balkans and other former Communist countries, unless we get a President into office, who will lead and to issue Red Lines to Putin, that have muscle behind them and not simply rhetoric.
A truly pathetic situation for America, and no Presidential candidate, Democratic or Republican has issued a comprehensive plan how to stop the madness in that region. How sad, how truly sad.
1
It is not our region to worry about. Let the middle east implode and we can help them pick up the pieces later.
Well now, what exactly is the "comprehensive plan" to stop the madness in the Middle East. I am sure we would all like to hear it.
For now, I'm grateful that President Obama has the fortitude to resist Russian taunts to wage a proxy war in Syria. Patience is a virtue rare in modern leaders; repubs & other war mongers take note: dealing from a position of restraint rather than threats won't line the pockets of your arms dealing friends but will give the rest of us a chance to live in peace.
5
Indisputable fact Mr. Cohen. A parent cannot grow up for their child. The US cannot evolve for other nations, peoples, or regions. As heart breaking as it is the ME has to sort itself out as does Russia and every country including the US.
On the other hand you could be advocating that NATO countries move to act in concert towards achieving real solutions to global challenges. There are several other international powerhouses that must also learn to work in concert. The West has myriad ways of shaping the future without violence.
But for now we are in a runaway car, drunken teenagers all trying to grab the steering wheel in the front seat while in a crowded back seat sit several parties unable to grasp the seriousness of our situation. Pretty much across the board everyone is playing small ball only looking a short distance down the road that our car is about to leave in an explosive display of stupidity.
On the other hand you could be advocating that NATO countries move to act in concert towards achieving real solutions to global challenges. There are several other international powerhouses that must also learn to work in concert. The West has myriad ways of shaping the future without violence.
But for now we are in a runaway car, drunken teenagers all trying to grab the steering wheel in the front seat while in a crowded back seat sit several parties unable to grasp the seriousness of our situation. Pretty much across the board everyone is playing small ball only looking a short distance down the road that our car is about to leave in an explosive display of stupidity.
3
It's really quite a myth that the UBL assassination mission carried huge risks for the President.
1
Exactly, because everyone knows that had the mission failed that everyone would have been very accommodating of the president.
We all remember how that worked out for Carter.
We all remember how that worked out for Carter.
Where in the world has Cohen been the last 60 years? Our interventions - Iran, Vietnam, Cuba, Chile, Grenada (Grenada?), Central America, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc-- have been disastrous failures. The number of civilian and childhood deaths and refugees easily numbers in the many, many millions -- not including our own.
Where, in your next column, are you going to suggest we once again intervene? Send yourself...and your own kids!
Where, in your next column, are you going to suggest we once again intervene? Send yourself...and your own kids!
23
The "60 Minutes" interview of Obama was a disgrace. Steve Kroft was incredibly disrespectful and misleading. It was like watching Fox News interview the president. Nonetheless, Obama managed to make the main points: the chaos in Syria cannot be fixed by military force; training and equipping the moderate Syrian opposition was always a dubious approach but it was worth "testing the hypothesis" and now we know it won't work either; the Russians are showing their weakness in trying to prop up their last ally in the region and they will soon regret it; and there is no clear American national interest in intervening unilaterally but the US can lead a large, multi-national coalition that offers the best hope of a resolution. I think Obama's rationale is sound and he is right to ignore the warmongers who never let up in advocating more war.
31
Suppose Britain or some other country had decided to intervene militarily ("boots on the ground") in the American Civil War on the side of the Confederacy. Does anyone seriously believe this would have led to the kind of "stability" those calling for more forceful US intervention in Syria imply would be the outcome there? Obama is merely recognizing that many conflicts are not amenable to military solutions imposed by America or any other outside power. If that kind of clear-eyed acknowledgement of reality is weakness, we need more of it, not less.
19
Simplistic tripe from Roger Cohen. I've got an idea. Why not let Putin get stuck in the quicksand of the Middle East? The decade in Afghanistan is the true precipitating event for the fall of the Soviet Union. Why not let HIM repeat historical blunders instead of us?
17
His hand was largely forced by the failed response to 9/11 which essentially bankrupted the country and severely weakened the military. He should have been more restrained.
Escalated our presence in Afghanistan has been a complete failure. The arming and training of rebels in Syria has been a complete failure and the bombing and killing of Gaddafi was a failure.
The President's problem isn't restraint it's his lack of restraint that has been a problem. It's clear the pressure on the President to act is overwhelming.
Using our military costs us military might, prestige in the world and our economic might. Keeping our powder dry while we rebuild our economy makes us much stronger in the long run.
Escalated our presence in Afghanistan has been a complete failure. The arming and training of rebels in Syria has been a complete failure and the bombing and killing of Gaddafi was a failure.
The President's problem isn't restraint it's his lack of restraint that has been a problem. It's clear the pressure on the President to act is overwhelming.
Using our military costs us military might, prestige in the world and our economic might. Keeping our powder dry while we rebuild our economy makes us much stronger in the long run.
8
Roger raises interesting points and I actually agree with Richard Haass's assessment for once about the gaps between the ends and means has been our undoing under Obama. In fact it is the gaps between the starts and the finishes that has been foul for the US in almost every engagement, barring the first Iraq war.
However, I will say this in Obama's defense. Intervention in Libya was too soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the outcome, actual engagement in Libya would have been a no-go with the American public.
Syria on the other hand needed ALL the attention and oxygen that Netanyahu managed to suck of the room towards Iran. Without the Iran bogeyman that was created, potentially the world and Obama could have done similar things to change the circumstances in Syria.
Consider this. Even if Iran was completely ignored, and had managed to secure a nuclear weapon (which they deny), there would still be a couple hundred thousand Syrians still alive, and some 3 Million Syrians still living at home potentially. Even if this gives the Israelis a major heartburn
However, I will say this in Obama's defense. Intervention in Libya was too soon after Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the outcome, actual engagement in Libya would have been a no-go with the American public.
Syria on the other hand needed ALL the attention and oxygen that Netanyahu managed to suck of the room towards Iran. Without the Iran bogeyman that was created, potentially the world and Obama could have done similar things to change the circumstances in Syria.
Consider this. Even if Iran was completely ignored, and had managed to secure a nuclear weapon (which they deny), there would still be a couple hundred thousand Syrians still alive, and some 3 Million Syrians still living at home potentially. Even if this gives the Israelis a major heartburn
1
Bottom line! -None of Putin's moves will bring home any bacon for his people.
But meanwhile we should sit back and enjoy watching someone else pay their own way while trying to kill the bad guys for a change.
And -ON this new "Flat Earth of ours - Obama is right on. -It's mostly about economic power stupid!
But meanwhile we should sit back and enjoy watching someone else pay their own way while trying to kill the bad guys for a change.
And -ON this new "Flat Earth of ours - Obama is right on. -It's mostly about economic power stupid!
1
President Bush invaded Iraq with no plan to follow up the certain "shock and awe" military victory. President Obama "lead-from-behind (a) military campaign to oust Libya’s dictator with zero follow-up plan." The difference: While both situations yielded chaos, President Bush cost this nation an enormous amount in both blood and treasure.
Americans may rue that we can no longer call the shots, as if we ever really did. Remember Vietnam? But, I also think that they have become skeptical our ability to fundamentally change what is happening today in the ME.
We can't even mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, we are supposed to jump in an solve the one in Syria?
Americans may rue that we can no longer call the shots, as if we ever really did. Remember Vietnam? But, I also think that they have become skeptical our ability to fundamentally change what is happening today in the ME.
We can't even mediate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So, we are supposed to jump in an solve the one in Syria?
3
One reason the Middle East has been a quagmire for so long begins with America, Great Britain, and France's desire to "build" countries and influence out of lands "acquired" in the spoils of WWl and WWll. We've been beating the people over the head since to comply with those decisions, or had the ruling king or dictator do the beating for us.
Obama's doctrine I believe is that the people involved in those countries now need to settle the disputes themselves in a peaceful way, because that's the only peace that will last. No amount of American, British, or Russian intervention will really make any difference in the long run. We have ample proof in that in Vietnam in the 60's, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iran in the late 70's. Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 to the present.
Obama's doctrine I believe is that the people involved in those countries now need to settle the disputes themselves in a peaceful way, because that's the only peace that will last. No amount of American, British, or Russian intervention will really make any difference in the long run. We have ample proof in that in Vietnam in the 60's, Cambodia, Afghanistan and Iran in the late 70's. Iraq and Afghanistan in 2001 to the present.
1
Restraint takes courage. Unlike the neo-cons and saber rattlers like McCain, Obama understands the idea of unintended consequences. That was one of the lessons of Iraq, which spawned most of the chaos that we are confronting today. Arming the "moderates" in Syria often resulted in arming ISIS instead. Most of his critics are back seat drivers. When asked about putting boots on the ground in Syria, they suddenly equivocate or become tongue tied. Obama could not do this unilaterally. He would need Congressional authorization.
As for restraint being a doctrine, I would call it pragmatism. And it's not like the U.S. is doing nothing. Sanctions over the Ukraine conflict have hurt the Russian economy. Putin's bombing strikes in Syria may be a political distraction from severe economic problems at home. Will the Russians put boots on the ground? Will they even be able to save Assad in the long run? If they do, then what? Do the Russians gain anything?
The shirtless strong man Putin has become a beloved icon of the right in America. They ADMIRE his bluster and willingness to use military force. I'm very glad that Obama has not allowed himself to be baited into responding in kind.
As for restraint being a doctrine, I would call it pragmatism. And it's not like the U.S. is doing nothing. Sanctions over the Ukraine conflict have hurt the Russian economy. Putin's bombing strikes in Syria may be a political distraction from severe economic problems at home. Will the Russians put boots on the ground? Will they even be able to save Assad in the long run? If they do, then what? Do the Russians gain anything?
The shirtless strong man Putin has become a beloved icon of the right in America. They ADMIRE his bluster and willingness to use military force. I'm very glad that Obama has not allowed himself to be baited into responding in kind.
3
Everyone doing the second-guessing on foreign policy seems to believe that the president has the sole power to make these decisions. The president acts on the information presented to him by the CIA and the Pentagon among others (the unelected "permanent government.") No reporter or average American citizen is privy to this information, and we have no way of knowing the strategic game plan or what it hopes to achieve. The military-industrial complex has its own agenda, and judging by the blowback that usually results, it doesn't always seem to be in the best interests of the citizenry.
1
Roger- what "cost" have we incurred? Russia has been down this road before (Afghanistan, Chechnya) all borne of the same Russia desire to assert influence and none of it worked out well. After Russia invaded Afghanistan, President Carter was pilorried for his weakness and now you pick up this meme. Russia has been in Syria militarily all of one month and you and Richard Haas are ready to declare Obama as essentially failed. Where you see "ambivalence", I see a President having to weigh very difficult choices created by the American "power" junkies that handed this mess to him.
3
Body bags. It changes one's taste for foreign military adventures when one's friends start coming home in them. Korea and Viet Nam yielded a lot of body bags but did nothing to make the lives of ordinary Americans better. Now, after many more unsuccessful military adventures, and many more body bags, Our elites still think they can rebuild the American empire on the post-WWII rubble of the Western European empires.
I agree with Obama. We should fall back to a defensible perimeter.
I agree with Obama. We should fall back to a defensible perimeter.
3
Obama does not kiss up to Israel and that drives conservatives to be even nuttier than they usually are. It certainly has confused Cohen in his view of the Middle-East. To rely on the conservative Richard Haass speaks volumes about Cohen.
3
We must, at least, defend our air space over Syria, Turkey an Iraq. That is where the war will be lost in the middle east. That's what the Israelis understood and why their air force is the best in the region. I am flabbergasted by our willingness to divert two of our jets from the path of a Russian jet. We should engage in diverting these jets when they attack targets other than ISIL. If fired, fire upon!
Au contraire about the increased "weakness."
We have re-bonded with many of the allies that had left us during the Bush debacles. There's power in numbers, a lot more than in isolationist dictatorial bomb threats.
We have re-bonded with many of the allies that had left us during the Bush debacles. There's power in numbers, a lot more than in isolationist dictatorial bomb threats.
3
The quality of foreign policy commentary would be vastly improved if -- in accordance with legal precedents established at the Nuremberg Trial in 1946 -- if newspaper militarists would be held criminally responsible for the consequences of the wars that they advocate.
1
I defer to this punditry, because I cannot disagree.
BHO's led sanctions seemingly inflame/motivate VP's risk-taking reactions, and given what you've stated, one can't really know how much Russian activism re-make the M.E. horror-scape.
Iraq and seemingly Afghanistan are (probably) lost causes which seemingly dissipate USA influence/affluence/morale/confidence/prestige.
Envision Putin getting Russia re-involved with Afghanistan.
If VP manages to handle/contain/beat the Taliban, then .. McGovern's "come home America," indeed.
And VP apparently re-controls Chechnya, so why not manipulating the Taliban.
Also, consider China's relation with Pakistan helping surmount (transcend?) their own rebellious Muslim "Ugers.
Of course, the GOP sadistically enjoys roasting Obama, though why should he care, because aren't the folks are over-dosed on imbecilic radio talk "crying wolf." cynicism/obstructionism/bad faith/nihilism?
BHO's led sanctions seemingly inflame/motivate VP's risk-taking reactions, and given what you've stated, one can't really know how much Russian activism re-make the M.E. horror-scape.
Iraq and seemingly Afghanistan are (probably) lost causes which seemingly dissipate USA influence/affluence/morale/confidence/prestige.
Envision Putin getting Russia re-involved with Afghanistan.
If VP manages to handle/contain/beat the Taliban, then .. McGovern's "come home America," indeed.
And VP apparently re-controls Chechnya, so why not manipulating the Taliban.
Also, consider China's relation with Pakistan helping surmount (transcend?) their own rebellious Muslim "Ugers.
Of course, the GOP sadistically enjoys roasting Obama, though why should he care, because aren't the folks are over-dosed on imbecilic radio talk "crying wolf." cynicism/obstructionism/bad faith/nihilism?
why is it that when we stupidly try to intervene far from our shores with men on the ground and planes tossing bombs from the air we invariably get into terrible trouble. But, when the Russians do it, we view their moves as strength? Patience, not an American virtue, is needed. Let's sit back and watch the Russians get into serious trouble trying to manage the impossible. The one time when they tried to do such a thing, in Afghanistan (much closer to home for them) they suffered their biggest defeat? Obama has just the right approach. And, by the way, his restraint has not cost us anything!
3
I object to use of the word "incoherence" to describe Obama's reticence to challenge,invade, coerce and bully the "rubic's cube can of worms twisting in the religious wind " that is the Middle East of today. Only Fools would rush in and insert their military might thinking this would be the decisive moment. Putin is destined to learn this soon.
5
I love Roger Cohen's perspective on just about everything except when he writes this sad stuff. I just can't believe it is remotely possible to impose our values or needs on any country by military force. This has been proven. Isn't it insanity to try the same things that don't work over and over? Let Putin grab "influence" and see where it gets him.
5
Perhaps Roger Cohen, as a Brit, is suffers from nostalgia for the British Empire. The good old days when someone in the British Foreign Office could say that "Turkey, Syria and Iraq are my parish". I wonder if he thinks that Eisenhower should have supported Britain and France over Suez Canal Crisis.
So what do you want, Mr. Cohen? Another scenario like LBJ in Viet Nam and Nixon doubling down on a disaster? Putin in Syria is eerily like the French in Indochina in 1954 at Dien-bien-phu. Why should President Obama work to prevent that?
10
Ike overthrowing a democratically elected Iranian President? Nixon overthrowing a democratically elected Chilean President? W in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Cohen says the cost of Obama's restraint in Syria has been "very high." Wish there could be some elaboration. It's not Obama's restraint that is driving refugees into flight throughout northern Africa, Iraq, and Afghanistan. If America launched a ground war, the immediate reaction would be MORE refugees, not fewer.
The cost is also not "very high" compared to the $1-2 trillion wasted in Iraq and to the 32,000 US casualties, 4,425 US KIAs and 160,000 Iraqi KIAs thanks to our last attempt at direct intervention.
More data and less drama please--especially when it comes to talk of invasion and "boots on the ground."
The cost is also not "very high" compared to the $1-2 trillion wasted in Iraq and to the 32,000 US casualties, 4,425 US KIAs and 160,000 Iraqi KIAs thanks to our last attempt at direct intervention.
More data and less drama please--especially when it comes to talk of invasion and "boots on the ground."
13
What successes has American involvement in the Middle East yielded? Zilch. Our support for Israel has produced a Frankenstiens state. Egypt is still the dictatorship it was under Nasser. The palestians are still impoverished crazies. Bierut still factious. Islam more militant than ever and Arabs still rankled in post-colnial turmoil. Need I mention Iraq or Afgsnistan or, for that matter Pakistan.
The President is wise not to play High Noon with Putin over his Humpty Dumpty effort in Syria. Putin is playing tough to strengthen his hand at home. The President is sparing us from the same distraction. In the end it will matter little if Russia achieves its goals in Syria and even less to America than to Iran or Europe.
The President is wise not to play High Noon with Putin over his Humpty Dumpty effort in Syria. Putin is playing tough to strengthen his hand at home. The President is sparing us from the same distraction. In the end it will matter little if Russia achieves its goals in Syria and even less to America than to Iran or Europe.
13
I sincerely hope that in his next column Mr. Cohen doesn't tell us where he thinks "restraint" will lead (which will be his fantasy), but rather will tell us what more assertive, aggressive policy Obama ought to use and where he thinks that would lead. I am tired of hearing history rewritten based on what we ought to have done and what would have theoretically been the outcome.
Sometimes doing nothing at all is actually the wisest course, even in politics and state craft, and especially when surrounded by know-it-alls and know-it-betters, it takes plenty of real guts. Not the phony kind we hear from this column and from a right wing congress.
Sometimes doing nothing at all is actually the wisest course, even in politics and state craft, and especially when surrounded by know-it-alls and know-it-betters, it takes plenty of real guts. Not the phony kind we hear from this column and from a right wing congress.
13
In Obama's defense, most of our recent military forays have made things worse, not better. Would Mister Cohen have us go to war with Russia? With Iran? Would he have us send more troops (from our exhausted milItary) to die in places where they hate us while we are trying to help them?
3
If George W. and Cheney proved anything it was that incursions by the American military in the Middle East result in confusion and chaos (and the death of thousands) with no good outcomes. We do not insert U.S. troops into Syria or Libya or Yemen or back into Iraq because we are weak or complacent but because it is the Chinese vase trap: to trap a monkey, you place a small apple inside a narrow neck vase. The monkey can reach in and grab the apple but as long as he holds it he cannot withdraw both paw and apple. Because the monkey will not let go of the apple, he is essentially trapped. But all the monkey needs to do is let go of the apple and he would be free. But now that he sees the apple that possibility is unthinkable. Works every time and Putin will find this out again as the Russians once did in Afghanistan.
History lessons about misuse of power remain unlearned because only the military takes the punishment. And the media more than most think any military action anywhere in the world by some power other than the U.S. is a sign of the weakness of the U.S. President. This is an extension of U.S. exceptionalism and we need to get over it. No one thinks about you as much as you think about yourself. Really.
History lessons about misuse of power remain unlearned because only the military takes the punishment. And the media more than most think any military action anywhere in the world by some power other than the U.S. is a sign of the weakness of the U.S. President. This is an extension of U.S. exceptionalism and we need to get over it. No one thinks about you as much as you think about yourself. Really.
1
assure you...war games are being played...and
Putin et all are just the biggest fools of all.