If Obama had made the decision to intervene in the Syrian civil war with more direct involvement by US military forces, Putin would have responded with force and the US would have created a US v Russia "battle." In recent history, Russia has been an ally of Syria and has strategic military interests to protect. Russia would not have allowed the US to come in, defeat Assad, and take over Russia's Syrian bases. Obama should not have committed himself to a "red line" but without his restraint, the US would have ended up in a horrible war with Russia in Syria. What's happening in Syria is awful, but nobody should think that direct US involvement would have solved the problem.
12
More partisan and condemning drivel from someone who wasn't raised in the U.S.A. Mr. Cohen has an agenda, which he repeatedly fails to state: ruin our country the way his principles ruined those from which he escaped.
5
Is Cohen moderating his own columns? Or is it some petulant children he corrupted into submission.
He won't stop unleashing his freaked up criticism of Obama, but when you say why you disagree, then he acts like you blundered into his bedroom or something. Why don't you freaking shut down this section now? Why? Because you are still waiting for the slow coming approval of the rubbish you always write Obama? This is not a one time situation, there is a clear pattern here. Shut down the freaking section!
He won't stop unleashing his freaked up criticism of Obama, but when you say why you disagree, then he acts like you blundered into his bedroom or something. Why don't you freaking shut down this section now? Why? Because you are still waiting for the slow coming approval of the rubbish you always write Obama? This is not a one time situation, there is a clear pattern here. Shut down the freaking section!
One might also want to add that while America has tried nation building abroad, with little success, especially in the Middle East, the trillions spent on these adventures has done untold damage to the nation at home.
6
Obama adopted the right policy. After the waste of trillions
and thousands killed and maimed, the result is a chaotic
Iraq. Even before Iraq, our military intervention didn't
achieve desirable political outcome either in Vietnam
or Afghanistan. It is difficult to understand why some
people still advocate military action as if it is the right
solution. It is not, hasn't worked and doing it again
and again won't change the outcome. We have been fed
the myth of a "powerful country" that can use power
to solve the problems in other countries. The experience
shows we can't. Obama is right to claim that those
countries in Middle East or Eastern Europe have to
make greater efforts to fix their own societies. Our power
has limits.
and thousands killed and maimed, the result is a chaotic
Iraq. Even before Iraq, our military intervention didn't
achieve desirable political outcome either in Vietnam
or Afghanistan. It is difficult to understand why some
people still advocate military action as if it is the right
solution. It is not, hasn't worked and doing it again
and again won't change the outcome. We have been fed
the myth of a "powerful country" that can use power
to solve the problems in other countries. The experience
shows we can't. Obama is right to claim that those
countries in Middle East or Eastern Europe have to
make greater efforts to fix their own societies. Our power
has limits.
6
Why doesn't everybody realize that President Obama has achieved “Peace In Our Time?”
But only for the next ten years and then he has agreed that Iran can build as many nuclear weapons as it wants in accordance with this agreement!
Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems, but they can afford to rent a van for a suicide bomber instead!
This treaty is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
The USA, France, Germany, England, Etc., did all get together and then all agreed in essence to "Give away everything that Iran wants in return for a ten year pause before Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons with the capability to destroy the USA and Europe!"
The US also agrees to release Iran from Iran’s treaty obligations under the existing non-nuclear-proliferation treaty that Iran previously signed!
The US agrees to lift trade sanctions against Iran that were implemented against Iran for Iran’s capture of the US embassy in Iran and Iran's failure to comply with Iran’s obligations that Iran agreed to comply with as a part of the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
This will give Iran the economic capability to arm and finance many more religious fanatics around the world.
How will the USA ever deal with a bunch of nuclear armed religious fanatics?
The US agrees to allow Iran Nuclear Weapons ten years after this treaty is agreed and ratified by all of the governmental parties to this agreement!
But only for the next ten years and then he has agreed that Iran can build as many nuclear weapons as it wants in accordance with this agreement!
Iran does not have intercontinental ballistic missile delivery systems, but they can afford to rent a van for a suicide bomber instead!
This treaty is a great diplomatic victory for the Obama Administration!
The USA, France, Germany, England, Etc., did all get together and then all agreed in essence to "Give away everything that Iran wants in return for a ten year pause before Iran is allowed to have nuclear weapons with the capability to destroy the USA and Europe!"
The US also agrees to release Iran from Iran’s treaty obligations under the existing non-nuclear-proliferation treaty that Iran previously signed!
The US agrees to lift trade sanctions against Iran that were implemented against Iran for Iran’s capture of the US embassy in Iran and Iran's failure to comply with Iran’s obligations that Iran agreed to comply with as a part of the previous non-nuclear-proliferation agreement that Iran signed!
This will give Iran the economic capability to arm and finance many more religious fanatics around the world.
How will the USA ever deal with a bunch of nuclear armed religious fanatics?
The US agrees to allow Iran Nuclear Weapons ten years after this treaty is agreed and ratified by all of the governmental parties to this agreement!
2
Thank you, Roger Cohen, for another wise essay with sly ending: comeback of the HRC doctrine.
1
PUTTING WORDS In Obama's mouth is an interesting sleight of hand. Committing to writing some of the questions he must have asked himself is an interesting strategy. Let's remember, and remember well, that when apportioning blame for the failures in the USA's foreign policy, that each President builds that policy on top of the past ones, much like ancient cities were built in the Mideast into Tels that contain both the triumphs and failures of past civilizations. The metaphor is meant to focus on the fact that all foreign policies have, as their foundation, past policies. Which is to say that Obama was bequeathed a very deep hole containing quicksand and a quagmire. Then he was blamed for having to dig himself out rather than surging forward. Let's be honest--Dubya's immeasurable failures in Iraq and Afghanistan handicapped Obama's options. Clearing away past cataclysms to start to rebuild is what Obama had to do. To paraphrase Rumsfeld after 9/11, You get the foreign policy that exists at the time; not the foreign policy you want [or need]. If the power of the US was damaged when Obama came into office, he had to deal with the wreckage left to him. It's clear that overall the Mideast is a zero sum endeavor in which the tragic status quo is foreordained to metamorphose into the future. The players change, the centuries go by and the sisyphean task remains constant. If we have strenghtened ourselves in any way it is by moving toward energy sustainability and independence.
5
Amen, and amen.
1
I don't understand. Roger Cohen has spent countless columns slamming Obama for being weak and unwilling to attack people in the Middle East ferociously enough for Cohen's taste. Has he suddenly changed his mind?
3
It is not American power that is now limited. The United States power has never been stronger. Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor was not answerable to either the Media or the public like presidents since Johnson have been. The United States lost battle after battle in the months after Pearl Harbor. How fast would the public, who opposed getting involved in the first place, would have demanded U.S. out of Germany if it was today. What America has never been good at is garrison duty or fighting limited wars that take time. The U.S. could have obliterated Vietnam, Iraq and Syria and Iran but there are many reasons why it chooses not to do so.
2
This article summarizes the dominant narrative at this time period of President Obama's foreign policy as understood by Democrats and some on the left. He showed restraint, reason, and evenhandedness in our affairs abroad.
10 years from now though, when the dust clears, we will see that the foreign policy pushed forth by the Obama administration had little to no difference of that from the Bush presidency: increase of drones, expansion of the NSA, prosecuting whistleblowers, furthering clandestine operations initiated by the state department, and increase use of military spending.
Symbolic foreign policy "wins" will mean nothing other than a grand show of hand shaking 10 years from now.
We live in an 'extreme' political climate where mediocre wins are deemed WINS!
10 years from now though, when the dust clears, we will see that the foreign policy pushed forth by the Obama administration had little to no difference of that from the Bush presidency: increase of drones, expansion of the NSA, prosecuting whistleblowers, furthering clandestine operations initiated by the state department, and increase use of military spending.
Symbolic foreign policy "wins" will mean nothing other than a grand show of hand shaking 10 years from now.
We live in an 'extreme' political climate where mediocre wins are deemed WINS!
6
I can, in my mind, hear what the "Party of Stupid" would do with that speech.... which is a pity, because it was an excellent one.
3
Obama has had the most effective means to prevent Assad from committing his war crimes all of this time, yet for some reason he failed to even consider it. And that is the threat of missile strikes against Assad, the very threat that so terrified Assad that he agreed to give up all of his chemical weapons.
Obama could just as well have threatened to attack Assad if he did not stop barrel bombing. And instead of trying to set up a no fly zone through direct control of the air space, a no fly zone can just as effectively be enforced by the threat of missile attacks if it is violated.
These attacks need not even be strategic, such as cratering runways, their point should be to exact a price. That price could be taking out important military headquarter buildings in Damascus, for example. It could even be destroying Assad's palace, because Assad cares way more about his pride and his personal possessions than he does about the lives of his people or troops. And these attacks need not be one off affairs but on a pay as you go basis.
It is curious, to say the least, that the only time Obama was prepared to take action was over a matter of a personal red line. Yet he stood by for 4 years and didn't do a thing as hundreds of thousands were murdered in cold blood. And he continues to stand by and do nothing when the whole world is begging for America to take action.
Obama could just as well have threatened to attack Assad if he did not stop barrel bombing. And instead of trying to set up a no fly zone through direct control of the air space, a no fly zone can just as effectively be enforced by the threat of missile attacks if it is violated.
These attacks need not even be strategic, such as cratering runways, their point should be to exact a price. That price could be taking out important military headquarter buildings in Damascus, for example. It could even be destroying Assad's palace, because Assad cares way more about his pride and his personal possessions than he does about the lives of his people or troops. And these attacks need not be one off affairs but on a pay as you go basis.
It is curious, to say the least, that the only time Obama was prepared to take action was over a matter of a personal red line. Yet he stood by for 4 years and didn't do a thing as hundreds of thousands were murdered in cold blood. And he continues to stand by and do nothing when the whole world is begging for America to take action.
2
More neo con we own the world. The US does not decide who runs Syria. Though Assad is a major war criminal, the moderates have been shoved aside by murderous fanatics. Cohen and others have this delusion that the US takes charge of situations or has failed. Where have the neo cons been right? The scary thing is that Hillary Clinton seems to want to step into the shoes these neo cons want filled. Needless foreign policy failure awaits.
2
US global 'leadership' (read 'exceptionalism' and 'empire') carries much emotive value. US leadership translates to an abdication of responsible leadership and investment in their own security by Europe, other countries, and global corporations. We have been used and abused as a security proxy for half a century.
US foreign involvement should be based on strategic security and the country’s strategic commercial interests--not on basis of billionaires’ commercial interests (oil, military-industrial complex), nor on the basis of policing, nation building, or establishing a new world order.
We can only support strategic allies from afar and project power, used selectively.
Since the Marshall Plan US interventions have been strategically unsuccessful. The Middle East quagmire is of US making and we continue to dig a deeper hole for ourselves. Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are prime examples of US meddling gone awry. Saudi Arabia is now fragmenting and has effectively fostered war against us--American economic interests continue to drive our involvement though it may have started with the Cold War.
It is time to return to the leadership, strategy, power projection and restraint of Eisenhower. Intelligence, leverage, focus, and containment are the key elements. Tax averting global corporations, Europe and others are free-riders of our security force. Focus on strategic interest only--we have enough to do at home.
US foreign involvement should be based on strategic security and the country’s strategic commercial interests--not on basis of billionaires’ commercial interests (oil, military-industrial complex), nor on the basis of policing, nation building, or establishing a new world order.
We can only support strategic allies from afar and project power, used selectively.
Since the Marshall Plan US interventions have been strategically unsuccessful. The Middle East quagmire is of US making and we continue to dig a deeper hole for ourselves. Afghanistan, Iran, Libya, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are prime examples of US meddling gone awry. Saudi Arabia is now fragmenting and has effectively fostered war against us--American economic interests continue to drive our involvement though it may have started with the Cold War.
It is time to return to the leadership, strategy, power projection and restraint of Eisenhower. Intelligence, leverage, focus, and containment are the key elements. Tax averting global corporations, Europe and others are free-riders of our security force. Focus on strategic interest only--we have enough to do at home.
6
I don't know that this is the best place to say this, but...this seems like an audience of people who followed the lead-up to the Iraq invasion very closely. I read and listened to a lot of good reporting - NYT, WashPo, NPR, New Yorker, etc. - and was certain that the Bush Admin. was clearly deceitful and deluded in their case for war, and criminal in how they managed the occupation. If I'm talking to a similarly informed group of leaders here, I have to ask: How could they have gotten away with that level of abuse of power without being held accountable??? Seriously, how is that acceptable by any standard. If the Bush Admin. can get away with such abuse, how do we protect against it in the future?
3
I agree with Mr. Cohen. I perceive the President as recognizing the impossibility of the U.S. forcing the R.O.W. (Rest of world) to do what to he/we want and the terrible folly of attempting to do so.
I am more negative than the President about the wisdom of sending in "special forces" while claiming he is avoiding "boots" on the ground.
We desperately need to give up the erroneous belief that, as a culture or nation, we are "exceptional" and supposed to be the world's superpower. This incorrect vision is highly toxic both to us and the R.O.W.
The path forward requires that we start focusing upon our citizens' needs, both domestically and in foreign affairs, as I believe other nations do. A VAT equivalent is needed to support our domestic economy, and to enable us to pay for programs that help our citizens lead productive and self-fulfilling lives and our nation to sustain itself.
That is the best path forward for us and the R.O.W.
I am more negative than the President about the wisdom of sending in "special forces" while claiming he is avoiding "boots" on the ground.
We desperately need to give up the erroneous belief that, as a culture or nation, we are "exceptional" and supposed to be the world's superpower. This incorrect vision is highly toxic both to us and the R.O.W.
The path forward requires that we start focusing upon our citizens' needs, both domestically and in foreign affairs, as I believe other nations do. A VAT equivalent is needed to support our domestic economy, and to enable us to pay for programs that help our citizens lead productive and self-fulfilling lives and our nation to sustain itself.
That is the best path forward for us and the R.O.W.
17
Implicit foreign policy? Don't you mean incremental foreign policy? The US policy - just like all western powers - seems more to be about handling media reactions and the next-around-the-corner crisis. The idea of actually *driving* change in the world seems to have been lost with the end of the cold war.
Respect and discussions are good. But let's face it: the West and much of the rest of the world are at odds on pretty basic ideas such as democratic values, non-aggresive solutions (we don't snatch pieces of other countries) and equality.
If a global referendum was to be held, we are running a great risk of loosing several basic issues.
We have the responsibility to drive an ideology of democratic of freedom and liberty.
That means that we step up and say some things that might be perceived as tough. That we take tough decisions. And draw the conclusions from such a line. Don't let them get away with it time after time.
Ok, I'm a realistic - the Russian bear won't back down very easily. We have to cut deals with them. China and a few others too.
But come on: the West folds even when it comes to sub-saharan countries that wouldn't be able to invade Ellis Island even.
Why do we worry so much about being the policymakers of the world? It was self-evident that we had to be 50 years ago.
Sure, the world is a complex place today. But we still need to lead. There are 6 billion peoples outside the west who needs our voice.
Respect and discussions are good. But let's face it: the West and much of the rest of the world are at odds on pretty basic ideas such as democratic values, non-aggresive solutions (we don't snatch pieces of other countries) and equality.
If a global referendum was to be held, we are running a great risk of loosing several basic issues.
We have the responsibility to drive an ideology of democratic of freedom and liberty.
That means that we step up and say some things that might be perceived as tough. That we take tough decisions. And draw the conclusions from such a line. Don't let them get away with it time after time.
Ok, I'm a realistic - the Russian bear won't back down very easily. We have to cut deals with them. China and a few others too.
But come on: the West folds even when it comes to sub-saharan countries that wouldn't be able to invade Ellis Island even.
Why do we worry so much about being the policymakers of the world? It was self-evident that we had to be 50 years ago.
Sure, the world is a complex place today. But we still need to lead. There are 6 billion peoples outside the west who needs our voice.
1
Cohen just doesn't get it. Stay uninvolved and aloof to the problems abroad as Obama has, and the problems only get worse. Relative isolationism leads to a stronger ISIS, a stronger and bolder Russia, an expanding China, and an eventually nuclear weaponized Iran. For better or worse, the United States is the policeman for the world. A foreign policy that ignores that fact will only force future generations to face the problems that Obama refuses to confront.
1
Paul: Policemen rightly expect to get paid for tier work. All we have done is drain our own treasury and waste tax payer dollars on misadventures that brought nothing to us. I will take restraint any time over nonsensical chest thumping. And if the world expects us to play this role-- instead of offering our people healthcare, good roads and a great education-- then we need to call ourselves what we are-- mercenaries-- and get remunerated by those we are "protecting.".
3
An absolutely brilliant essay, and I am quite prepared to think (hope) it reflects the views and foreign policy guiding principles of President Obama. But such a considered view or strategy cannot exist only in the mind of the President: It must be held and acted upon by the entire government foreign policy and national security administration. I have strong doubts that the heads of the CIA, the generals and the security establishment generally, all nominally under the command the President, accept this global view and support the President with appropriate intelligence and counsel. I have no doubt that President could not have publicly expressed this view without causing a governance crisis with the resignations of then Defense Secretary Bob Gates and State Secretary Hillary Clinton and an open revolt by the Generals and many in his own Party, not to speak of the domestic political reaction. The President is damned if he does make explicit his world views on foreign policy and damned if he doesn't. It demonstrates the real limits to presidential power in a system where the President cannot always rely on the loyalty and backing of his own administration nor of his own Party. Some previous posts on this subject have complained about "confusion" in his foreign policies. Perhaps political and administrative realities make this a feature (also a bug) of the American political and administrative system.
4
This is no implicit policy. It is a policy of explicit cowardice, appeasement and treason. Obama's collaboration with the Alawite-Shiite genocide and ethnic cleansing of Sunni Muislims in Syria is worse than FDR's collaboration (by refusing to spend a cent of political capital to open America's locked doors to Jews desperately seeking a refuge from the swastika adorned murderers) with the Nazi Holocaust. FDR at least had the excuse of not knowing until relatively late (1943) what was going on in. Obama has no such excuse, he knows, and has decided to collaborate with it nevertheless. That will be his legacy, a legacy of appeasement, cowardice and betrayal.
2
Can someone explain to me please how President Obama "did not follow" on his red line comment re. Syria?
Assad's regime had to get rid of most if not all of its chemical arsenal. And that was done thanks to Obama's threat as well as his smart use of Russia's influence with Assad.
And it was done with no bombs and zero casualties. Smart, cheap and effective.
Assad's regime had to get rid of most if not all of its chemical arsenal. And that was done thanks to Obama's threat as well as his smart use of Russia's influence with Assad.
And it was done with no bombs and zero casualties. Smart, cheap and effective.
44
I'd be glad to.
Here's the timeline:
Mistake #1 - Obama calls for regime change (i.e. more nation building)
• Aug. 18, 2011: Obama for the first time calls on Assad to leave power. "We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way,” Obama said in a statement as violence in Syria increased. “He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”
Enter the Red Line:
• July 23, 2012: Obama says that the Assad regime will be "held accountable" if it uses chemical weapons, during a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.
• Aug. 20, 2012: Obama says for the first time that the use or movement of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is a red line. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama said at a press conference. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
• Dec. 3, 2012: In a speech at National Defense University, the president again warns Assad over chemical weapons. "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there where be consequences, and you will be held accountable," Obama says.
Aug 31, 2013: Obama Says He Doesn't Need Congress' Permission to Strike Syria.
“The President Blinked”: Why Obama Changed Course on the “Red Line” in Syria - PBS Frontline Special 2015
Here's the timeline:
Mistake #1 - Obama calls for regime change (i.e. more nation building)
• Aug. 18, 2011: Obama for the first time calls on Assad to leave power. "We have consistently said that President Assad must lead a democratic transition or get out of the way,” Obama said in a statement as violence in Syria increased. “He has not led. For the sake of the Syrian people, the time has come for President Assad to step aside.”
Enter the Red Line:
• July 23, 2012: Obama says that the Assad regime will be "held accountable" if it uses chemical weapons, during a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention.
• Aug. 20, 2012: Obama says for the first time that the use or movement of chemical weapons by the Assad regime is a red line. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized," Obama said at a press conference. "That would change my calculus. That would change my equation."
• Dec. 3, 2012: In a speech at National Defense University, the president again warns Assad over chemical weapons. "If you make the tragic mistake of using these weapons, there where be consequences, and you will be held accountable," Obama says.
Aug 31, 2013: Obama Says He Doesn't Need Congress' Permission to Strike Syria.
“The President Blinked”: Why Obama Changed Course on the “Red Line” in Syria - PBS Frontline Special 2015
4
The slide in US foreign and domestic (i.e., stagnating wages; massive reductions in employee medical/dental/retirement packages; massive credit needed to keep the Middle Class afloat) power has been occurring since, at least, the early 1970s. The first 30 years following WWII were an anamoly, as the US stood as the world's only intact industrial power. With that power came a massive increase in the US GDP, rising wages and employer-provided benefits, and the ability to have armed forces unparalleled in the history of the world. We ruled. The past 40 years have witnessed a rebalancing of the the international economic and military order, with surprises such as China and India. And what accelerated our economic, political, and military power relevant to others? G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq; the most unmitigated strategic blunder (yes, far more so than our war in Vietnam) in the history of our nation. That invasion and his failure to fully secure and govern Iraq until the Iraqi could do so themselves, his earlier pronouncement of the Axis of Evil, and his (and his NATO/EU counterparts) continued insistence on the incorporation of former Soviet Union satellite countries into NATO, and finally, his administration's failure to police Wall Street and the financial industry set in motion tectonic geo-political actions that lead to where we find ourselves today. The fictional speech in this article accurately describes the world in which we live.
5
Obama's implicit foreign policy has shown a lack of vision and hesitation that is alienating our closest allies trust in the US while allowing bad actors, like Russia and China, threaten the foundations of international law and norms that America worked so hard with the international community to create post-World War I and World War II.
The argument for America playing spectator to destabilizing events overlooks the longer term costs to American interests as well as the international order. If Obama's Administration teaches us anything about foreign policy, it should be that ignoring or under acting in major events, like the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, the humanitarian disaster of the Syrian Revolution and illegal Chinese territory claims, have only allowed those issues to fester and become far more dangerous and complicated problems with constantly decreasing good options that are increasing the risk of a major military engagement that the US will be unable to ignore.
There must be a correct and happy middle between the discredited Neo-Conservative political movement and defacto isolationism. An example of this is how Syria avoided becoming another Libya only to become the worst humanitarian disaster in modern history, a breeding ground for a new global terrorist movement and a potential flashpoint for a regional war. I'm sure most Syrians and Europeans dealing with a refugee crisis wish Syria only had the problems of Libya.
The argument for America playing spectator to destabilizing events overlooks the longer term costs to American interests as well as the international order. If Obama's Administration teaches us anything about foreign policy, it should be that ignoring or under acting in major events, like the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine, the humanitarian disaster of the Syrian Revolution and illegal Chinese territory claims, have only allowed those issues to fester and become far more dangerous and complicated problems with constantly decreasing good options that are increasing the risk of a major military engagement that the US will be unable to ignore.
There must be a correct and happy middle between the discredited Neo-Conservative political movement and defacto isolationism. An example of this is how Syria avoided becoming another Libya only to become the worst humanitarian disaster in modern history, a breeding ground for a new global terrorist movement and a potential flashpoint for a regional war. I'm sure most Syrians and Europeans dealing with a refugee crisis wish Syria only had the problems of Libya.
1
Obama got it right. America jumped into Iraq when Saddam was murdering his citizens, two trillion dollars and hundred of thousands of dead later, some want to show more 'leadership' by jumping into Syria.
People write about 1945 like America won WWII by itself, it didn't. Not to mention dropping two atomic bombs on an already defeated Japan, making America the only country to actually use nuclear weapons to slaughter innocents.
The American military hasn't won a war since. Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam, Irag and Afghanistan all costly, pointless, abject failures. The military is a 750 billion dollar a year self promotion industry, entirely subsidized by taxpayers who are brainwashed into it by faux-patriotism, flags, uniforms, parades and medals.
Trotting out soldiers to kill people is what insane tyrants do. Talk, negotiation, is what rational people do. You get better outcomes, with far less death, no mangled soldiers and much less wasted money. Do try and learn something.
People write about 1945 like America won WWII by itself, it didn't. Not to mention dropping two atomic bombs on an already defeated Japan, making America the only country to actually use nuclear weapons to slaughter innocents.
The American military hasn't won a war since. Korea was a stalemate, Vietnam, Irag and Afghanistan all costly, pointless, abject failures. The military is a 750 billion dollar a year self promotion industry, entirely subsidized by taxpayers who are brainwashed into it by faux-patriotism, flags, uniforms, parades and medals.
Trotting out soldiers to kill people is what insane tyrants do. Talk, negotiation, is what rational people do. You get better outcomes, with far less death, no mangled soldiers and much less wasted money. Do try and learn something.
3
Well said!
All true of course and in reality reflective of most Americans inner feelings since there is no appetite whatsoever for a repeat of the Iraqi and Afghan debacles. Even posturing Republicans fall well short of proposing new invasions of middle eastern countries. This of course is not going to shut these idiots up from all the usual claptrap about defeatism etc. which is essentially predicated on winning the Vietnam/Iraq/Afghan wars with actually fighting these wars.
Dear Roger, You forgot to mention the deal with Russia to get chemical weapons out of Syria. So I did keep my word, if by that little bit of snark you're referring to your cherished "Red Line" again. Also, you should have mentioned how difficult it is to support the anti-Assad opposition when it is made up of al Qaeda, al Nusra, Daesh, and other Sunni Islamist groups that hate us even more than they hate Assad and would happily feed us to the dogs if they didn't hate dogs even more than they hate both us and Assad. And the uncomfortable truth that the massacre that has occurred in Syria is child's play compared to the massacre that would occur if those groups ever gained power over Assad and his 16M protectees. Also, the difficulty of making a nuclear deal with Iran if we are openly fighting them in Syria. And the continuing shame and stain of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo that has collapsed our legitimacy in the area for a generation. Anyway, if you think you can do better, maybe you should try the Big Chair. As far as I'm concerned, you can have it. Sincerely, BO.
2
Sorry folks: Bush poisoned the well of shared-values and partnership from which the Western Democracies drank. His administration, by their utter contempt for any cooperative venture--whether the UN, NATO, IAEA, the Geneva Conventions--let our friends and partners down.
The Rovian style of take-no-prisoners political gamesmanship with our allies, and key players like Hans Blick and Mohammed al Baradai caused nothing but resentment and schadenfreude from former friends.
Obama's legacy will be that of a President who spent 8 years trying to re-build strategic relationships and a severe deficit of squandered credit with our allies and friends, while at the same time fending off attacks from a party and group of fools that should have been as discredited as LBJ, McNamara, Nixon and Kissinger were in the wake of their own political defeats.
Instead we are treated to a Zombie-fest of walking-dead pundits, Republican pols, and hate-media-personalities kept alive by the Twitter-ocracy , Internet-driven "facts", and corporate-funded think tanks in the false-equivalence industry. When Trump says "there's something going on..." THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
The Rovian style of take-no-prisoners political gamesmanship with our allies, and key players like Hans Blick and Mohammed al Baradai caused nothing but resentment and schadenfreude from former friends.
Obama's legacy will be that of a President who spent 8 years trying to re-build strategic relationships and a severe deficit of squandered credit with our allies and friends, while at the same time fending off attacks from a party and group of fools that should have been as discredited as LBJ, McNamara, Nixon and Kissinger were in the wake of their own political defeats.
Instead we are treated to a Zombie-fest of walking-dead pundits, Republican pols, and hate-media-personalities kept alive by the Twitter-ocracy , Internet-driven "facts", and corporate-funded think tanks in the false-equivalence industry. When Trump says "there's something going on..." THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON.
1
P.S., don't get your knickers in a twist about how this is some big Obama Doctrine policy change heralding the decline of US power. After all, in the Reagan era the US withdrew from a failed intervention in Lebanon and then stood by idly as a million were slaughtered in the Iran-Iraq war. Trying to stop the tribes over there from fighting each other is a loser's game. There will be plenty of future battles to pick.
4
Reading the comments, a few counter remarks. The United States does NOT have the duty to protect the European Union! And, if it is our most important ally, we need to find another one. European NATO has hidden in the political shadows for over six decades. Always reluctant to engage in defense of its own interests. (Unless it is economic.) EU, a political formation with an equivalent GDP of the US and 500+Million people, that refuses to defend itself. But, more to the point, this is the type of ally America has, more often than not, attracted since World War II. (Opportunistic, exploitative and guileful.)
7
What is "implicit" about Obama's foreign policy, is - in the eyes of critics like Roger Cohen - his vacillation. Obama sees "restraint" as a "wisdom", while opponents see it as an anathema, making the US appear weak, especially in Putin's eyes.
Nobody gives him credit for being overly cautious. This has allowed him to avoid plunging the US into unnecessary conflicts, which could have morphed into nonstarters.
Nobody gives him credit for being overly cautious. This has allowed him to avoid plunging the US into unnecessary conflicts, which could have morphed into nonstarters.
Obama is no pacifist: He has authorised drone assassinations; intervened in Libya, sent special forces to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria; had Osama Bin Laden killed. Hardly implicit.
1
What is "implicit" about Obama's foreign policy, is - in the eyes of critics like Roger Cohen - his vacillation. Obama sees "restraint" as a "wisdom", while opponents see it as an anathema, making the US appear weak, especially in Putin's eyes.
Nobody gives him credit for being overly cautious. This has allowed him to avoid plunging the US into unnecessary conflicts, which could have morphed into nonstarters.
Nobody gives him credit for being overly cautious. This has allowed him to avoid plunging the US into unnecessary conflicts, which could have morphed into nonstarters.
This column fails to fit all the facts. President Obama, strongly supported by Secretary Clinton, managed to do for Libya what Bush, jr did for Afghanistan and Iraq, but without the loss of US soldiers' lives (only the lives of an Ambassador and three others).
And Mr Cohen's 'red line' has been proven to have been a false flag:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
Yes, we know that the Daesh (ISIS in English) was created by the evil Syrian regime when they opened the Syrian prison Camp Bucca and released, armed, and funded the violent jihadists who formed the Daesh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/04/how-an-ame...
And Mr Cohen's 'red line' has been proven to have been a false flag:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
Yes, we know that the Daesh (ISIS in English) was created by the evil Syrian regime when they opened the Syrian prison Camp Bucca and released, armed, and funded the violent jihadists who formed the Daesh.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/11/04/how-an-ame...
1
The Times, together with other media outlets, continues to maintain that Assad's army's use of chemical weapons is a proven fact, when many credible sources, including active and retired intelligence professionals, have questioned the "official" version of the events. Of course, to do so immediately pegs one a "non official version conspiracy theorist".
1
To my thinking the 1990s was a mispent opportunity when the SU was humbled and America was the unrivalled power.
It unfortunately chose to ride on hubris and arrogance - the cold war desks kept humming when victory was done and over with.
It forgot that it was soft power - defenitely backed up with hard power that made it win and deployed its military.
The undermining of yugoslavia, the enlargement of NATO, the Iraq and other mideast ventures, the reach into Ukraine were all largely unnecessary.. wich made the other powers convinced that the unchallenged US outreach was both undesirable and dangerous.
The whole world was ready with a welcome mat for the US in 1989 - to listen and to learn. The US blew its goodwill with arrogance.
It unfortunately chose to ride on hubris and arrogance - the cold war desks kept humming when victory was done and over with.
It forgot that it was soft power - defenitely backed up with hard power that made it win and deployed its military.
The undermining of yugoslavia, the enlargement of NATO, the Iraq and other mideast ventures, the reach into Ukraine were all largely unnecessary.. wich made the other powers convinced that the unchallenged US outreach was both undesirable and dangerous.
The whole world was ready with a welcome mat for the US in 1989 - to listen and to learn. The US blew its goodwill with arrogance.
1
Obama is one person who understands that we run the very great risk of becoming sacrificial pawns in an oligarchic chess game. In that respect he differs from the puppets in ALEC's congress and ALEC's media. He is one person in our government who, thank God, has not snorted lines of Koch.
2
Obama is like a bad actor. He is a continuous embarrassment on the foreign policy stage. He is a sorry world leader and the U.S. has not and is not respected by the world. His check to Iran showed his weakness.
1
The problem, Mr. Cohen, is in your opening sentence. "American power in the 21st century cannot be what it was in 1945 — or even in 1990". This opinion was planted into many American citizens head by the media and the distorted foreign policies adopted by President Obama. The President's policies, as displayed from his attitude and reaction to "the Arab Spring" all the way to the "Iran Deal", his dealings with China, Mexico and other areas around the globe, "helped" to create the impression that the USA is weakening. But you are wrong Mr. Cohen, American power was never as strong as it is today, its management is weak!! Yes, what you call, "American adventurism" is really "American leadership". Most people around the world are hopeful (for the sack of humanity) that America will make a comeback with Mr. Obama successor.
2
"...and we ousted Saddam Hussein with a terrible power vacuum as a result - we ousted Kadaffi with a terrible results - we have tried to oust Assad with terrible results. The results of our eagerness to control the Middle East because of the oil have resulted in 100 of thousands dead and a terrible exodus of people for which we luckily let the Europeans take care of"
I don't think the President is implying diminished American exceptionalism. He is calling for a more judicious use of our military prowess in a world of political uncertainty. General Powell doctrine for the use of military intervention called for clear cut political objectives; overwhelming use of force and an exit strategy. The reason the persian gulf war in 91 was successful was that it fit these requirements. President Bush was prescient in not exceeding his political mandate and going into Iraq after their expulsion from Kuwait. The current Middle East climate does not meed this mandate with it's competing factions and lack of political objectives. Other than is egregious call for regime change Obama is wisely using military power to contain a threat without getting bogged down in a unsolvable political situation akin to our involvement in Vietnam and our second Iraqi excursion. Let Russia suffer the long term consequences of its use of force in Ukraine and Syria.
Love your enemies, disrespect your allies. I think that sums it up. No one but Obama could have enabled Putin to despoil Ukraine, assume the leadership in Syria (on behalf of Assad) while Russia's economy was tanking and oil prices in decline. I believe "pusillanimous" is the word, but the burden falls on the dead in Syria, the millions of refugees, the victims of ISIS and other Iranian-backed terror groups.
Ask one question: has he left the world better and safer? We have now had fifteen years of presidents who, for opposite reasons, have failed to do so. Their legacy is Donald Trump.
Ask one question: has he left the world better and safer? We have now had fifteen years of presidents who, for opposite reasons, have failed to do so. Their legacy is Donald Trump.
2
Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words cannot hurt you – or so they said, when I was young. Along came 1984 and suddenly, words could hurt you too.
Today, most of us still believe that breaking bones with our sticks will fix the world. Breaking bones is so satisfying and cool to watch on TV, it is hard to give up. We cannot, yet, believe in the power of words.
Case in point. This President is a hard thinking man, not given to using other people’s children to make him look like a strong man. He used “Red Line” rhetorically: It was a mistake and I suspect he knew it when he said it. But he did not send other people’s children to fight and die for his mistake. Instead, he took it like a man and paid for his own mistake. Obama will pay for those words for the rest of his life. But make a mistake with hard power and the end is absolute – how many American soldiers were killed and maimed in Iraq?
Case in point: In 2015, the world watched Obama rip Trump apart with words – at the correspondent’s dinner. Trump looked so pitiful, I actually felt sorry for him. There was no doubt, Trump would never forgive his inter-nationally televised spanking. That night, Obama went back to work and used a little hard power to get rid of Osama bin Laden. Obama didn’t mention Trump, but the two events were forever linked in our minds.
It will be a long time before we see another President use hard and soft power so deftly.
Today, most of us still believe that breaking bones with our sticks will fix the world. Breaking bones is so satisfying and cool to watch on TV, it is hard to give up. We cannot, yet, believe in the power of words.
Case in point. This President is a hard thinking man, not given to using other people’s children to make him look like a strong man. He used “Red Line” rhetorically: It was a mistake and I suspect he knew it when he said it. But he did not send other people’s children to fight and die for his mistake. Instead, he took it like a man and paid for his own mistake. Obama will pay for those words for the rest of his life. But make a mistake with hard power and the end is absolute – how many American soldiers were killed and maimed in Iraq?
Case in point: In 2015, the world watched Obama rip Trump apart with words – at the correspondent’s dinner. Trump looked so pitiful, I actually felt sorry for him. There was no doubt, Trump would never forgive his inter-nationally televised spanking. That night, Obama went back to work and used a little hard power to get rid of Osama bin Laden. Obama didn’t mention Trump, but the two events were forever linked in our minds.
It will be a long time before we see another President use hard and soft power so deftly.
3
All I saw in the speech was weakness.
1
I see Bruce Lee weakness. If one would call that weakness
I have high opinions on Obama's foreign policy. Ten years or 25 years from now, I predict political scientists and historians will recognize this president and his high-minded statesmanship.. More immediately, if the Republican presidential candidate should win the 2016 election, the United States will most probably get deeper into expanded wars in the Middle East, then the American people will more fully appreciate Obama's "foreign policy of judicial restraint." One central idea of this policy is that the United States should fight wars of necessity, as in the case of ISIS. The President's foreign policy is a component of his comprehensive policy for the nation: after the costly and damaging invasion of Iraq and the war in Afghanistan, the United States should concentrate on nation building in this country -- rebuild a robust economy, develop a stronger and modernized military defense, develop stronger, healthier, and more capable human resources. "Fortuna"(Machiavelli) does not favor him on this grand agenda -- the opposition and vested interests block much of his forward proposals and the American voters gave him two years of the US Congress to work on the ambitious plan.
I voted twice for President Obama, precisely because of his restraint. He is neither an ideologue nor a reactionary, and both his intellect and temperament were well suited to the job, where he has been tried and tested, and done his best to satisfy us at home, as well as our partners abroad. No one is prescient, armchair quarterbacking is perfect, but people are not. In this president, we have had the best we could hope for. He has steered this ship through the roughest waters, and we not only survived, we thrived.
2
Mr. Cohen has been urging intervention on Syria from the bleachers.
cf."America’s Syrian Shame."
This hypothetical, backhandedly insulting Obama speech has insinuated a commonly used political cheap shot, often used on playgrounds everywhere:
"If you don't start throwing punches, you're weak. You're not weak are you?"
Unfortunately, this childish prodding has often been found effective by neocons & chickenhawks, and produced disaster for the US, death and chaos across the world.
The PNAC agenda (of regime change), while it had begun within GW Bush's catastrophic term, has unfortunately found continuity in Libya and Syria. It has increased instability, radicalism, & terrorism throughout the Middle East, potentially advancing the symbolic Doomsday Clock of the Cold War era, due to an escalating conflict among the tangled alliances of proxy powers warring in Syria.
The proponents of encouraging regime change -- in Iraq, Libya & Syria, obviously haven't thought through the consequences of deepening bloodshed, instability, and reprisal. The deceptive neocons' ostensible "good" intentions have consistently led to a road to hell.
Fortunately, Obama has brought in John Kerry to bring some sagacity to the State Department. Responsible leaders don't confuse wisdom with weakness.
Evil neocon foreign policy continues to threaten the lives and safety of Americans and millions of others throughout the world.
cf."America’s Syrian Shame."
This hypothetical, backhandedly insulting Obama speech has insinuated a commonly used political cheap shot, often used on playgrounds everywhere:
"If you don't start throwing punches, you're weak. You're not weak are you?"
Unfortunately, this childish prodding has often been found effective by neocons & chickenhawks, and produced disaster for the US, death and chaos across the world.
The PNAC agenda (of regime change), while it had begun within GW Bush's catastrophic term, has unfortunately found continuity in Libya and Syria. It has increased instability, radicalism, & terrorism throughout the Middle East, potentially advancing the symbolic Doomsday Clock of the Cold War era, due to an escalating conflict among the tangled alliances of proxy powers warring in Syria.
The proponents of encouraging regime change -- in Iraq, Libya & Syria, obviously haven't thought through the consequences of deepening bloodshed, instability, and reprisal. The deceptive neocons' ostensible "good" intentions have consistently led to a road to hell.
Fortunately, Obama has brought in John Kerry to bring some sagacity to the State Department. Responsible leaders don't confuse wisdom with weakness.
Evil neocon foreign policy continues to threaten the lives and safety of Americans and millions of others throughout the world.
3
After reading this I found myself recalling my undergraduate days and particularly the words of Anchises to his son Aeneas, founder of Rome:
Roman, remember by your strength to rule
Earth's peoples, for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose the rule of law
To spare the conquered, battle down the proud (Aeneid 6.1151-1154)
For whatever it is worth, there are some who still care about and read these lines, in university, or elsewhere, and study their implications for the history of Rome and the world. Augustus would have been aghast by "Obama's Implicit Foreign Policy".
How many will remember the foreign policy legacy of Obama? Time will tell, but what is ultimately remembered might be more in terms of "picking up the pieces" of a shattered world.
Roman, remember by your strength to rule
Earth's peoples, for your arts are to be these:
To pacify, to impose the rule of law
To spare the conquered, battle down the proud (Aeneid 6.1151-1154)
For whatever it is worth, there are some who still care about and read these lines, in university, or elsewhere, and study their implications for the history of Rome and the world. Augustus would have been aghast by "Obama's Implicit Foreign Policy".
How many will remember the foreign policy legacy of Obama? Time will tell, but what is ultimately remembered might be more in terms of "picking up the pieces" of a shattered world.
2
Joshua, please re-read your Roman history. Excessive militarism and rampant imperialism lead to the ultimate decline and fall. Is that what you wish for America?
1
Obama has been America's caretaker (as he was elected to be) humbly ensuring the restoration of its good reputation, and its quiet survival while the Middle East and the edges of Europe, and Africa, crumble into chaos in the wake of Bush's wars - in that, Obama succeeded.
Could Obama have exhausted America's tired military and brought on yet more astronomic debt by engaging more in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, or the rest? Yes, but that's not what Americans wanted.
Imagine a President Trump, or another Bush - some right-wing warmonger - shouting off and sending in the troops. The carnage actual and economic would be unimaginable. Obama is healing America domestically - rather than being led by bluster and delusion into foreign quagmires.
Could Obama have exhausted America's tired military and brought on yet more astronomic debt by engaging more in Libya, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, or the rest? Yes, but that's not what Americans wanted.
Imagine a President Trump, or another Bush - some right-wing warmonger - shouting off and sending in the troops. The carnage actual and economic would be unimaginable. Obama is healing America domestically - rather than being led by bluster and delusion into foreign quagmires.
1
I couldn't read 295 comments, but I read two dozen, including some of the ones flagged as NYT picks. And I didn't encounter a single one that detected satirical intent in this "speech." How strange. I would have thought that anyone who has followed Cohen's columns would see that he is very far from approving the inaction exemplified in the two paragraphs that start "Should I have..."
This is neither clever nor enlightening.
No real or presumed speech by the President of the USA could be more escapist and dutyshirking, ignoring than this when it proaches the Middle East.In this domain the USA should have
a-admitted total failure in producing a peace it purports to support , and the search for which by others it totally blocked,which is the inevitable outgrowth of American full hearted adoption of the Israeli positions as transpired by the leakages from the failed Kerry round and American failure to back up its earlier official policies re the annexation of Jerusalem and surrounds and
-its presumed opposition to the construction of Settlements
b-The USA equally failed to admit its role in the planning of the Syrian insurrection which led to the ongoing civil war and
- its moral and legal responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and the consequent havocs overruling now the region
This presumed speech blatantly acknowledges the USA failure to keep its word and bear the responsibility it assumed by monopolizing the Peace issue ;
it does not only recognize USA power limitationns but readily accepts the secondary role Israel assigned to it in the Middle East.
a-admitted total failure in producing a peace it purports to support , and the search for which by others it totally blocked,which is the inevitable outgrowth of American full hearted adoption of the Israeli positions as transpired by the leakages from the failed Kerry round and American failure to back up its earlier official policies re the annexation of Jerusalem and surrounds and
-its presumed opposition to the construction of Settlements
b-The USA equally failed to admit its role in the planning of the Syrian insurrection which led to the ongoing civil war and
- its moral and legal responsibility for the destruction of Iraq and the consequent havocs overruling now the region
This presumed speech blatantly acknowledges the USA failure to keep its word and bear the responsibility it assumed by monopolizing the Peace issue ;
it does not only recognize USA power limitationns but readily accepts the secondary role Israel assigned to it in the Middle East.
Perhaps this was Mr. Obama's implicit Foreign Policy but his explicit foreign policy was total confusion and illusion. He forsook decades of friendships and showed that not only is America untrustworthy, it makes promises it will not keep. It has shown that American intelligence is the the definition of oxymoron and then lies to obfuscate its errors. It has shown that America now speaks loudly and carries a twig.
6
Obama's foreign policy was simply to ride out the nightmare collapse of the Middle East - initiated by Bush - without throwing away more good money and lives, in wasted attempts to reign it in.
Could Obama has stopped Isis coming into being? Stopped Libya or Egypt from revolting? Stopped the Syrian civil war? Of course not, in any way.
His only lacking has been boldly stating his aims: healing America while taking needed time out. He has been a domestic success and that's all America needed.
Could Obama has stopped Isis coming into being? Stopped Libya or Egypt from revolting? Stopped the Syrian civil war? Of course not, in any way.
His only lacking has been boldly stating his aims: healing America while taking needed time out. He has been a domestic success and that's all America needed.
35
This is ridiculous! When did America ever dominate after WWII? We defeated neither North Korea nor North Vietnam. Communism fell under its own weight. The supposed decline is as dubious as our supposed domination. China may or may not be the second largest economy because the data are either fabricated or just impossible to get. Even if that was not the case it is still a far way from the size of ours. There is nothing, and I mean nothing, wrong with the way we're handling these Islamic extremists. Besides, they are more deadly to their fellow Muslims who do not share their extremist views than they are to Americans. Get over it.
2
I think that most of the Western world isnt getting the problem. Islam and especially countries in the middle east are going through a big transition.
The public there needs some breathing space to define where they want to go. And look where they have gone after American soldiers were sent in. In a single decision, America alienated a lot of people, came across as belligerent and did not even have a coherent strategy of getting out. And in the end, the decision to invade Iraq, and continued Drone attacks in Afghanistan/Pakistan has defined an enemy for a couple of generations among Muslims.
Meanwhile, atleast in India, the foreign policy of Barack Obama has been received with a sense of relief because India has been able to exert some positive influence on Afghanistan and Iran, building dams, schools and even the recently inaugurated Afghan Parliament.
The singular burden of leading the world should not be for America alone. America should actively look to engage in thoughtful leadership with other countries and set an example as it has done in the past.
The public there needs some breathing space to define where they want to go. And look where they have gone after American soldiers were sent in. In a single decision, America alienated a lot of people, came across as belligerent and did not even have a coherent strategy of getting out. And in the end, the decision to invade Iraq, and continued Drone attacks in Afghanistan/Pakistan has defined an enemy for a couple of generations among Muslims.
Meanwhile, atleast in India, the foreign policy of Barack Obama has been received with a sense of relief because India has been able to exert some positive influence on Afghanistan and Iran, building dams, schools and even the recently inaugurated Afghan Parliament.
The singular burden of leading the world should not be for America alone. America should actively look to engage in thoughtful leadership with other countries and set an example as it has done in the past.
3
I suspect that this article by Mr Cohen was written a bit with tongue in cheek, but it does contain some truth. I particularly appreciated the parts that alluded to the return of good patriotic American kids from ill advised wars with missing legs, bomb fragments in their brains, but still feeling guilty for not finishing their mission. Indeed, the political climate has changed quickly from talk of President Clinton's draft deferrals meaning that his leadership might be questioned to VP Cheney explaining his away as "having other priorities" oh, OK (have to remember that one).
The willingness of American exceptionalists to sacrifice the blood and money of young Americans for their own collective warm & nationalistic feelings is well documented. The reality is that, in the American military, a war is good for your career and good for the so called "defense contractors" too. The media loves to cover wars too, in fact, most of a certain generations most notable TV anchormen owe some of their success to some past American wars. So, bad on Obama for throwing a wrench in what could have been careers made in Iranian, and Syrian wars huh? No, actually he is to be profusely thanked for his restraint.
The willingness of American exceptionalists to sacrifice the blood and money of young Americans for their own collective warm & nationalistic feelings is well documented. The reality is that, in the American military, a war is good for your career and good for the so called "defense contractors" too. The media loves to cover wars too, in fact, most of a certain generations most notable TV anchormen owe some of their success to some past American wars. So, bad on Obama for throwing a wrench in what could have been careers made in Iranian, and Syrian wars huh? No, actually he is to be profusely thanked for his restraint.
Sounds like Fortress America. Where have we heard that phrase before? And while Obama is administering tough love to Israel, it's quite telling that there isn't a word toward Palestinian dysfunctionality, terror, kleptocracy and antisemitic incitement that will never get them a state, no matter how much whining to the UN, Scandinavian leftists or how many anti-Israel op-eds the NY Times chooses to publish in any given week.
1
"Should I have armed the rebels in Syria"? This reminds me of Rubio's Op-Ed 2013 on CNN.com. Neither of you understood the question nor could you answer it, not now, not 2 years ago: "Which ones should I have armed?"
Let's be crystal clear. There never was, isn't, will never be, peace in the Middle East. The borders were drawn and societies constructed so the minority would be able to oppress the majority (Syria, Iraq, Libya - Sykes-Picot, look it up). That only works with a strongman at the helm and every weakness of the oppressor will be exploited. Now, if you want peace, you have to change the borders. The Sunnis need their own country. But this is really beyond the US alone. I think Hillary gets this half-way but can't say it (Give ISIS their own country? Scandalous!)
Let's be crystal clear. There never was, isn't, will never be, peace in the Middle East. The borders were drawn and societies constructed so the minority would be able to oppress the majority (Syria, Iraq, Libya - Sykes-Picot, look it up). That only works with a strongman at the helm and every weakness of the oppressor will be exploited. Now, if you want peace, you have to change the borders. The Sunnis need their own country. But this is really beyond the US alone. I think Hillary gets this half-way but can't say it (Give ISIS their own country? Scandalous!)
2
This is an excellent speech. It endorses a modest realism, which President Obama's successor would do well to follow. It comes near the end of his presidency and shows how much he has learned and evolved. For earlier in his tenure, he took such actions as sending more troops to Afghanistan and overturning the Quadaffi regime in Libya. These were idealist and Wilsonian in character, and led to disappointment and another failed state.
In his last year, I would hope he would rein in those advisers, who want him to send more arms to eastern Europe.
In his last year, I would hope he would rein in those advisers, who want him to send more arms to eastern Europe.
If you were a government anywhere in the world right now, who would you want as a patron right now, Obama or Putin? Which would come to your aid if you really needed it? I'm guessing nobody in the Kremlin is wringing hands every time their military kills a few civilians in Syria. By contrast, the US is paralyzed by fear. That may be a blunt way of saying it, but the fact is we have ceded leadership to Russia and China. They know we will do nothing but talk while they act. And they are being effective while we are not.
1
One thing strikes me whenever people on this and other blogs talk about leaders or governments of countries in the Middle East as thugs or brutal dictators and regimes. In reference to President Assad of Syria, we have been dealing with his and his fathers "regime" for long time. When everyday Americans start using government's talking points we can be easily led to wars and regime change as it is okay to kill thugs and okay to destroy a country ruled by a regime instead of a "democratic" (meaning friendly) government. To be honest we love dictators and kings, only the rogues one we don't like.
1
...and how many lives will it cost.
There is nothing I'd like more in our next president than a "third term of Barack Obama".
Groveling to our enemies and dictators everywhere is not a foreign policy.
How many political prisoners did Cuba release in exchange for re-establishing diplomatic relations? How many will it release when you take your vacation there?
It released one American hostage. That's all. No Cubans.
And Iran is taking more American hostages to replace the handful it released in exchange for the nuclear deal.
How many political prisoners did Cuba release in exchange for re-establishing diplomatic relations? How many will it release when you take your vacation there?
It released one American hostage. That's all. No Cubans.
And Iran is taking more American hostages to replace the handful it released in exchange for the nuclear deal.
1
"My fellow Americans:..
My claiming to have ended the War in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government was not deception, it was my way of lulling those burning the Middle East today into a false sense of security, until I claimed ending the war in Iraq was not my doing, it was all W's.
My dismissing ISIS as the junior varsity was, well.... PSYCH!
My SOS's gloating over the killing of Khadaffy was just her funnin' and as we entered to this phase of US foreign policy which I shall call the age of serene peace. Ignore those beheadings of Christians. Remember there were Crusades.
My declaring ISIS contained the day they attacked Paris was a demonstration my cerebral Nobel Laureate approach to US foreign policy.
Good night my fellow Americans."
My claiming to have ended the War in Iraq and leaving it with a stable government was not deception, it was my way of lulling those burning the Middle East today into a false sense of security, until I claimed ending the war in Iraq was not my doing, it was all W's.
My dismissing ISIS as the junior varsity was, well.... PSYCH!
My SOS's gloating over the killing of Khadaffy was just her funnin' and as we entered to this phase of US foreign policy which I shall call the age of serene peace. Ignore those beheadings of Christians. Remember there were Crusades.
My declaring ISIS contained the day they attacked Paris was a demonstration my cerebral Nobel Laureate approach to US foreign policy.
Good night my fellow Americans."
1
Bantering back and forth is fine, but the real emphasis should be on having an honest dialogue regarding foreign policy. What should be our goals? Pax Romana devolved into the Dark Ages, as Pax Britannia waned, Japan in the East and Germany/Italy in the West flexed their totalitarian muscles. Pax Americana has temporarily kept us from Armageddon on a nuclear scale with little wars that kept capitalism humming along and a brisk exchange of technology and goods in exchange for natural resources. What is next? If we abdicate our role in keeping trade open and authoritarians and dogmatic mullahs from gumming up the works who will take our place? What is worth fighting for? Is ending slavery in Africa worth my son's blood? Is ending the subjugation of women in the Middle East worth my daughter's? How much treasure should we spend to help make the oligarchs in China rich because they can open a huge cooper mine in Afghanistan? What is a country and what is the purpose of borders. We need a serious, forward looking dialogue. Enough fist bumping Obama during his victory lap and enough chest thumping by the Presidential candidates.
2
Obama's implicit policy seems to me a very wise approach to take -- very sensible and realistic. America is no longer THE economic and military powerhouse in a world destroyed by war, as it was in the 1950 and 1960s. Other economic powers have gained strength and are increasingly likely to go their own way. The trickiest balancing act in the future will be our relationship with a China whose rapidly growing economic power, military power and pride will be a problem for the entire 21st century. We should be focusing on China, not squandering our wealth, blood and time on endless, fruitless wars in the Middle East, something Bush II was not wise enough to see.
2
Because we can defeat Assad does not mean that we should. That lesson was taught to us in Iraq and the punishment for that mistake is ISIS and it is Syria.
No one says it, but the Romans were much better at ending interminable conflicts. Carthage has no monuments, no art, philosophy, or religion. Carthago delenda est "a policy of the extirpation of the enemies of Rome who engaged in aggression, and the rejection of the peace treaty as a means of ending conflict." Pax Romana was instituted by annihilation of the entire male fighting age population after captured Carthaginian soldiers were forced to salt the arable land and pulverize every structure in the city. The remaining 50K citizens were sold into slavery and or prostitution.
The way our politicians talk, reminds one of the Third Punic war. "Turning Syria into glass"as been threatened. Those egging Obama into the quagmire or advocating annihilation of our enemies, men women and children are naive and far too weak kneed to act. America would end and something worse than the "Evil Empire" would emerge. Pax Romana lasted 200 years but at the cost of the annihilation of all enemies, and vast slave populations, and horrible brutality. This is what choice B is, if choice A is diplomacy.
Rather than taking responsibility for the chaos in the middle east, it's perpetrators and their friends want more war? Idiots with no concern but to hide their cowardice behind the brutality that is war. And we should listen to them why?
No one says it, but the Romans were much better at ending interminable conflicts. Carthage has no monuments, no art, philosophy, or religion. Carthago delenda est "a policy of the extirpation of the enemies of Rome who engaged in aggression, and the rejection of the peace treaty as a means of ending conflict." Pax Romana was instituted by annihilation of the entire male fighting age population after captured Carthaginian soldiers were forced to salt the arable land and pulverize every structure in the city. The remaining 50K citizens were sold into slavery and or prostitution.
The way our politicians talk, reminds one of the Third Punic war. "Turning Syria into glass"as been threatened. Those egging Obama into the quagmire or advocating annihilation of our enemies, men women and children are naive and far too weak kneed to act. America would end and something worse than the "Evil Empire" would emerge. Pax Romana lasted 200 years but at the cost of the annihilation of all enemies, and vast slave populations, and horrible brutality. This is what choice B is, if choice A is diplomacy.
Rather than taking responsibility for the chaos in the middle east, it's perpetrators and their friends want more war? Idiots with no concern but to hide their cowardice behind the brutality that is war. And we should listen to them why?
3
A timely article - well written. For those readers who have not done so suggest you pull out your hard copy or your Nook/Kindle copy of the 2008 book by Fareed Zakaria titled "The Post American World". Written 8 years ago - a good read. Just dived back into it last week for my second time around. Enjoy.
Let's see how this plays out. We are still feeling the repercussions of our misadventures long in the past. I say a strong economy and using a light touch on the world stage will only bring us more power.
2
One of the most brillian NYT essays I have ever read.
Many people can't handle the truth. The Right-wing media excoriates leaders who doubt "American exceptionalism." Circumspection is for the sissy - we want decisiveness. The underclass have been goaded into complaining about Obama's underinvestment in the US military, as if such investment would address their plight.
Many people can't handle the truth. The Right-wing media excoriates leaders who doubt "American exceptionalism." Circumspection is for the sissy - we want decisiveness. The underclass have been goaded into complaining about Obama's underinvestment in the US military, as if such investment would address their plight.
Well, I am capable of reading the implications in Obama's
actions to date. This fictional speech IS what my ear heard.
So why should he have risked the explicit in this toxic
political atmosphere? He has carried a big stick and blessedly
not used it, as a lesser leader might have. Key is listening
to what is NOT blatantly stated. I have known what Obama
has been up to. Doesn't require genius, just common sense
thinking....a little effort to pick up nuance. James Joyce
said "I hate a man of action."
actions to date. This fictional speech IS what my ear heard.
So why should he have risked the explicit in this toxic
political atmosphere? He has carried a big stick and blessedly
not used it, as a lesser leader might have. Key is listening
to what is NOT blatantly stated. I have known what Obama
has been up to. Doesn't require genius, just common sense
thinking....a little effort to pick up nuance. James Joyce
said "I hate a man of action."
Let us not forget how limited US power has been the past 70 years. (The Korean War was never won, regime change failed in Cuba, Vietnam unified by the north, Iran a one time ally turns fiercely anti-US, etc.)
After the USSR collapsed, the neo-cons and their Bush Jr. had the illusion that there was no limit to US power and went into the Mideast, only to learn otherwise.
There has always been limits to US power. Anyone who thinks the US can dictate conditions around the world is living in a fantasy world.
After the USSR collapsed, the neo-cons and their Bush Jr. had the illusion that there was no limit to US power and went into the Mideast, only to learn otherwise.
There has always been limits to US power. Anyone who thinks the US can dictate conditions around the world is living in a fantasy world.
62
Most Republicans and their supporters, sadly, continue to live in that fantasy world.
If this is intended as an explanation or an excuse for Mr. Obama's failings it too fails...miserably.
There is no excuse and no rationale for Mr. Obama's retreat from the world stage. None.
America was, until Mr. Obama, the leader of the free world. America had direction, had military power and it also had the support of allies and the fear and respect of our enemies. America also had great restraint. Even under George W. Bush America did not rush headlong into a great war against all of Afghanistan. America targeted the Taliban. An angry President and an angry Congress could have just as easily brought all of Afghanistan to instant ruin.
But it is Obama's agonizing, fear, trepidation and misguided belief that America's era of leadership is not just limited but over that is the issue.
Mr. Obama's presidency was a time of fear. Fear of accepting responsibility and fear of taking the risks necessary to be the leader of the free world.
Mr. Obama's fear has kept Assad in power and created a greater war and more casualties. After almost 100 years of rejecting chemical/gas warfare Mr. Obama acceded to allow it. Making a deal rather then making a point. Mr. Obama stepped aside rather than risk a lives. Instead he condemned tens of thousands to death and misery.
Yes, the pendulum swings. There is no wisdom or security in the restraint of Mr. Obama. We will not wax nostalgic for a time of cowering.
American leadership and world responsibility will come back with Obama's successor.
There is no excuse and no rationale for Mr. Obama's retreat from the world stage. None.
America was, until Mr. Obama, the leader of the free world. America had direction, had military power and it also had the support of allies and the fear and respect of our enemies. America also had great restraint. Even under George W. Bush America did not rush headlong into a great war against all of Afghanistan. America targeted the Taliban. An angry President and an angry Congress could have just as easily brought all of Afghanistan to instant ruin.
But it is Obama's agonizing, fear, trepidation and misguided belief that America's era of leadership is not just limited but over that is the issue.
Mr. Obama's presidency was a time of fear. Fear of accepting responsibility and fear of taking the risks necessary to be the leader of the free world.
Mr. Obama's fear has kept Assad in power and created a greater war and more casualties. After almost 100 years of rejecting chemical/gas warfare Mr. Obama acceded to allow it. Making a deal rather then making a point. Mr. Obama stepped aside rather than risk a lives. Instead he condemned tens of thousands to death and misery.
Yes, the pendulum swings. There is no wisdom or security in the restraint of Mr. Obama. We will not wax nostalgic for a time of cowering.
American leadership and world responsibility will come back with Obama's successor.
4
"Should I have armed the rebels in Syria, or established a no-fly zone once President Bashar al-Assad began murdering his citizens en masse, or set up a safe area to protect desperate refugees as a gage of our determination? Should I have upheld through one-off punitive military strikes against Assad the “red line” I set against the use of chemical weapons and so demonstrated to the Saudis and other Sunni gulf states that I was not, as they believe, in the pocket of the Shia world? In short, should I have kept my word and taken more risks to save Syria, oust Assad and stop Putin dictating the outcome?
Perhaps." No, Mr. President. The answer to all these questions -- every one of them - is unequivocally "Yes." I believe that on the domestic front history will be kind to you and to your presidency. You did your best against intractable, increasingly crazy (no other word for it, as we now see) and, to boot, opposition that was never free of racism. But on the foreign front -- and especially on Syria, I'm sorry -- you've failed. Failed so badly that now the European Union -- our most important ally -- is at risk of coming unglued because of the waves of refugees flooding in from the devastation your failed policies helped bring about.
Perhaps." No, Mr. President. The answer to all these questions -- every one of them - is unequivocally "Yes." I believe that on the domestic front history will be kind to you and to your presidency. You did your best against intractable, increasingly crazy (no other word for it, as we now see) and, to boot, opposition that was never free of racism. But on the foreign front -- and especially on Syria, I'm sorry -- you've failed. Failed so badly that now the European Union -- our most important ally -- is at risk of coming unglued because of the waves of refugees flooding in from the devastation your failed policies helped bring about.
2
Corporate power has ruled around the world. What ever this cartel has wanted, it has gotten. I like the narrative of restraint, but I can't see that there has been a whole lot of it. I see that our president discovered he had a very narrow range of power to implement much of anything. It has been set for decades by the banks, the oil and gas interests and the war profiteers with what ever other hangers on fit into the general scheme (tech, industrial agriculture, information, etc). That the president has modified their aims on one hand is made utterly defenseless on the other by his support of the TPP, the biggest corporate power grab in the history of the world. The agreement with Europe is equally as onerous. Yet, this paper doesn't write about these issues that would effect people at a personal level all around the world. We do not live in a vacuum. Bernie Sanders is correct when he says what affects one of us, affects us all. We are all in this together. Needless to say, I support him in hopes we will truly move in the direction of a more peaceful and equal society.
2
The american century has always been a forming of strong alliences before kicking in someones front-door. It has been realpolitics with military actions as politics with other means (Clausewitz).
And now Mr Cohen says, that the strongest military power of the planet can not kick in any doors ? I rather says that the US is incapable in foreign politics. No matter how, with or without a gun, america has sidelined itself.
For example the refugee crisis - this is rattling europe, Putin knows this and is unleashing more misery in the middle east to swell the flow of desperate people fleeing to europe. Erdogan is utilizing this to blackmail europe for more benefits. They have a misanthropic policiy, but at least they have a policy.
And the US ? No muslims in our hemisphere - is this all there is ?
If you have no narratives, no objectives, there is no point in telling you dont have the stamina to achieve anything.
And now Mr Cohen says, that the strongest military power of the planet can not kick in any doors ? I rather says that the US is incapable in foreign politics. No matter how, with or without a gun, america has sidelined itself.
For example the refugee crisis - this is rattling europe, Putin knows this and is unleashing more misery in the middle east to swell the flow of desperate people fleeing to europe. Erdogan is utilizing this to blackmail europe for more benefits. They have a misanthropic policiy, but at least they have a policy.
And the US ? No muslims in our hemisphere - is this all there is ?
If you have no narratives, no objectives, there is no point in telling you dont have the stamina to achieve anything.
1
Herr Weitz,
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." This truth was not new when Edmond Burke uttered. Every few generations we forget and 10s or 100s of millions die as a result.
Europe and America have had relative peace for the last 70 years. Most of the dying has taken place far away in Africa and Asia, but taken place it has.
Throughout those years, Europe has slept and clicked its collective tongue at America. You ask if we have a policy of "no Muslims in our Hemisphere" and fail to understand that America is a Tribe of refugees and always has been. How long must you live in Germany or France to become a member of the National Tribe? How many generations? Is it ever even possible?
America currently has two second generation Cuban refugees running for President. Our current President is a second generation Kenyan. Where in Europe has this ever happened or is even possible?
We have 11 million recent refugees in a nation of 300 million and it is causing some strain. You have a 1 or 2 million in a union of over 500 million and your Union is coming apart. It's doing so because in Europe there is no way to join the national tribe in any of the various member countries. The refugees already there since the war remain separate and unassimilated. They are warehoused in substandard housing spread around the major European cities.
You need to look to your own problems and solve them!
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." This truth was not new when Edmond Burke uttered. Every few generations we forget and 10s or 100s of millions die as a result.
Europe and America have had relative peace for the last 70 years. Most of the dying has taken place far away in Africa and Asia, but taken place it has.
Throughout those years, Europe has slept and clicked its collective tongue at America. You ask if we have a policy of "no Muslims in our Hemisphere" and fail to understand that America is a Tribe of refugees and always has been. How long must you live in Germany or France to become a member of the National Tribe? How many generations? Is it ever even possible?
America currently has two second generation Cuban refugees running for President. Our current President is a second generation Kenyan. Where in Europe has this ever happened or is even possible?
We have 11 million recent refugees in a nation of 300 million and it is causing some strain. You have a 1 or 2 million in a union of over 500 million and your Union is coming apart. It's doing so because in Europe there is no way to join the national tribe in any of the various member countries. The refugees already there since the war remain separate and unassimilated. They are warehoused in substandard housing spread around the major European cities.
You need to look to your own problems and solve them!
3
I suppose a clever enough writer can assign coherence to any level of incoherence, and a purpose to fecklessness and neglect, sort of the way military leaders call retreat 'strategic withdrawal' and defeat "a winding down of our active engagement in the theater.'
If it makes Mr. Cohen feel any better to ascribe a logic to Obama's policies, so be it. The rest of us are not fooled.
If it makes Mr. Cohen feel any better to ascribe a logic to Obama's policies, so be it. The rest of us are not fooled.
2
@Don: So your answer is...what? Fighting wars all around the globe, especially in countries governed by murderous despots whose rule is being challenged by murderous "religious" extremists? Fighting wars in countries that produce absolutely nothing apart from oil and those aforementioned religious extremists? And whose children will we be sending to those countries in order to fight those wars? Yours? When they come back to us in body bags will you be there to grieve for them? And the result of their sacrifice will be what? Our nation's ability to boast that we destroyed someone or something that wasn't worth fighting for in the first place? Is that a "sacrifice" worth making when our taxes can be more usefully spent on providing our own citizens with health care, education, jobs and infrastructure? I suppose a clever enough writer can find a rationale for your commentary but I'm just not that clever.
2
why do you still keep on supporting erdogan? withdrawing that support does not involve any violence, only a diplomatic move...
2
What you can say about Obama is he didn't engage in the kind of reckless intervention that George Bush did. He was cautious. I think Mr. Cohen effectively makes the point why that was necessary.
4
A word about the president. Only a man of great courage would,take and stick to such an unpopular position as restraint. He has been vilified by many for leaving the US "leaderless and adrift" but it is not true. Mr. Obama received the Nobel Prize in the early days of his presidency. But he has since earned every inch of it.
6
Good article. One thing I'd like to add: It was a mistake to say 'Assad has to go', when we were not going to make him go. It gave hope & caused death.
6
It can be argued that since 1945, the United States has not participated in a 'just' war. Arguably, the support by the Clinton administration in a belated way for Bosnian intervention could be seen as justifiable.
There were also some missed opportunities to advocate for human rights with intervention in Rwanda.
But Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile and several more have all been failed policies.
Mr. President, I do believe that you have done a good job in foreign policy and I do think that we will look back on your time with nostalgia.
There were also some missed opportunities to advocate for human rights with intervention in Rwanda.
But Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile and several more have all been failed policies.
Mr. President, I do believe that you have done a good job in foreign policy and I do think that we will look back on your time with nostalgia.
7
All the verbiage cannot excuse the inept mess this president has made of every international issue he has touched. There's a difference between moderation and incompetence. His actions have encouraged fervid activity by every two bit villain from Putin to Kim. The world is the loser.
9
And you have an alternative plan? ....
9
This is true if one believes that the actions don't have consequences and that those of the Bush Administration didn't destabilize the Middle East for decades to come. Of course, that belief would be wrong. The fact is that President Obama played the hand he was dealt.
2
It's easy to cast blame when you don't have a clue about what to do, or what the likely consequences would be if you followed your inclinations. The experience we had with Woodrow Wilson is a cautionary tale of what happens when hubris and idealism exceed the bounds of ability to influence events. Wilson let loose the furies of nationalism and unrestrained ethnic hatred in Europe and the Middle East when he got us into World War I on the flimsiest of pretexts, and then attended a peace conference where he was completely outmaneuvered by the British, French, and Italians. The disaster in the Middle East is the legacy of that series of monumental miscalculations.
Republicans are scouring the arms locker looking for enough firepower to change the terms of the debate and finding nothing. There were those at the end of World War II who wanted to attack the Soviet Union, and still others who wanted to attack China when Chinese 'volunteers' entered the Korean War.
And George W. Bush? Let's not even get started on that.
During the Cold War, American policy focused on containment and keeping the Soviet Union out of Western Europe,and it worked out well for us.
Republicans are scouring the arms locker looking for enough firepower to change the terms of the debate and finding nothing. There were those at the end of World War II who wanted to attack the Soviet Union, and still others who wanted to attack China when Chinese 'volunteers' entered the Korean War.
And George W. Bush? Let's not even get started on that.
During the Cold War, American policy focused on containment and keeping the Soviet Union out of Western Europe,and it worked out well for us.
1
American restraint can only work if the other countries with Western values rearm and defend themselves. Most of these comments seem lead us toward building a wall, not just on the Mexican border, but around the entire U.S.. If we withdraw from world leadership we had better be ready to pay the consequences. How did that isolationism thing work from 1918 to 1939? Evil, greed, dogmatic religions, racism and want exist in the world. Pretending everyone will get along better without the U.S. engaged is a fairytale.
4
"How did that isolationism thing work from 1918 to 1939?"
I wonder if there are any other justifications for intervention. The example of the Third Reich has been overworked.
I wonder if there are any other justifications for intervention. The example of the Third Reich has been overworked.
1
I can't buy into this glowing tribute to Obama. If this is his and Cohen's idea of proper restraint in US foreign policy, heaven help us. Over the last eight years, we have seen the United States continue to engagein Iraq and Afghanistan, and now in Syria. Drone warfare continues to expand, with no accountability. Government surveillance in aid of fighting the endless war on terrorism is greater than ever. Better than Bush? Wow, that's really setting high standards for comparison. Obama's foreign policy is a lite continuation of the historical, partly because of Republican opposition, but definitely also as a result of his own beliefs. Now that's the hidden speech I'd really like to hear.
3
"Drone warfare continues to expand, with no accountability."
US Black Opps guys are sneaking around slitting throats, on a daily basis. There is not much call for "accountability."
Why should there be different standards of accountability for nearly identical behaviors?
US Black Opps guys are sneaking around slitting throats, on a daily basis. There is not much call for "accountability."
Why should there be different standards of accountability for nearly identical behaviors?
1
Roger, this bit of satire is clever but does little credit to your own imagination or creative criticism. For several weeks or longer your columns have been disparaging of the US role in Syria, as well as in Eastern Europe. At one point you called the humanitarian crisis in and around Syria 'America's shame' and so on. You have used terms like 'feckless' to skewer the missed 'red line' of Obama's there and calling attention to the Russian's boldness in the region.
All right, you have made your critical points clear and sometimes biting. And maybe they are legitimate assessments, though it cannot be judged conclusively how accurate for some years yet.
Isn't it now time for you try your hand at laying out ideas on how an American president, this one or the next, might go on from this point in history? How should the US and NATO 'confront' the Russian intervention in the region?
Is there a central US role (military or otherwise) in planning for the accommodation (and eventual resettlement) of the mass migration now flooding Europe? What do our sanctions (with those of the EU) on Russia have to do with Putin's adventure in Syria?
All right, you have made your critical points clear and sometimes biting. And maybe they are legitimate assessments, though it cannot be judged conclusively how accurate for some years yet.
Isn't it now time for you try your hand at laying out ideas on how an American president, this one or the next, might go on from this point in history? How should the US and NATO 'confront' the Russian intervention in the region?
Is there a central US role (military or otherwise) in planning for the accommodation (and eventual resettlement) of the mass migration now flooding Europe? What do our sanctions (with those of the EU) on Russia have to do with Putin's adventure in Syria?
7
Obama was criticized for whatever. Intervene in Libya, don't intervene in Libya. Intervene in Syria, don't intervene in Syria. Doesn't matter what he picked. Go to war with Russia? What?
Aside from pure vitriol spawned by a black man in the white house, for some, whether or not a foreign policy exists depends on whether or not you're dropping chunks of the XVIII Airborne Corp on one of the worlds many hot spots.
Aside from pure vitriol spawned by a black man in the white house, for some, whether or not a foreign policy exists depends on whether or not you're dropping chunks of the XVIII Airborne Corp on one of the worlds many hot spots.
6
"And just to sum up, for all you hawks out there, rest assured that I've assassinated more 'terrorists' by targeted Hellfires from covert spy-drones than any other Commander in Chief in the history of the nation.
"In fact, as confirmed by the Guardian, by the end of 2014 I'd already managed to kill 1,147 people while targeting only 41 men, and only escalated from there.
"For all those concerned we won't have enough targets to keep our Military Industrial Complex profitable, rest assured that for every drone strike with collateral damage, I've managed to generate 20 more terrorists.
And for all those concerned the USA doesn't carry a Big Stick anymore, I'm about to commit a $Trillion retooling our immense nuclear arsenal for the next President's personal hit-squad of nuclear-tipped Hellfires at the ready in case whole governments need to be vaporized with a single nuclear-tipped 'smart' bomb.
And if you're concerned we got out of Afghanistan too soon, don't worry, I stuck some more bombers back in there to take care of those pesky Doctors without Borders who had the gall to treat wounded regardless of which team they were on.
And don't worry, all of my ;restraint' (for lack of a better term), is all a thing of the past, because, my fellow Americans, you are about to elect a warmonger-in-chief who will either "make the sands glow" or re-invade Iraq again, with boots on the ground, to "Take the Oil".
So Open up those Pearly Gates, America, We're going back to War!
"In fact, as confirmed by the Guardian, by the end of 2014 I'd already managed to kill 1,147 people while targeting only 41 men, and only escalated from there.
"For all those concerned we won't have enough targets to keep our Military Industrial Complex profitable, rest assured that for every drone strike with collateral damage, I've managed to generate 20 more terrorists.
And for all those concerned the USA doesn't carry a Big Stick anymore, I'm about to commit a $Trillion retooling our immense nuclear arsenal for the next President's personal hit-squad of nuclear-tipped Hellfires at the ready in case whole governments need to be vaporized with a single nuclear-tipped 'smart' bomb.
And if you're concerned we got out of Afghanistan too soon, don't worry, I stuck some more bombers back in there to take care of those pesky Doctors without Borders who had the gall to treat wounded regardless of which team they were on.
And don't worry, all of my ;restraint' (for lack of a better term), is all a thing of the past, because, my fellow Americans, you are about to elect a warmonger-in-chief who will either "make the sands glow" or re-invade Iraq again, with boots on the ground, to "Take the Oil".
So Open up those Pearly Gates, America, We're going back to War!
9
Should I have armed the rebels in Syria, or established a no-fly zone ..., or set up a safe area to protect desperate refugees as a gauge of our determination? Should I have upheld through one-off punitive military strikes against Assad the 'red line' I set against the use of chemical weapons and so demonstrated to the Saudis and other Sunni gulf states that I was not, as they believe, in the pocket of the Shia world? In short, should I have kept my word and taken more risks to save Syria, oust Assad and stop Putin dictating the outcome?
Perhaps."
Yes, to everything. Not doing that was a great mistake, also cruel & inhumane.
It may not be still too late. Perhaps, a no-fly zone could still be established for Assad's planes, after "notifying" Russia. Force a safe area for the Syrian refugees inside Syria with massive US ground troops, similar to the refugee-camps in Turkey & Jordan. Negotiate with US allies to provide financial support for Jordan & Turkey to care for the refugees.
Then apologize to the suffering Syrians and to the American public. All would forgive the president.
Under the circumstances, even if this doesn't fully succeed, at least the president made an earnest attempt, albeit very late.
Perhaps."
Yes, to everything. Not doing that was a great mistake, also cruel & inhumane.
It may not be still too late. Perhaps, a no-fly zone could still be established for Assad's planes, after "notifying" Russia. Force a safe area for the Syrian refugees inside Syria with massive US ground troops, similar to the refugee-camps in Turkey & Jordan. Negotiate with US allies to provide financial support for Jordan & Turkey to care for the refugees.
Then apologize to the suffering Syrians and to the American public. All would forgive the president.
Under the circumstances, even if this doesn't fully succeed, at least the president made an earnest attempt, albeit very late.
1
massive US ground troops? how did that work in the recent past under his predecessor?
2
How did the D-Day Invasion at Normandy work out? The loss of US military personnel lives was enormous. The cause also was enormous and success was phenomenal. It ended WWII carnage. Liberated the remaining Concentration camps victims.
Sometimes sacrifices are needed. It could have been far easier, if president Obama were more careful. His words did contribute to the enormous misery of the Syrian civilians. If he had kept quiet, perhaps, much of the carnage could have been avoided. He didn't learn from the reckless invasion of Iraq. He ignored Maliki's atrocities, and made the situation far worse. Whether it is accidental or deliberate, blazes need to be put out. When Obama took over, Iraq was burning. Either he shouldn't have run for president, or he should discharge his responsibility and obligation as US president. I find no joy in criticizing the president. But facts are facts.
I should add, I am an admirer of president Obama, although I supported Hillary Clinton for the primary. He did a lot great things. But his mistakes are glaring.
Sometimes sacrifices are needed. It could have been far easier, if president Obama were more careful. His words did contribute to the enormous misery of the Syrian civilians. If he had kept quiet, perhaps, much of the carnage could have been avoided. He didn't learn from the reckless invasion of Iraq. He ignored Maliki's atrocities, and made the situation far worse. Whether it is accidental or deliberate, blazes need to be put out. When Obama took over, Iraq was burning. Either he shouldn't have run for president, or he should discharge his responsibility and obligation as US president. I find no joy in criticizing the president. But facts are facts.
I should add, I am an admirer of president Obama, although I supported Hillary Clinton for the primary. He did a lot great things. But his mistakes are glaring.
1
This article is shocking in its naivete. Of course Obama "armed the rebels" in Syria. Cohen should read his own newspaper for heaven's sake: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/world/middleeast/us-relies-heavily-on-...
The CIA and Saudi Arabia greatly did much to create the Syrian bloodshed. This is Obama's War, and it's a bad one.
The CIA and Saudi Arabia greatly did much to create the Syrian bloodshed. This is Obama's War, and it's a bad one.
12
We would have a very different discussion of intervention, of picking which group of thugs and terrorists we should sent our sons and daughters to fight and die for if we had a draft. If no one got to say, "I think I'll sit this one out" there would be less flag waving and talk of battlefield glory. Just how do you choose which war lord to back? In the movie "Patton" the distinction between the good guys and bad guys was easily drawn, the music was stirring and the victories glorious. But it wasn't America that got mediocre. It was the world that changed. Anyone who tells you it is prudent to go all-in on every hand is reckless. Anyone who is buying that line of processed bull food might want to think long and hard about how they would feel if it was their child being asked to lay down their life for the least bad gang of thugs. And the next time one of our leaders wants to overthrow another government he/ she should get the same treatment the GOP is using to fill the Supreme Court vacancy.
12
If we have learned anything in the Middle East, it is that we do not know what we are doing. From my perspective, Obama did not learn from our mistakes in Iraq. He joined the Europeans in destabilizing Libya. It is his own Iraq, although he "led from behind." In Syria, he drew a line, and then did not follow through. He probably should have not drawn the line, but, once he did, the rebels believed that help was coming when it was not and he should have followed through. This probably resulted in many deaths. The Middle East is an incredible mess, religious strife, brutal dictators, groups, who suppress other groups when they finally have power, and, a place of environmental degradation. We have been a convenient whipping boy for multiple factions across the Middle East. The rest of the world often likes to pile on. We need to stay away. It will continue to be brutal. The governments and people of this region need to figure this out. We have proved we cannot figure this out. I know that this puts Europe in a bind. They will be faced with more unwanted immigration which they will be forced to suppress. . This, unfortunately, is the state of affairs in this area. It stinks, but we cannot fix this.
27
Help did come. The result of the red line crossing was the removal of chemical weapons from Syria...weapons that were hanging over the heads of the rebels. Both the rebels and the American war hawks chose to interpret the line crossing as meaning a full out war by the US, but the president never claimed that as the consequence. He convinced Putin that the hammer was coming down, Putin convinced Assad to get rid of the chems, and that was accomplished. This is too restrained and nuanced for most Americans who expect the table to be kicked over and full-out bar fight to ensue. The historians will lay it all out.
7
While I agree with you, the subtlety of ridding the chemical weapons with Putins offer and avoiding armed conflict was lost on most of the world, the narrative of backing down may also be entered in the historical Record as capitulation. As it pretty much has already.
overwhelming military force works now just like it did in the last century. just look at the short work the Russian air force has made of the Syrian opposition that we have spent years and billions of dollars supported. It works. We just don't want to use it the way its meant to be used. We want tidy wars with not collateral damages. That approach has never worked. It did not work in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia to name a few of our failed foreign adventures. During WWII Churchill allowed an entire English town to be destroyed by the Germans rather that evacuate in order to protect the breaking of the enigma code. That is how wars are won not by surgical air strikes from thousands of miles away.
4
May I also point out that Vietnam Afg Iraq libya etc were not without massive collateral damage both to the populations involved and to the US
I have recently read in your paper that 470,000 people have died in the Syrian civil war.
1
Yeah, The US supported any anti-syrian government forces including cannibals (eating hearts) of the moderate terrorist forces called the free syrain army.
Or to put another way:
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Salvor Hardin, Mayor, Terminus City.
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent." Salvor Hardin, Mayor, Terminus City.
4
Restraint is not abdicating leadership. From what I read in the papers the United States is leading the international effort to end the war in Syria. Heck, the US seems to be leading most international efforts on most fronts like fighting disease, hunger, AIDS... The war in Syria is a quagmire and any politician who says we can help the good guys "win" over there is a liar. It would not have mattered how early in the fighting we would have started funneling weapons to the groups we backed. This is what restrained leadership in a world with unwinnable military conflicts looks like. Deal with it.
7
It is human nature to seek patterns where none exist, to see order where there is only chaos. Such is the narrative or Mr. Cohen.
I see no overriding strategy(ies) in the 7 years of the Obama administration.
I do see Mr Obama giving a huge Arab Spring push to politically repressed Egyptions, only to abandon them at their time of need.
I see Obama drawing a line in the sand in Syria, the famous red line about chemical weapons use, only to back away, showing the world that the US has become a paper tiger.
President Obama has undoubtedly damaged US prestige, as well as faith in the US commitment made to others. Syrians, Egyptians and Israelis can at least agree on that one point. Does Mr Cohen not see this or hope to camouflage this disaster of a foreign policy?
I see no overriding strategy(ies) in the 7 years of the Obama administration.
I do see Mr Obama giving a huge Arab Spring push to politically repressed Egyptions, only to abandon them at their time of need.
I see Obama drawing a line in the sand in Syria, the famous red line about chemical weapons use, only to back away, showing the world that the US has become a paper tiger.
President Obama has undoubtedly damaged US prestige, as well as faith in the US commitment made to others. Syrians, Egyptians and Israelis can at least agree on that one point. Does Mr Cohen not see this or hope to camouflage this disaster of a foreign policy?
4
he backed away when it became clear that it was his turk friends who did the chemical attack to provoke him to come on the side of the cannibal rebels...
Sometimes a man will rebel at being used so blatantly.
Sometimes a man will rebel at being used so blatantly.
Thank you for this insightful piece. Having been born in 1990, the only world I've ever known is one dominated by American agendas. It's inevitable the course will reverse.
2
We don't want the pendulum to swing back to the Bush days of stupid "adventurism". The irony, If we ever go to war again, it should be against someone like Assad. Our chalky red lines blew away with the slightest wind. Obama let the pendulum swing back at the wrong time, maybe? Will Obama's restraint be looked upon in disgust the same way that we look at Bush's aggression? My guess: Obama will be praised for his restraint, and his moves will point to a new style of foreign policy: leave people alone to fight their own wars...no more pendulum; If our allies are attacked we help, but otherwise we wait. We watch. We use sanctions and diplomacy to advocate for our best interest
6
Imagine we bombed in Syria; then bombed Iran; then N. Korea; flew strikes against Russia in Syria to create a no-fly zone; bombed China in the So. China Sea; invaded Gaza; etc. To what rue end? Aside from feeling "great"., it would have spun us into endless war.
Exhausted and financially decrepit, the US has limped home after yet another, another useless war we would not win. During the past 15 years we've done this, China has crept up and is poised to become preeminent, because it is keeping its powder dry. It is far too easy to go into a war with the drumbeat of patriotism ringing; far too hard to refrain from going in when your opponents call you coward.
Obama HAS a foreign policy: Do not get into a worthless, expensive war unless we truly must. Use our limited resources to build our country which in the long run is our trump card. We are all about big economics and tech and no country can match that. Choose to fight only our terms, not theirs. Resist the clarion call of feckless wars.
Exhausted and financially decrepit, the US has limped home after yet another, another useless war we would not win. During the past 15 years we've done this, China has crept up and is poised to become preeminent, because it is keeping its powder dry. It is far too easy to go into a war with the drumbeat of patriotism ringing; far too hard to refrain from going in when your opponents call you coward.
Obama HAS a foreign policy: Do not get into a worthless, expensive war unless we truly must. Use our limited resources to build our country which in the long run is our trump card. We are all about big economics and tech and no country can match that. Choose to fight only our terms, not theirs. Resist the clarion call of feckless wars.
6
Balderdash. American power in the 21st century certainly can be what it was in the 20th century. The only thing we have to fear is... fear itself. If we decide that American flavored democracy, capitalism, pluralism and freedom is deserving of our pride - and worth exporting - magic will happen. How many times do we have to be told the era of American influence is on the wane... only to discover that the world is hungry for American leadership and that all that was really missing was... leadership. Does no one remember the cynicism and pessimism that was the late 1970s? Until that crazy Ronald Reagan said, ahem, it's morning, not twilight. And does no one remember how utterly scorned and ridiculed and fear-mongered Regan was before his election? It's deja vu all over again
2
Very accurate, and on the whole I think Obama is right in his implicit foreign policy. What is sad is that as a country we are still too immature to recognize the truth of our declining hegemony and too apt to listen to more bellicose voices.
1
On one level, I can well understand this approach. However, what if abdicating global responsibility as a superpower makes the problems of the world worse? Could they not then threaten the same superpower trying to avoid getting into another new mess? With rights come responsibilities surely, even in an unhinged world!
4
Restraint and diplomacy do not represent an abdication of responsibiity. Of course the U.S. is a major/super power, but that doesn't mean we have to jump into everyone else's cauldron of unrest.
Working with allies is responsible. And there is a huge amount of financial and military aid to countries to help with their defense, refugee re-settlement, economy building, disease control and eradication, etc.
We are not a feeble country, and those who describe us as such are often the ones trying to exercise military and economic power at the expense of our own citizens, who are now only pawns in this "game."
A country can be great without acting like neighborhood tough guys all the time. After the Bush years, I am grateful every day, especially in this dreadful election year(s), that Mr. Obama has chosen restraint even though I disagree with some of his policies. He was taken in by Wall Street from the start, which was too bad, and the drone policy is hard to swallow. But there has never been and never will be the perfect person as president.
Working with allies is responsible. And there is a huge amount of financial and military aid to countries to help with their defense, refugee re-settlement, economy building, disease control and eradication, etc.
We are not a feeble country, and those who describe us as such are often the ones trying to exercise military and economic power at the expense of our own citizens, who are now only pawns in this "game."
A country can be great without acting like neighborhood tough guys all the time. After the Bush years, I am grateful every day, especially in this dreadful election year(s), that Mr. Obama has chosen restraint even though I disagree with some of his policies. He was taken in by Wall Street from the start, which was too bad, and the drone policy is hard to swallow. But there has never been and never will be the perfect person as president.
As a diplomat of 30 years, I am sick of being the world's policeman. It is not due to any moral principles or even the cringe I feel when politicians spout 'American exceptionalism'. It is because we don't do it very well. Just think what we could have done domestically with the trillions wasted in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Viet Nam. Not to mention the out of control military budget that is greater than the next 10 countries combined. The bedrock of military strength is a strong economy. Even the Pentagon will tell you that.
15
Thanks for the implicit Foreign Policy reasoning and working of President Obama characterized by a contemplative, deliberate, wise, rational mind without bravado, without rhetoric, without a false sense of American Exceptionalism. But I guess we take Obama's caution as a weakness because he does not want Americans to die in an intractable war raging in the Middle East not to mention the trillions of dollars literally going up in smoke.
1
Using the 1950s as our model for American global influence is a dangerous starting point. The good news is that the Marshall Plan and other programs did what they were intended to do, and we now have many strong nations instead of just us. The bad news is that we’re not the only powerful nation in the world any more. Some of them may be reluctant to participate in global peacekeeping. They need to see that America is sharing both the responsibility and the rewards of global leadership.
1
Obama had 15 years to deliver that speech, 7 years as POTUS and with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight of Bush's 8 years.
He hasn't given it, and never will.
The situation in the Middle East was intractable before Obama took office. But to try and have it both ways, and to avoid being criticized as weak, Obama has engaged in the same nation building, neocon war follies in the Middle East.
Obama just assumes that the American people are stupid, and if he doesn't broadcast his US combat troop deployments, re-deployments and expansions into Libya and Syria, that we will all be so busy staring at kitten videos on You Tube and Beyoncé performances that we won't notice.
Obama could have at any point, if he had a trace of integrity, given the Middle East policy version of Jimmy Carter's malaise speech, labeled it a mess and gotten US troops completely out of this mess.
But he didn't.
And he hasn't.
And he won't.
The reason Barack Obama has never been held accountable for ANY of his lies, rank incompetence and arrogance during a historically failed presidency? Because the establishment media uses every Obama blunder to wistfully fantasize about what could have been, instead of dealing with what is.
He hasn't given it, and never will.
The situation in the Middle East was intractable before Obama took office. But to try and have it both ways, and to avoid being criticized as weak, Obama has engaged in the same nation building, neocon war follies in the Middle East.
Obama just assumes that the American people are stupid, and if he doesn't broadcast his US combat troop deployments, re-deployments and expansions into Libya and Syria, that we will all be so busy staring at kitten videos on You Tube and Beyoncé performances that we won't notice.
Obama could have at any point, if he had a trace of integrity, given the Middle East policy version of Jimmy Carter's malaise speech, labeled it a mess and gotten US troops completely out of this mess.
But he didn't.
And he hasn't.
And he won't.
The reason Barack Obama has never been held accountable for ANY of his lies, rank incompetence and arrogance during a historically failed presidency? Because the establishment media uses every Obama blunder to wistfully fantasize about what could have been, instead of dealing with what is.
4
DCBarrister -- you frequently comment and are always unable to acknowledge complexity or reality, which is too bad. President Obama has tried hard to extricate our troops from Iraq, Afghanistan and the region in general. Due to the utter destabilizaion from the Bush years, this has not been easy and has proven impossible in some areas due to ongoing events and crises like ISIS.
IMHO the party that thinks the American people are stupid is the one currently numbing our brains with out-of-conrol posturing and policies that are contrary to every standard and value America used to have. The Republican party is mocking and poisoning our political process, helped by venomous commentary from the media itself. Very sad.
IMHO the party that thinks the American people are stupid is the one currently numbing our brains with out-of-conrol posturing and policies that are contrary to every standard and value America used to have. The Republican party is mocking and poisoning our political process, helped by venomous commentary from the media itself. Very sad.
I don't recall Barack Obama's 2008 campaign slogan being "I'll try hard"
He failed. Period.
As I have said repeatedly and in plain English, if the situation was intractable and impossible, why did Obama plunge America headlong into the same neocon nation building war follies he ridiculed Bush for in 2008?
Sorry, but you can't "its complicated" Obama out of this mess.
He failed. Period.
As I have said repeatedly and in plain English, if the situation was intractable and impossible, why did Obama plunge America headlong into the same neocon nation building war follies he ridiculed Bush for in 2008?
Sorry, but you can't "its complicated" Obama out of this mess.
Far better for the United States to be the nation most respected than the nation most feared. I fully agree with the President's aspirations in this direction, and only wish it could be taken further. A also have grave misgivings about the other party's eagerness to do the opposite.
1
Thanks to Barack Obama, America is neither.
2
In general, an implicitly non-interventionist foreign policy serves America better than the poorly-considered jingoism of the previous Administration and the critical mass of GOP presidential candidates today. The problem is that soft power doesn't feel good for voters who need their military to make them feel big and tough.
But "tough" is not only unaffordable, it is also purposeless. If Iraq hasn't taught us this, then we are collectively learning disabled. Worse, shooting first and asking questions later destroys our credibility on the world stage. Today, other nations listen to us. Eight years ago? Not so much.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
But "tough" is not only unaffordable, it is also purposeless. If Iraq hasn't taught us this, then we are collectively learning disabled. Worse, shooting first and asking questions later destroys our credibility on the world stage. Today, other nations listen to us. Eight years ago? Not so much.
www.endthemadnessnow.org
3
The power a country can project internationally also depends on its internal strengths.
The infantile squabbling in Washington at the behest of Republican obstructionists does not inspire fear or admiration among other countries. (What's that? Another government shutdown?)
In addition to America's Constitution and rule of law, America's great pride and joy was its middle class, which for the last 40 years has been squeezed and distressed.
The more we do to strengthen civil rights and liberties and broaden wealth and income distribution, the stronger we will make our country. And we will see that strength reflected in our international standing.
The infantile squabbling in Washington at the behest of Republican obstructionists does not inspire fear or admiration among other countries. (What's that? Another government shutdown?)
In addition to America's Constitution and rule of law, America's great pride and joy was its middle class, which for the last 40 years has been squeezed and distressed.
The more we do to strengthen civil rights and liberties and broaden wealth and income distribution, the stronger we will make our country. And we will see that strength reflected in our international standing.
3
This is absolutely right on, but with a few omissions. This country, and its President, are also constrained by the realities of the Bush tax cuts, a volunteer military that carries its own limitations (in part, the strain of multiple deployments; in part, speculation as how an endless American ground war in the Middle East might prompt China, North Korea, Russia, or other powers to pursue a dangerous adventurism), and a Republican Congress that would refuse to raise taxes to fund any war (or anything) -- it will not even attend to its duty to declare war, so as to place the blame for any negative development solely on President Obama. There will always be those in this country that have an unrealistic view of things: America did not lose in Iraq, President Obama threw away victory; America did not lose in Vietnam, the politicians in Washington prevented victory. Frighteningly, the world saw this same attitude in Germany following World War I. Whoever the next President is, she/he will be glad that President Obama has kept our powder dry for whatever rears its head next.
1
This is a good example of why we perceive politicians as being such liars. Its because they are forced into the dilemma of knowing that telling the truth would make it impossible to get elected. This is why we see politicians like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump speaking only in generalities. We may like these generalities, but if we were to get down to the specifics on how to implement many of them, would find that the devil is indeed, in the details.
Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but my take on her is that she is more aware of the realities of the American economy and the political barriers of Washington and the world than any of the other politicians now running. Perhaps she sounds so insincere is because she is not so naïve or idealistic, or is just not very good at lying with a straight face. I don't think this should necessarily be regarded as a flaw, although the truth is that great leaders are adept at getting a majority of the population to move forward based on style, myths, and lies, even though all the polls show that the actual policies the government is pursuing are the opposite of most of what the public actually wants. Ronald Regan was a great example of this. Most American voters follow their gut and their emotions, particularly now their fears. One thing that the entire American political system seems to agree on is that the public cannot handle the truth.
Say what you want about Hillary Clinton, but my take on her is that she is more aware of the realities of the American economy and the political barriers of Washington and the world than any of the other politicians now running. Perhaps she sounds so insincere is because she is not so naïve or idealistic, or is just not very good at lying with a straight face. I don't think this should necessarily be regarded as a flaw, although the truth is that great leaders are adept at getting a majority of the population to move forward based on style, myths, and lies, even though all the polls show that the actual policies the government is pursuing are the opposite of most of what the public actually wants. Ronald Regan was a great example of this. Most American voters follow their gut and their emotions, particularly now their fears. One thing that the entire American political system seems to agree on is that the public cannot handle the truth.
2
I agree with much of what you say, but pease do not continue to lump Bernie Sanders with Donald Trump as if they were two sides of the same coin.
Bernie Sanders is out there, win or lose, raising the issues that are largely ignored by the press. He sees that people, the "middle class" or what's left of it, are hurting, and the Republican policies are designed to shrink the government and expand the wealth of the top one percent or less. He is right that the banks are too large and are unable to withstand another financial buble or crisis, and that the Congress is unwilling to serve the people who elected them.
Senator Sander's compassion and experince in governing is far above that of any of the republican candidates, especially the mouthy Trump, who just spews cruelty, immaturity and hatred wherever he turns his attention. (I happen to think the man is mentally ill given his extremely odd phobia about being touched and about female bodily fluids. He needs counseling, not election to the highest office in our land.)
All this to say Senator Sanders is no Donald Trump, and the press and the populace need to differentiate between the two. Especially the media.
Bernie Sanders is out there, win or lose, raising the issues that are largely ignored by the press. He sees that people, the "middle class" or what's left of it, are hurting, and the Republican policies are designed to shrink the government and expand the wealth of the top one percent or less. He is right that the banks are too large and are unable to withstand another financial buble or crisis, and that the Congress is unwilling to serve the people who elected them.
Senator Sander's compassion and experince in governing is far above that of any of the republican candidates, especially the mouthy Trump, who just spews cruelty, immaturity and hatred wherever he turns his attention. (I happen to think the man is mentally ill given his extremely odd phobia about being touched and about female bodily fluids. He needs counseling, not election to the highest office in our land.)
All this to say Senator Sanders is no Donald Trump, and the press and the populace need to differentiate between the two. Especially the media.
President Obama would not have made this speech. His speech may have even been titled Leading from Behind. Over the decades following WWII where America has been the clear leader either disaster has followed or the US has borne unnecessary costs. Whether it was Vietnam or other conflicts or even the International Space Station. As the leader, the US bore the brunt of the costs and receive most of the criticism that resulted. US overleading reached its pinnacle with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The finite conflict that could have been resolved in Afghanistan with the partnership of regional powers within a 3-4 years morphed into a global cataclysm. Neighbors have to solve the problems in the neighborhood. If the world community must be engaged then where possible it should be together with the international community. The key to global stability is the international system. US actions in Iraq destabilized the international system rather than strengthen it. The new climate accord reflects a workable partnership in which all countries have responsibilities and incentives to act. The US was a major player but we did not lead from the front. By leading from behind room is created for other players to assume greater responsibility and for the US to bear less of the cost of assuring stability of the international system.
No longer do bullies, or empires, or those that would seek to reap profits from war and belligerent posturing receive respect in the complex world in which we now find ourselves. Indeed, those kind of international actors garner the hatred of extremists who use religion to justify their murderous deeds through cowardly terrorist atrocities. Leadership in foreign policy is needed that recognizes the complex interdependencies of the globe, the yearnings of people to live safely in their homes in regions seeking self-determination, the desires of a people to shape their own culture within their own traditions and values, not some empire's hegemonic cultural self-righteousness that our way is better than your way. Our choice, especially this year, is clear in this nation which world we will recognise--that of the last century or the way forward where we seek pre-emptive cooperation and generosity rather than pre-emptive arrogant bullying and violence.
In order to be considered exceptional, you have to be exceptional.
Our country was exceptional when it revolted against England and established a democracy.
We were exceptional when we turned the tide in WW2.
To paraphrase a common expression, what have we done lately?
Today if we want to continue to be considered exceptional, we need to bring more to the table than a large military.
Providing cutting edge technology for renewable energy is one way.
Finding ways to feed the hungry without destroying the environment is another.
Winning the war against man-made climate change would certainly make us exceptional.
Nevertheless, unless we can continue to find ways to improve the world around us, the only thing exceptional about us will be how quickly we fell from glory.
Our country was exceptional when it revolted against England and established a democracy.
We were exceptional when we turned the tide in WW2.
To paraphrase a common expression, what have we done lately?
Today if we want to continue to be considered exceptional, we need to bring more to the table than a large military.
Providing cutting edge technology for renewable energy is one way.
Finding ways to feed the hungry without destroying the environment is another.
Winning the war against man-made climate change would certainly make us exceptional.
Nevertheless, unless we can continue to find ways to improve the world around us, the only thing exceptional about us will be how quickly we fell from glory.
3
Obama has a "Doctrine of Restraint"? Illegal regime change in Libya, involving us in a 4 year war in Syria by arming, funding and training non-moderate rebels, helping the Saudis bomb Yemen, drone bombing tens of countries and killing thousands of innocents, and continuing the ground war in Afghanistan. A republican president would've likely have put boots on the ground, however, I see little "restraint" on Obama's part.
19
Is Roger Cohen laughing at us? Given his long record of urging a more assertive foreign policy, and criticizing Obama for weakness, I don't know how to take this column. Is it truly an encomium on Obama's foreign policy, or is it veiled, ironic criticism?
11
To be clear, I am a registered independent who twice voted for the president and remain his supporter. This said, I believe that Mr. Cohen's OpEd fairly accurately described the Obama foreign policy which has been largely an effort to remedy the damage done to US interests by W's unforced strategic blunder in invading Iraq. The reaction to W has gone too far. We, the EU and Canada may wish to play by the "rules" of the 21st century, but the thugs in Moscow, the ChiComs in Beijing, the mullahs in Iran and assorted terrorist are playing by the rules of the 19th century. They can only be deterred or defeated by the timely and effective use of military force; the Syrian red line would have been such a moment. With these adversaries, power comes in only one kind - hard; and even hard power not used loses credibly, weakens deterrence and invites miscalculations as we saw in Crimea and are seeing in the South China Sea. We have got to toughen up.
2
"They can only be deterred or defeated by the timely and effective use of military force;"....Whose military force. We did not start the war between the Sunni and Shia or the Turks and the Kurds., or the proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia, or the fight between the Palestinians and Israel. We do not live in Europe with the Russians or Asia with Chinese. And the problem since WWII is that whenever we step up the countries which really have a vested interest step back and let us do the fighting. We should be willing to offer assistance and support, but if a situation somewhere else in the world isn't important enough for the people who live there to take action; then there is no way we should step up and take their place.
6
The reaction to Bush/Cheney's destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan has not gone far enough. What would earn respect and credibility for the US would be the prosecution of our alleged war criminals. A nation of laws is respected for applying its laws even to its former presidents and vice-presidents.
Stephen, you say, ''tough love for Israel''. You mean like raising their foreign aid from 3.1 billion to 5.1 billion, looking the other way as Israel uses this aid to aid ''settlers'', settle in the West Bank with subsidies , giving them the iron dome, doing nothing to help the hapless Pals. in his last two years, insuring through lack of courage that the so called peach process is gone with the wind, and all the consequences that this will bring, Pollard, etc. I wish I could get some of this tough love. Incidentally, we have to borrow the 5.1 billion to give Israel, the 24th richest country.
5
Agree, though they are only civilized country in the Middle East they are more economically well off and more technologically advanced than we are. They repeatedly repulse terrorist attacks both from Hezbollah and Hamas while we lose every war we enter Afghanistan, Iraq, with disastrous results in Libya, Yemen and Syria. Compared to Israel we stand humiliated. To encourage this only exposes our impotence and fecklessness.
But despite this reality it is only Israel and not our government that protect us from Iranian nuclear weapons so please take this into account as well.
But despite this reality it is only Israel and not our government that protect us from Iranian nuclear weapons so please take this into account as well.
2
Tullymd..... the only reason Iran tried to produce a nuke, is because of our government's big mouth labeling them an ''axis of evil''. [Bush and David Frum]. If a bully with every weapon known to mankind called you evil, wouldn't you run out to purchase a Saturday night special to protect you and your family? This nuke was only to serve as a ''rattle snakes rattle'', not to commit suicide by using it against us or Israel. And rest assured, we don't need Israel to protect us. we have over 5,000 nukes. we invented this lovely weapon. The two most abused words in the dictionary are, Friend and Terrorist. Sec. Hillary mentions the names of Mandela and Tutu to con the people of color to vote for her and not Sen, Sanders, and its going to work, yet when it comes to the hapless Palestinians, she screams, ''Israel has a right to defend themselves''.
America's military is still everywhere and omnipresent on all continents, arguably at it apex of visibility, having more foreign military bases than ever. That makes this monthly Cohen drama and hand-wringing borderline absurd. You will note that the Libya didn't make the cut in this Op-Ed, even though it is a huge example of Cohen's theory about America's use of military power --- being wrong.
WRONG.
The hand-wringing by Cohen is usually reserved for whether or not to use the American military in a prolonged, hot conflicts like Syria. Here, Cohen peddles in some common fictions, among them that "Obama created a vacuum that Putin filled".
WRONG.
Syria hosted and hosts a Russian navel base. Syria and Russia have been allies for decades. There was no "vacuum" prior to the Syrian civil war. Syria and Russia choose to be allies before the civil war, and during it. If a civil war broke out in Saudi Arabia, you would see the same behavior (albeit more aggressive) from Americans, in support of their oil rich ally.
The idea that Obama is creating vacuums is absurd and wrong.
In both cases of the Ukraine and Syria, the United States arguably attempted to flip the status quo and the balance of power, only to be met with Russians clinging to their precarious status quo. This is wholly different than "Obama losing ground".
Neocons are mad because Obama, besides Libya, isn't blowing more things up and gaining ground. Neocons deplore the status quo.
WRONG.
The hand-wringing by Cohen is usually reserved for whether or not to use the American military in a prolonged, hot conflicts like Syria. Here, Cohen peddles in some common fictions, among them that "Obama created a vacuum that Putin filled".
WRONG.
Syria hosted and hosts a Russian navel base. Syria and Russia have been allies for decades. There was no "vacuum" prior to the Syrian civil war. Syria and Russia choose to be allies before the civil war, and during it. If a civil war broke out in Saudi Arabia, you would see the same behavior (albeit more aggressive) from Americans, in support of their oil rich ally.
The idea that Obama is creating vacuums is absurd and wrong.
In both cases of the Ukraine and Syria, the United States arguably attempted to flip the status quo and the balance of power, only to be met with Russians clinging to their precarious status quo. This is wholly different than "Obama losing ground".
Neocons are mad because Obama, besides Libya, isn't blowing more things up and gaining ground. Neocons deplore the status quo.
3
fascinating op-ed. It's the reason I voted for Pres. Obama in the first place.
I read an article by Fared Zakarian (sp.), spelling out the Internationalism of
Obama's thinking, how he takes the long view and thinks rather than taking
the simpler, shoot first approach to the world. It will be interesting to see how
history treats this president, who really carved out a new approach to events,
so different from our history, so transformative. I don't know if we'll see his
like again, surely not the candidates we're seeing now.
I read an article by Fared Zakarian (sp.), spelling out the Internationalism of
Obama's thinking, how he takes the long view and thinks rather than taking
the simpler, shoot first approach to the world. It will be interesting to see how
history treats this president, who really carved out a new approach to events,
so different from our history, so transformative. I don't know if we'll see his
like again, surely not the candidates we're seeing now.
2
It looks a lot like 1938. The country is utterly unprepared for war. Putin is aggressively building the Russian military, with personal ambitions to expand territory and write the history books.
Europe is disarmed and unaware of the gathering storm. The German Army has 59,000 soldiers. Russia is expanding the Black Sea Fleet and the port at Tartus on the Mediterranean. From the Black Sea the fleet can quickly be in the Mediterranean.
Russian is violating the missile control treaties, particularly the short range missile treaty, fielding nuclear cruise missiles that put nuclear war on a hair trigger.
At the same time the Russian civilian economy is deteriorating . Lunatic propaganda blames the United States for Russia's economic plight.
Just as in Czechoslovakia in 1938, occupation of the Eastern Ukraine puts the invading army within easy reach of the rest of the Ukraine.
The idea that the US is declining and cannot be what it was in 1945 is ludicrous. The GDP is $18 trillion and the US can draw on the North American population of 470 million people to put armies in the field and workers on the farm or on the production line. The economic strength of the US dwarfs what it was in 1945.
Putin's strategy is to defeat more powerful economies with aggression and lies. Just as the propaganda is lunatic, so is the ambition of the lunatic leader.
Europe is disarmed and unaware of the gathering storm. The German Army has 59,000 soldiers. Russia is expanding the Black Sea Fleet and the port at Tartus on the Mediterranean. From the Black Sea the fleet can quickly be in the Mediterranean.
Russian is violating the missile control treaties, particularly the short range missile treaty, fielding nuclear cruise missiles that put nuclear war on a hair trigger.
At the same time the Russian civilian economy is deteriorating . Lunatic propaganda blames the United States for Russia's economic plight.
Just as in Czechoslovakia in 1938, occupation of the Eastern Ukraine puts the invading army within easy reach of the rest of the Ukraine.
The idea that the US is declining and cannot be what it was in 1945 is ludicrous. The GDP is $18 trillion and the US can draw on the North American population of 470 million people to put armies in the field and workers on the farm or on the production line. The economic strength of the US dwarfs what it was in 1945.
Putin's strategy is to defeat more powerful economies with aggression and lies. Just as the propaganda is lunatic, so is the ambition of the lunatic leader.
2
What about the most important subtext of the implicit policy: that because we cannot on our own fix the Levant, and too many other parties ultimately have other interests in conflict with our doing that, we're letting gravity take its course in that region to prevent it from being exploitable by Russia and China?
Ahhhh, Mr Cohen... We can't live an alternative reality but lets just pretend that Mr Obama chose to involve the US in a deeper Syrian commitment -- that two years later we would be mired in a deep war of confusion with no clear idea of who was a friend or enemy and no end in sight but plenty of American body bags. Would you be a supporter of that policy then? I very much doubt it. What you and many of the neocons dream of is clean victory without costs. Americans have waded into a number of very horrible adventures trying to be the "king of the world". Unfortunately, times have changed and even as you pointed out in your column, hard power has very strong limitations in the current world of decentralized information and complex interconnected economics. It just aint that easy anymore. The battlefield now is markets and economics. Surely you know that but maybe not. Hey, but take heart. Maybe one of the goon Presidential candidates will be directing American foreign policy a year from now. You may still get the "glory" war that you lust for, God help us.
7
"Restraint" reminds of someone, oh yeah, Neville Chamberlain. How is history treating him. I'm generally a talk first guy, but who is left to "restrain" Putin, Kim Jong Un,...and the list goes on and on. Autocrats push and expand their power when they sense weakness. We lack leadership in the U.S..
5
Many people have opined that President Obama will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents. As much as I admire him, I often fear that Republican obstructionism will diminish the extent to which his Presidency will be viewed positively. And then I read an editorial such as this one by Roger Cohen, and I have renewed faith that history will both accurately judge President Obama as the great man that he is and put into perspective this painful period of disloyal opposition.
6
It seems the era of "gunboat diplomacy" and material might have dissolved in a world of global economies and asymmetrical warfare (aka - terrorism). It is important to realize our "exceptionalism" arose out of being isolated from the mass destruction of two world wars that devastated the rest of the world's economies. We became exceptional by our's and England's geography possibly more than our philosophies. The forces of automation, globalization, climate change, overpopulation and social media have "flattened" our world dissipating our post-WWII advantages. The challenges of the future are too extensive to be handled by any single nation and will require a comprehensive consensus to form a new world order capable of handling the challenges before us. We have painted ourselves into corners enough in the past few decades thinking American exceptionalism is enough to establish world order. Exceptionalism must die and a spirit of new world consensus and cooperation must emerge.
3
I'm looking forward to the tough love for Israel . The USA continues to reward Israeli horrible behavior . Israel did everything it possibly could to get the USA in a hot war with Iran and because Israel failed the USA is to increase the handout to the dog that bites us .
11
Only an Obama liberal would look at global humiliation, presidential cowardice, cut and run retreat and erasing red lines as "restraint."
Get serious people.
Get serious people.
3
It was the height of naiveté to have believed the US would maintain its respect and strength without proffering something to the world, most notably positions on its use of force and defense of freedom.
Who can actually say under what circumstances the US will take action today? In the absence of a clear answer, and with so much emphasis on avoiding conflict (a/k/a restraint), the presumption might well be under no circumstances will it get involved. Unfortunately, this message can also interpreted as "anything goes."
A world without any US intervention is not a world most would welcome. Between Bush and Obama we've seen two extremes, both marked by bloodshed and violence.
Who can actually say under what circumstances the US will take action today? In the absence of a clear answer, and with so much emphasis on avoiding conflict (a/k/a restraint), the presumption might well be under no circumstances will it get involved. Unfortunately, this message can also interpreted as "anything goes."
A world without any US intervention is not a world most would welcome. Between Bush and Obama we've seen two extremes, both marked by bloodshed and violence.
2
Global humiliation? Like the retreat from Vietnam? Like the revelation of the Iran/Contra deal? Like being exposed by the failure to find WMD in Iraq as fools led by con artists?
We haven't suffered that kind of humiliation under our current president.
The infamous red line threat did (with Russian diplomatic intervention) result in the Syrian government giving up its chemical arsenal. That didn't cost us a single million dollar cruise missile.
We haven't suffered that kind of humiliation under our current president.
The infamous red line threat did (with Russian diplomatic intervention) result in the Syrian government giving up its chemical arsenal. That didn't cost us a single million dollar cruise missile.
2
No Steve, I was thinking of world events that happened in MY lifetime, as in now. I'm sure we could also make comparisons to the War of 1812 if we tortured metaphors long enough.
What is it with Obama supporters!
Sure Obama really messed up in Syria, but what about those Ottomans?
Seriously.
What is it with Obama supporters!
Sure Obama really messed up in Syria, but what about those Ottomans?
Seriously.
1
The only thing "implicit" in Obama's foreign policy is his wise refusal to go on and on--speechifying about it.
But he did say--the US is "not omnipotent". That sums it up.
This is hardly a new development. Only in the movies was the US ever omnipotent--the John Wayne of international affairs. World peace and security cannot--but never could be--a US "go it alone"--"with us or against us" matter. That is the foundation of US political mythology--witness Cruz, Trump and Bush.
Nor is the US the world's best-country--by most sensible rankings--if ever. This is more US political mythology. Nor given it's anti-government myths will it ever be. Yes--it was once a land of great opportunity because it's population density was so low and natural resources so abundant. But those days are gone. The country is now owned by the 1%, just as feudal Europe was owned by it princes.
The immigration problem testifies not to US greatness but to the horrors of central America. Just as Europe's immigration problem is due to Middle East and North Africa horrors.
What IS implicit in Obama foreign policy is that unless the world's civilized countries help bring civilization to those places without it, the immigration problems will be the least of it.
So the US must stop making the world safe for corporate exploitation. Propping up fascist and neo-fascist dictators on the take--in the Middle East and Africa, but also in central and South America. That's much of the world; isn't it.
But he did say--the US is "not omnipotent". That sums it up.
This is hardly a new development. Only in the movies was the US ever omnipotent--the John Wayne of international affairs. World peace and security cannot--but never could be--a US "go it alone"--"with us or against us" matter. That is the foundation of US political mythology--witness Cruz, Trump and Bush.
Nor is the US the world's best-country--by most sensible rankings--if ever. This is more US political mythology. Nor given it's anti-government myths will it ever be. Yes--it was once a land of great opportunity because it's population density was so low and natural resources so abundant. But those days are gone. The country is now owned by the 1%, just as feudal Europe was owned by it princes.
The immigration problem testifies not to US greatness but to the horrors of central America. Just as Europe's immigration problem is due to Middle East and North Africa horrors.
What IS implicit in Obama foreign policy is that unless the world's civilized countries help bring civilization to those places without it, the immigration problems will be the least of it.
So the US must stop making the world safe for corporate exploitation. Propping up fascist and neo-fascist dictators on the take--in the Middle East and Africa, but also in central and South America. That's much of the world; isn't it.
1
President Obama does not believe America should restrain its military power. He believes that American military power — especially in Syria — cannot solve the problem. We tried it in Vietnam and failed. We tried it in Iraq and created even more problems. One of the reasons ISIS exists is that America went all out with its military power. President Obama has learned the lesson. Apparently Mr. Cohen has not.
3
What the president failed to understand is the power of the "threat", alone, of military force. When you remove that from the equation, you not only weaken the US but you embolden despots.
1
To AACNY. I suppose you are talking about the so-called red line regarding chemical weapons in Syria. I think that President Obama used the threat of military force very successfully in that case. It forced Russia to lean on Bashar al-Assad, and what do you know, the weapons were removed without firing a shot. Well done! Russia thought the threat was for real. Obviously, so did Assad. President Obama was ready to make good on it. Yes, in that case a threat worked. But it is wrong to make threats without intending to carry them out.
February 25, 2016
The measure of Obama leadership is a reminder of the Nobel l Peace Prize Andrei Sakharov – to quote – thus believing in every community of earth is exceptional and worthy to resolve its peace and place both local and on the world stage. This is as such what can be a manifesting of the Obam legacy for all times and all histories.
“Both now and for always, I intend to hold fast to my belief in the hidden strength of the human spirit.”
“Intellectual freedom is essential to human society — freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate, and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices.”
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
The measure of Obama leadership is a reminder of the Nobel l Peace Prize Andrei Sakharov – to quote – thus believing in every community of earth is exceptional and worthy to resolve its peace and place both local and on the world stage. This is as such what can be a manifesting of the Obam legacy for all times and all histories.
“Both now and for always, I intend to hold fast to my belief in the hidden strength of the human spirit.”
“Intellectual freedom is essential to human society — freedom to obtain and distribute information, freedom for open-minded and unfearing debate, and freedom from pressure by officialdom and prejudices.”
Jja Manhattan, N. Y.
2
It seems as though we are doomed to repeat the failures of the past. Anyone who remembered or learned about Korea and Vietnam, should have known that getting deeply involved in the Middle East would lead to an endless quagmire of conflict.
Americans as a whole are too comfortable with warmongering because we have not had a war fought on our soil since the Civil War. Everything since then have been isolated acts of war (such as Pearl Harbor) or terrorism (like the WTC bombing in the 90's, and 9/11) which results in our invasion of another country. There is national outrage whenever a lone gunman kills at random, but we have no problem sending our troops and drones to turn someone else's backyard into a nonstop war zone to "defend their freedom."
Nation building isn't an open and close process, but rather a never ending journey. And here in the US we have come a very long way to build this nation, but after more than 3 centuries at it we still have such a long way to go. The unmitigated arrogance to think we can just come in an throw our money and might around and just completely change the Middle East was a fool's errand.
Obama was placed in an impossible situation, the result of too many deals with too many devils in the decades before he was in office. If his policies seem inconsistent and all over the place that is because the problems are all over the place. And there are very few good solutions, often just the least worse option.
Americans as a whole are too comfortable with warmongering because we have not had a war fought on our soil since the Civil War. Everything since then have been isolated acts of war (such as Pearl Harbor) or terrorism (like the WTC bombing in the 90's, and 9/11) which results in our invasion of another country. There is national outrage whenever a lone gunman kills at random, but we have no problem sending our troops and drones to turn someone else's backyard into a nonstop war zone to "defend their freedom."
Nation building isn't an open and close process, but rather a never ending journey. And here in the US we have come a very long way to build this nation, but after more than 3 centuries at it we still have such a long way to go. The unmitigated arrogance to think we can just come in an throw our money and might around and just completely change the Middle East was a fool's errand.
Obama was placed in an impossible situation, the result of too many deals with too many devils in the decades before he was in office. If his policies seem inconsistent and all over the place that is because the problems are all over the place. And there are very few good solutions, often just the least worse option.
2
I keep hearing the same excuses from Obama supporters about his failed presidency. Why?
If the Middle East was an 'impossible' situation, why did Obama boast as a candidate in 2008 that he had the solution--to end US neocon nation building, world policing and war games in the Middle East and rebuild America?
Why did Obama (version 2012) after 4 years of proof that things were impossible, boast that Iraq was stable and secure, and pat himself on the back, only to send US combat troops back into Iraq again?
What in the heck would 2008 Obama think about Arab Spring Regime Change Nation Building Obama?
I am a Black attorney with a degree in American History. A generation from now, when the news media fairy dust has worn off the Obama presidency, historians will have a field day with this arrogant, dishonest, two faced, closet neocon who lied his way into the WH promising change and delivering none.
If the Middle East was an 'impossible' situation, why did Obama boast as a candidate in 2008 that he had the solution--to end US neocon nation building, world policing and war games in the Middle East and rebuild America?
Why did Obama (version 2012) after 4 years of proof that things were impossible, boast that Iraq was stable and secure, and pat himself on the back, only to send US combat troops back into Iraq again?
What in the heck would 2008 Obama think about Arab Spring Regime Change Nation Building Obama?
I am a Black attorney with a degree in American History. A generation from now, when the news media fairy dust has worn off the Obama presidency, historians will have a field day with this arrogant, dishonest, two faced, closet neocon who lied his way into the WH promising change and delivering none.
5
You make valid points about Obama's failures. But are there every really any winners in war. Hence my reference to Vietnam. The break down of Iraq is so similar to the fall of Saigon. We should have never been there. But that is how war is. You can choose to start a war, but you rarely get to choose when it ends.
I am not really an Obama supporter. Like yourself, I am an African American, with a degree in history, and though not a lawyer, I work in the legal field as a writer. I don't believe Obama lied, but rather was too inexperienced in the way things work. Promises are easy to make, but often difficult to keep even under the best circumstances. All of us who voted for him were a bit naive to believe that a Jr. Senator from Illinois, popular, but with a very small amount of political power and influence in DC could do so much so soon. Especially in foreign policy, for which he had no experience. Biden was suppose to supplement that lacking, but they seem to have opposing views on significant elements of U.S Foreign policy goals.
I am not really an Obama supporter. Like yourself, I am an African American, with a degree in history, and though not a lawyer, I work in the legal field as a writer. I don't believe Obama lied, but rather was too inexperienced in the way things work. Promises are easy to make, but often difficult to keep even under the best circumstances. All of us who voted for him were a bit naive to believe that a Jr. Senator from Illinois, popular, but with a very small amount of political power and influence in DC could do so much so soon. Especially in foreign policy, for which he had no experience. Biden was suppose to supplement that lacking, but they seem to have opposing views on significant elements of U.S Foreign policy goals.
1
"Implicit" indeed and herein lays the rub - "implicit" leaves the world in limbo; other counties' voters can't react or adjust to 'implicit' and where there's no demand there will not be any supply.
1
Nice one!!
1
Speeches like the one suggested here leave out one big pledge: We apologize for the covert overthrow of democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala, the aid to brutal military governments in Chile, El Salvador, and Honduras, the hugely destructive efforts to overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, and to oppose a communist government in Vietnam. Countries went through violent horrors as a result and most of these have not recovered (witness the flows of desperate refugees from Central America). We should not only admit fault and pay reparations, but promise to stay out of the regime-change, autocracy-sponsoring business. It's not enough to say we are out of the nation-building business. We must also try to compensate the victims of all our nation-destroying adventures.
6
Yes, Roger, we know you think American blood should be shed overseas, even if the goal in unachievable, the threat of blow back immense, or if the long term stability of the US is threatened by such action. As you snarkily comment, "In 2016, we have no business building other nations".
Perhaps we should not be building other nations because it doesn't work. Perhaps Obama has realized this. Perhaps he isn't fulfilling your caricature that he wants to make America one of many nations instead of the leading one because it's a fool's errand. Shall we spend 700 billion a year to continue propping up an illusion that people can be bombed into democracy and peace?
Perhaps we should not be building other nations because it doesn't work. Perhaps Obama has realized this. Perhaps he isn't fulfilling your caricature that he wants to make America one of many nations instead of the leading one because it's a fool's errand. Shall we spend 700 billion a year to continue propping up an illusion that people can be bombed into democracy and peace?
11
American exceptionalism has now been replaced by American pragmatism. I'm really more than okay with that.
Communist behemoth, China has feasted from the global capitalism buffet table & now demands a greater share of everything. American manufacturing chefs &chiefs are more than happy to comply by cooking up more stuff to send to a ravenously hungry China. Depending on one's perspective, it's a win-win for all involved or, considered sleeping with the enemy. Either way, the proverbial genie has been uncorked & will never go back in the bottle made in China.
Waging those messy, protracted wars where victory is never realistically achievable, is no longer relegated to specific territories in the Middle East. The "death to America" ideology is popping up like moles in an arcade game across the far reaches of the globe, including in our own backyards. Whack one terrorist cell or sympathizer here & another pops up over there. The technology of the world wide web & the gadgets it compels us to use are now as much a part of the global warfare toolbox as WMD's. Tweets & texts can now be as sinister & deadly as they are benevolent, unifying & harmless. New encryption technology on smartphones is now capable of keeping our individual private lives more private while simultaneously making us less secure as a nation.
So, yes, I appreciate the humility & restraint demonstrated by President Obama. I hope, perhaps unrealistically, that future presidents will follow his lead.
Communist behemoth, China has feasted from the global capitalism buffet table & now demands a greater share of everything. American manufacturing chefs &chiefs are more than happy to comply by cooking up more stuff to send to a ravenously hungry China. Depending on one's perspective, it's a win-win for all involved or, considered sleeping with the enemy. Either way, the proverbial genie has been uncorked & will never go back in the bottle made in China.
Waging those messy, protracted wars where victory is never realistically achievable, is no longer relegated to specific territories in the Middle East. The "death to America" ideology is popping up like moles in an arcade game across the far reaches of the globe, including in our own backyards. Whack one terrorist cell or sympathizer here & another pops up over there. The technology of the world wide web & the gadgets it compels us to use are now as much a part of the global warfare toolbox as WMD's. Tweets & texts can now be as sinister & deadly as they are benevolent, unifying & harmless. New encryption technology on smartphones is now capable of keeping our individual private lives more private while simultaneously making us less secure as a nation.
So, yes, I appreciate the humility & restraint demonstrated by President Obama. I hope, perhaps unrealistically, that future presidents will follow his lead.
11
America continues to dominate the world order - the US Dollar, for instance, continues its dominance over the Yuan. The US became the world's reserve currency, the final guarantor of global commerce when the US Navy started domination over the entire Pacific Ocean since the Battle of Midway in 1942.
The straits of Hormuz or Malacca are kept open for shipping by the US military ; the Chinese Navy has no such power over even the Taiwan Strait.
The world implicitly expects the US to maintain security and returns the favor by lending at zero/negative interest rates its own currency.
The straits of Hormuz or Malacca are kept open for shipping by the US military ; the Chinese Navy has no such power over even the Taiwan Strait.
The world implicitly expects the US to maintain security and returns the favor by lending at zero/negative interest rates its own currency.
Superb article, Roger. And I don't care if this perspective is in conflict with others you have made, particularly about taking a more activist approach in Syria. I like people who can reassess their views as situations change and evolve.
Some predictions:
1. The Syrian civil war will begin to wind down. Rebels will begin to enter a peace process. Hussar, AQ, and Dash will remain under attack. By summer, full scale civil war will be over.
2. Assad will remain, possibly for some time. Russia has been right here: without Assad (as horrible as he is), we have a second, more dangerous Libya.
3. US will (just barely) succeed in keeping Turkey from sending in troops to prevent the YPG in the NW from joining up with Rojava in the west, via Azaz.
4. With Russia and US coordinating effectively, with Assad's SAA and the Kurdish YPG on the ground, Dash will begin to be rolled up, in both Syria and Iraq.
5. The slowly evolving peace process will keep KSA, GCC, Iran and Turkey all at the same table. It will start to become clear that the Sunni-Shia divide can allow areas of working together.
6. Iran and Hezbollah will play useful roles, will not sabotage the process, because it is in their interests to have it succeed.
And a new ME order will begin to emerge. Is it possible Obama saw this unfolding sequence long ago?
Some predictions:
1. The Syrian civil war will begin to wind down. Rebels will begin to enter a peace process. Hussar, AQ, and Dash will remain under attack. By summer, full scale civil war will be over.
2. Assad will remain, possibly for some time. Russia has been right here: without Assad (as horrible as he is), we have a second, more dangerous Libya.
3. US will (just barely) succeed in keeping Turkey from sending in troops to prevent the YPG in the NW from joining up with Rojava in the west, via Azaz.
4. With Russia and US coordinating effectively, with Assad's SAA and the Kurdish YPG on the ground, Dash will begin to be rolled up, in both Syria and Iraq.
5. The slowly evolving peace process will keep KSA, GCC, Iran and Turkey all at the same table. It will start to become clear that the Sunni-Shia divide can allow areas of working together.
6. Iran and Hezbollah will play useful roles, will not sabotage the process, because it is in their interests to have it succeed.
And a new ME order will begin to emerge. Is it possible Obama saw this unfolding sequence long ago?
3
Baloney... America cannot just withdraw from the world... America cannot just live in isolation... What occurs in any part of the world affects the other parts,including America.. As America with draws, other countries will fill the vacuum - i.e. Russia China Iran etc.. And what is occurring in the world today will profoundly affect America tomorrow... A nuclear missile takes 30 minutes to fly from one end of the world to the other ... good luck America
Actually, the President's foreign policy has been explicitly "Don't do stupid stuff".
From the NY Times, Sept. 2, 2014: [Last week when President Obama said, “We don’t have a strategy yet” on dealing with ISIS in Syria, many said it was another sign of indecision when what was needed was forceful action and that, as Hillary Clinton said derisively, his foreign policy objective was simply “don’t do stupid stuff.”]
That Obama largely resisted calls to intervene in Egyptian, Iranian, and Syrian politics and civil war showed courage and good judgement. He showed less courage and startlingly bad judgement when he gave in to the siren calls of neocon military advisers and agreed to:
a) increase drone warfare in Asia and Africa,
b) increase our military presence in Afghanistan,
c) re-engage in Iraq with airstrikes and special ops and
d) implement the imbecilic strategy of arming and training Syrian rebels. The NY Times reported that this effort cost $500,000,000 and produced 5 anti-ISIS fighters.
The temptress who helped seduce the President to do stupid stuff is now trying to become commander and chief herself. The GOP candidates are vociferously eager to resume doing stupid stuff.
Only Bernie offers hope that we can finally have a foreign policy that refrains from bull in the china shop recklessness. He is skeptical of intervention. He sees the wisdom of George Washington's warning about foreign entanglements.
From the NY Times, Sept. 2, 2014: [Last week when President Obama said, “We don’t have a strategy yet” on dealing with ISIS in Syria, many said it was another sign of indecision when what was needed was forceful action and that, as Hillary Clinton said derisively, his foreign policy objective was simply “don’t do stupid stuff.”]
That Obama largely resisted calls to intervene in Egyptian, Iranian, and Syrian politics and civil war showed courage and good judgement. He showed less courage and startlingly bad judgement when he gave in to the siren calls of neocon military advisers and agreed to:
a) increase drone warfare in Asia and Africa,
b) increase our military presence in Afghanistan,
c) re-engage in Iraq with airstrikes and special ops and
d) implement the imbecilic strategy of arming and training Syrian rebels. The NY Times reported that this effort cost $500,000,000 and produced 5 anti-ISIS fighters.
The temptress who helped seduce the President to do stupid stuff is now trying to become commander and chief herself. The GOP candidates are vociferously eager to resume doing stupid stuff.
Only Bernie offers hope that we can finally have a foreign policy that refrains from bull in the china shop recklessness. He is skeptical of intervention. He sees the wisdom of George Washington's warning about foreign entanglements.
1
Implicit? Does not mean make believe.
Brings the Seether 'Fake It' lyric to mind
"Good god you're coming up with reasons
Good god you're dragging it out"
By the way, on the factual premise that now america can't act unilaterally? I know, it is the kind of thing people educated at Harvard just say now.
Some acronyms that go back nigh on seventy year or so.
UN, NATO. SEATO. WTC. I leave it for the Harvard educated who get the cushy jobs at the hundreds of others their alumni helped create, to fill in all the rest that were the basis of non umilateral post WWII american foreign policy.
Good god you are coming up with fictions...
Brings the Seether 'Fake It' lyric to mind
"Good god you're coming up with reasons
Good god you're dragging it out"
By the way, on the factual premise that now america can't act unilaterally? I know, it is the kind of thing people educated at Harvard just say now.
Some acronyms that go back nigh on seventy year or so.
UN, NATO. SEATO. WTC. I leave it for the Harvard educated who get the cushy jobs at the hundreds of others their alumni helped create, to fill in all the rest that were the basis of non umilateral post WWII american foreign policy.
Good god you are coming up with fictions...
2
You see restraint. I see psychopathic. This is the man who high-fived and teed off within minutes of announcing Foley beheading.
“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch”
– Obama to T Friedman
A president's only charge is to protect/defend US.
Against will of the people/Congress, Obama gave a mortal enemy devoted to our destruction the means to achieve that very end.
He gave Iran: its operating budget - govt/terror/nuclear; regional hegemony, nuke threshold status, ever-shrinking breakout time, nukes, R&D, ICBMs, ABMs, legitimacy.
What did we get? Increased risk of dirty bombs in our harbors/nukes reaching our mainland/Iran's ABM-protected impregnable nuke sites/nightmare scenario: nuke arms race in unstable, apocalyptic region not constrained but propelled by MAD–which reveals 1st-strike intention
This deal makes "taxation without representation" seem quaint
His goal is US subsumed by UN. What more thorough/efficacious way to achieve this than to accept secret bilateral side deal between UN & Iran w/ existential consequences for US? Obama's goal is to burnish his legacy w/ transformational/Leftist bona fides
Security of US is not on his radar
He tells us secret side deals are SOP for the IAEA. The peril of precedent is perpetuation of error. IAEA has long history of error–bending to solipsistic fools/authoritarians like Obama
A despot can do a lot of damage in 10 mos & a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will
“I’ve been very clear that Iran will not get a nuclear weapon on my watch”
– Obama to T Friedman
A president's only charge is to protect/defend US.
Against will of the people/Congress, Obama gave a mortal enemy devoted to our destruction the means to achieve that very end.
He gave Iran: its operating budget - govt/terror/nuclear; regional hegemony, nuke threshold status, ever-shrinking breakout time, nukes, R&D, ICBMs, ABMs, legitimacy.
What did we get? Increased risk of dirty bombs in our harbors/nukes reaching our mainland/Iran's ABM-protected impregnable nuke sites/nightmare scenario: nuke arms race in unstable, apocalyptic region not constrained but propelled by MAD–which reveals 1st-strike intention
This deal makes "taxation without representation" seem quaint
His goal is US subsumed by UN. What more thorough/efficacious way to achieve this than to accept secret bilateral side deal between UN & Iran w/ existential consequences for US? Obama's goal is to burnish his legacy w/ transformational/Leftist bona fides
Security of US is not on his radar
He tells us secret side deals are SOP for the IAEA. The peril of precedent is perpetuation of error. IAEA has long history of error–bending to solipsistic fools/authoritarians like Obama
A despot can do a lot of damage in 10 mos & a deluded one blinded by his own imagined brilliance will
3
If you are this concerned, I strongly recommend you and your children enlist in the Army ASAP. That way, you can be the first into the breach when our next leaders decide to invade Iran. Please!
3
Your response is relevant to my comment only insofar as the degree of ABM-protected impregnability of Iran's nuke sites is a direct function of time and money provided to Iran by Obama. In other words, Obama's nuke deal greatly increases the probability of need for ground troops: Russian ABMs and fortified nuke sites will render our bunker busters ineffective.
1
Roger Cohen squawks about "reality" while fleeing it in this column.
Instead of wistfully longing for the words Obama should have said, instead of wasting space in the Times talking about what Obama should have done, why not discuss what Obama FAILED to do?
How is navel gazing over what Obama should have done 5 years ago, going to change the realities on the ground in the Middle East today? I ask this not as an Obama neocon nationbuilder, but as an American tired of perpetual war and nation building bridges to nowhere. We have troops on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya (even if Obama doesn't want to tell you).
Why are they there? Russia patted Obama on the head like the incompetent child he is, and has taken the lead in the global war on terrorism. Let Putin handle this.
Instead of wistfully longing for the words Obama should have said, instead of wasting space in the Times talking about what Obama should have done, why not discuss what Obama FAILED to do?
How is navel gazing over what Obama should have done 5 years ago, going to change the realities on the ground in the Middle East today? I ask this not as an Obama neocon nationbuilder, but as an American tired of perpetual war and nation building bridges to nowhere. We have troops on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya (even if Obama doesn't want to tell you).
Why are they there? Russia patted Obama on the head like the incompetent child he is, and has taken the lead in the global war on terrorism. Let Putin handle this.
2
Roger Cohen’s insights about President Obama’s foreign policy decisions are on the mark. Not surprisingly not all agree with his choice of diplomacy over endless war. Too many vested interests. Too hard to accept that the road to peace must be walked with partner countries., not alone. Some readers have bemoaned the possible disaster of Hillary Clinton as a “war president.”
Accusing Hillary Clinton of being a war president if elected, doesn’t ring true with me. I’m for her 100%, and the last thing I want is another foolish, unwinnable war. 2016 presents different realities than 1941 as we should have learned (Vietnam and Iraq) I trust her high intelligence, her lifetime commitment to social justice, her extraordinary career experiences. Her performance in national debates so far have only shown her superiority to any other individual. Her command of facts, her ability to graciously point out weaknesses in her opponent’s attacks only prove her top capability for our top job. And it’s time for our country to belatedly follow the lead of other intelligent countries that have long trusted their well-being to a woman leader: Queen Elizabeth Ist and 2nd, Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard (Australia), Michelle Jean (Canada), on and on in countries around the world.
Accusing Hillary Clinton of being a war president if elected, doesn’t ring true with me. I’m for her 100%, and the last thing I want is another foolish, unwinnable war. 2016 presents different realities than 1941 as we should have learned (Vietnam and Iraq) I trust her high intelligence, her lifetime commitment to social justice, her extraordinary career experiences. Her performance in national debates so far have only shown her superiority to any other individual. Her command of facts, her ability to graciously point out weaknesses in her opponent’s attacks only prove her top capability for our top job. And it’s time for our country to belatedly follow the lead of other intelligent countries that have long trusted their well-being to a woman leader: Queen Elizabeth Ist and 2nd, Catherine the Great, Golda Meir, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Angela Merkel, Julia Gillard (Australia), Michelle Jean (Canada), on and on in countries around the world.
1
Gives me the creeps when columnists put words in the president's mouth. Too many years of too much disrespect; I'm done.
2
What was the country to do when we were attacked by Bin Laden who was based from Afghanistan? Do nothing? The hypothetical speech maker decries adventurism but fails to point out the adventurism of Libya. I notice many democrats refuse to talk about Libya and I'm not talking about Benghazi. Why did we overthrow a leader we had in a box? Wasn't that Obama's argument for not invading Iraq, no threat, no WMD's according to the UN? I find this mythical speech mythical.
1
Just one question. Why was there no mention of Libya. ISIS, or the question whether earlier American intervention in Syria might have been far helpful to the interests of the West and our ME allies, not to mention the thousands of Syrians now dead? Why? Ok, that was more than one question.
2
No - the job is not about making tough choices. The job is about making proper decisions.
If you do not want to create a no fly zone then don't threaten to if they cross the "red line".
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" is vastly different than "talk big". The Chinese called it "paper tiger" and sadly that is what the US has become. Maybe not even tiger.
"In 2016, we have no business building other nations. "
What a weak excuse for do-nothing.
You have build bridges to nowhere. "Bridge to Iran"?! Are you kidding? They hold the US in utter contempt. The ink was not yet dry on the agreement before Iran began to violate it. They are arming to the teeth and it is not because they are are actually threatened by anybody. It is to intimidate and conquer. Are you still smoking? Reminder: You're still POTUS. TIme to start doing your job
If you do not want to create a no fly zone then don't threaten to if they cross the "red line".
"Speak softly and carry a big stick" is vastly different than "talk big". The Chinese called it "paper tiger" and sadly that is what the US has become. Maybe not even tiger.
"In 2016, we have no business building other nations. "
What a weak excuse for do-nothing.
You have build bridges to nowhere. "Bridge to Iran"?! Are you kidding? They hold the US in utter contempt. The ink was not yet dry on the agreement before Iran began to violate it. They are arming to the teeth and it is not because they are are actually threatened by anybody. It is to intimidate and conquer. Are you still smoking? Reminder: You're still POTUS. TIme to start doing your job
1
Obama has made this speech many times in less abstract terms. He has called the Cheney/Bush Iraq War, a “stupid war”. How much more bluntly can he state that Bush wasted over $3 trillion and caused over, 50,000 casualties [when you include all of the, combat deaths, wounds, suicides, PTSD and other cases of destroyed American lives]. How much more clearly can Obama express that Haliburton, Exxon Mobile, BP and Royal Dutch Shell initiated our military actions in the Middle-East for their corporate greed, not for the goals of the Arab People. Obama has stated that we don’t need any more stupid wars. Americans don’t like long answers. Two word answers are all they can remember, and that’s why Americans don’t want to repeat any Cheney/Bush “stupid Wars”. Just because we have power, it doesn't make sense to kill people with it for oil.
Further, today we are much more powerful relatively speaking than we were in 1945. Americans have forgotten that we did not defeat Germany; - Russia turned the tide of WWII at Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, etc. etc. . The reason Roosevelt ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin is because Stalin took it from the NAZIs before we could stop him.
Further, today we are much more powerful relatively speaking than we were in 1945. Americans have forgotten that we did not defeat Germany; - Russia turned the tide of WWII at Stalingrad, Kursk, Moscow, etc. etc. . The reason Roosevelt ceded Eastern Europe to Stalin is because Stalin took it from the NAZIs before we could stop him.
5
"Should I have pressed our NATO 'allies' to honor their commitments on defense spending? Should I have lobbied the British parliament to allow air strikes in Syria? Should I have enlightened the US public about the unwonted influence of the Israeli Lobby in the US? Should I have complained about the EU's selective anti-monopoly policy, that targets US companies? Should I have pointed out that US companies that have found loopholes in the British corporate-tax regime are doing what British companies do? Should I have asked the world why the USA is the only country challenging China's claims in the South China Sea, even as our NATO 'allies' and others scoop up contracts in China? Should I have pointed out to critics of my refugee policy that the USA has accepted more migrants from Latin America and Southeast Asia than all of Europe combined, every year? Should I have gone to war over Russia's annexation of the Crimea, when no country in western Europe gives two figs about it? Should I have bombed in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Iran, Afghanistan, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, Northern Nigeria, Mali, Chad, and everywhere else that this or that newspaper critic thinks the USA should show 'leadership'? Should I have asked David Cameron to learn how to pronounce my name?
8
In the ‘old world’, geographic boundaries, time, and distance moderated the problem of resolving human differences in ways that allowed civilization to advance.
In the ‘middle world’, the US happenstatially found itself in a position to help and rebuild the world as a more democratic place. Our power was amplified by the defeat of faux socialist, right wing, totalitarian anti-democratic) regimes in the Soviet Union and China. This raised the respect for our system, and it’s potential to benefit human kind.
We ‘blew’ that edge by conservatively insisting that change was anathema, and that the ‘old ways’ were the only way to go!
In the current word, technology, has vastly reduced time and distance, and has empowered the emergence of asymmetric forces that operate across physical boundaries with impunity. The Internet, and technologies like encryption, have created ‘virtual communities’ that are readily transiting national/geographic boundaries and which can communicate in ‘virtual secrecy’ to exercise their will (be it for good or evil).
The problem that we are facing as we take the next steps towards global unification of our species, is a new form of ‘tribalism’ that operates like a virus, both across, and from within our national boundaries. It seems that we’re likely to be struggling for a while as we attempt to work out ways to make the virtual world work to effectively favor of the survival of the species.
In the ‘middle world’, the US happenstatially found itself in a position to help and rebuild the world as a more democratic place. Our power was amplified by the defeat of faux socialist, right wing, totalitarian anti-democratic) regimes in the Soviet Union and China. This raised the respect for our system, and it’s potential to benefit human kind.
We ‘blew’ that edge by conservatively insisting that change was anathema, and that the ‘old ways’ were the only way to go!
In the current word, technology, has vastly reduced time and distance, and has empowered the emergence of asymmetric forces that operate across physical boundaries with impunity. The Internet, and technologies like encryption, have created ‘virtual communities’ that are readily transiting national/geographic boundaries and which can communicate in ‘virtual secrecy’ to exercise their will (be it for good or evil).
The problem that we are facing as we take the next steps towards global unification of our species, is a new form of ‘tribalism’ that operates like a virus, both across, and from within our national boundaries. It seems that we’re likely to be struggling for a while as we attempt to work out ways to make the virtual world work to effectively favor of the survival of the species.
Jimmy Carter gave that speech 40 years ago.
2
Russia is a weak superpower, but Putin is kicking Obama's butt with little effort. Syria is now virtually guaranteed Assad for life, Afghanistan (the government we installed) is buying thousands of AK-47s from Russia and millions of rounds of ammunition, Iran is violating the nuclear deal with impunity (while the U.N. does nothing), Iran recently publically pledged money, some of the money we allowed them to access, to kill Jews, another American has been kidnapped by Iran, North Korea develops ICBM and atom bomb (thank you Bill Clinton) and it goes on and on. We haven’t had back to back to back Presidents this bad since just prior to the American Civil War.
1
P. Obama: Should I have empowered Putin, Assad, Hezbollath, Hamas and the Ayatollah to gain a clear pathway to nuclear weapons, place Israel under a nuclear cloud, take control of the Middle East and make myself look like a fool?
P. Obama: Well no, there I admit you got me.
P. Obama: Well no, there I admit you got me.
4
I will write from the perspective that obama would have written this column as it was portrayed:
---------------
To these questions:
"Should I have backed the pro-democracy uprising of young Iranians in 2009 against the regime...armed the rebels in Syria, established a no-fly zone once President Bashar al-Assad began murdering his citizens en masse, or set up a safe area to protect desperate refugees as a gage of our determination? Should I have upheld through one-off punitive military strikes against Assad the “red line” I set against the use of chemical weapons and so demonstrated to the Saudis and other Sunni gulf states that I was not, as they believe, in the pocket of the Shia world? In short, should I have kept my word and taken more risks to save Syria, oust Assad and stop Putin dictating the outcome?"
YES, YES, and again YES!
"I have built new bridges — to Iran, to Cuba. We are working with China to advance Afghan-Pakistani dialogue and bring peace in Afghanistan. Tough love for Israel, more conditional friendships with Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies..."
Built bridges to iran? Are you serious? That regime is a one-track, terrorist cancer, there is no "building bridges with it, and your fecklessness has all but guaranteed a war, where their military might has only been enhanced.
The US does not get to pick its allies' governments, and to "condition" our relations with them is absurd. Your actions have destroyed the US' credibility for decades to come.
---------------
To these questions:
"Should I have backed the pro-democracy uprising of young Iranians in 2009 against the regime...armed the rebels in Syria, established a no-fly zone once President Bashar al-Assad began murdering his citizens en masse, or set up a safe area to protect desperate refugees as a gage of our determination? Should I have upheld through one-off punitive military strikes against Assad the “red line” I set against the use of chemical weapons and so demonstrated to the Saudis and other Sunni gulf states that I was not, as they believe, in the pocket of the Shia world? In short, should I have kept my word and taken more risks to save Syria, oust Assad and stop Putin dictating the outcome?"
YES, YES, and again YES!
"I have built new bridges — to Iran, to Cuba. We are working with China to advance Afghan-Pakistani dialogue and bring peace in Afghanistan. Tough love for Israel, more conditional friendships with Saudi Arabia and other Arab autocracies..."
Built bridges to iran? Are you serious? That regime is a one-track, terrorist cancer, there is no "building bridges with it, and your fecklessness has all but guaranteed a war, where their military might has only been enhanced.
The US does not get to pick its allies' governments, and to "condition" our relations with them is absurd. Your actions have destroyed the US' credibility for decades to come.
1
Speak honestly and leave the stick at home…
… characterizes president Obama´s foreign policy. President Teddy Roosevelt´s version of foreign policy, “speak softly and carry a big stick,” has proven too often to be detrimental to American interests, because it is based on fear. “To make peace I need the enemy”, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak said and then he went to Oslo to make peace with Fatah Leader Arafat (the terrorist). German chancellor Willi Brandt started negotiations with the “bad guys” on the other side of the iron curtain, which ended the Cold War, and French prime minister Charles de Gaulle offered his “Paix de Braves” (Peace of the Braves) to the Algerian resistance (terrorists). Mr. Obama is of the same caliber. He has earned the Peace Nobel Price many times. Mr. Cohen´s fictitious speech tells us all about it. I am certain that if Mr. Obama had more time he would end the war in Syria and the war on terror, not with the stick but with prudence. http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/15.html
… characterizes president Obama´s foreign policy. President Teddy Roosevelt´s version of foreign policy, “speak softly and carry a big stick,” has proven too often to be detrimental to American interests, because it is based on fear. “To make peace I need the enemy”, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak said and then he went to Oslo to make peace with Fatah Leader Arafat (the terrorist). German chancellor Willi Brandt started negotiations with the “bad guys” on the other side of the iron curtain, which ended the Cold War, and French prime minister Charles de Gaulle offered his “Paix de Braves” (Peace of the Braves) to the Algerian resistance (terrorists). Mr. Obama is of the same caliber. He has earned the Peace Nobel Price many times. Mr. Cohen´s fictitious speech tells us all about it. I am certain that if Mr. Obama had more time he would end the war in Syria and the war on terror, not with the stick but with prudence. http://www.english.kamus-quantum.com/15.html
2
"...the world has never seemed as dangerous and leaderless as it does now. Only the extremists and bullies act boldly, and therefore they have seized the initiative. It is a moment in history that evokes the haunting words of W.B. Yeats: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” " Joseph I. Lieberman today in WaPo. We are headed down the rabbit hole where naked aggression and dogma rule and we don't lift a finger to protect western values.
Paragraph 10 contradicts paragraph 7. You don't want to "build nations" but you want to "save Syria" by toppling Assad. Will we never learn? Once the Syrian army with Russian help defeats ISIS, we will know who supports the terrorists and who supports a secular Syria. It will be a surprise to many.
1
Poignant.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Obama's policies are even more nuanced and surgical. In re the infamous "red line" in Syria, he NEVER stated what the consequences would be. This allowed him maximum flexibility, but also permitted the Hawks to assume an all-in campaign against Assad. When that didn't happen, he was called feckless. In reality, the consequence was very narrowly defined: no more chems in Syria. Anyone who thinks Putin did Obama a favor by helping the chems out the door is maxed out on motivated reasoning. Putin knew the score and helped his fellow dictator Assad to get rid of them before the hammer came down. No...more...chems... Finis. Mission accomplished without the self-aggrandizing strut.
Obama, one of the few grownups in the room, exemplifies the old adage, You can accomplish most anything if you don't care who gets the credit. Drives his haters crazy.
Obama, one of the few grownups in the room, exemplifies the old adage, You can accomplish most anything if you don't care who gets the credit. Drives his haters crazy.
3
Everyone knows what a "red line" is. If he didn't mean strong consequences, he shouldn't have used the term. He's so used to "narratives" that he failed to realize he wouldn't get away with just talk that time.
The entire world saw him scamper back from out on that limb where he had gotten himself. A truly dumb move.
The entire world saw him scamper back from out on that limb where he had gotten himself. A truly dumb move.
1
"Everyone knows..."Oh? Sez who? You make my point.
Chem weapons are gone, and you didn't get your war in Syria. A great outcome!
Chem weapons are gone, and you didn't get your war in Syria. A great outcome!
1
We absolutely MUST show a common cause for the rest of the world:
by strength of leading by good example....
The cause for which we SHOULD stand have been buried....and ...
Democracy in our land of such diversity ....needs a Renaissance and
only a leader of our land who has a vision for the Republic which
our forefathers envisioned can accomplish this renaissance,but with
the help of those who need to evolve and believe that they have a future
stake in this renaissance: and these are the millennials...
They are those who we need to ensure a future in the land of the free...
I suggest we all take Bernie Sander's mission to accomplish this goal
very seriously.
by strength of leading by good example....
The cause for which we SHOULD stand have been buried....and ...
Democracy in our land of such diversity ....needs a Renaissance and
only a leader of our land who has a vision for the Republic which
our forefathers envisioned can accomplish this renaissance,but with
the help of those who need to evolve and believe that they have a future
stake in this renaissance: and these are the millennials...
They are those who we need to ensure a future in the land of the free...
I suggest we all take Bernie Sander's mission to accomplish this goal
very seriously.
'The pendulum swings — and American adventurism may well make a comeback with my successor."
Indeed it will if the NY Times gets its way, and Hillary Clinton returns to the White House.
Indeed it will if the NY Times gets its way, and Hillary Clinton returns to the White House.
2
Highlighting our mistakes in Iraq in order to justify a power vacuum in ten other areas of the globe and a string of bad/phony treaties does not a foreign policy make.
1
Well done, Roger. Some of us know how painful it is for you to put this forward as potentially superior view of foreign policy than your humanitarian interventionist instincts would dictate. Bravo, you! Bravo, Barry!
"American adventurism" is not the opposite of Obama's foreign policy. American leadership is.
4
In article after article, Mr. Cohen keeps hammering away at U. S. policy regarding Syria. The approach is different, but the message is always the same: President Obama has caused mass suffering and disorder in Syria.
The problem is that Mr. Cohen does not have a coherent plan for Syria. Oh, he suggests no-fly zones that could cause WW-III with Russia. Enforcement of no-fly zones must be intiated by intense bombing over a broad area, with all the attendant risks. Mr. Cohen also suggested we should arm rebels, even though many of those rebels are Islamic extremists and even though our history of arming groups has led to ISIS control of those same arms. Mr. Cohen says the U. S. should have responded militarily (how exactly?) when the Assad goverment used chemical weapons. But he doesn't note that the Obama Administration forced Assad to abandon future use of chemical weapons (much more important than some symbolic punishment). Nor does Mr. Cohen note the recent diplomatic progress, never smooth but a possible path toward respite. And Mr. Cohen ignores the fact that the U. S. and allied air power is systematically destroying ISIS, our actual enemy in the area. Finally, Mr. Cohen ignores the legality of attacking the Assad government. There is no U. N. mandate, and the U. S. Congress has authorized attacks on Al-Queda-related groups, not on sovereign Syria.
This article is full of scarcasm. Come on, Mr. Cohen. Admit that you have no real idea how to solve the problem of Syria.
The problem is that Mr. Cohen does not have a coherent plan for Syria. Oh, he suggests no-fly zones that could cause WW-III with Russia. Enforcement of no-fly zones must be intiated by intense bombing over a broad area, with all the attendant risks. Mr. Cohen also suggested we should arm rebels, even though many of those rebels are Islamic extremists and even though our history of arming groups has led to ISIS control of those same arms. Mr. Cohen says the U. S. should have responded militarily (how exactly?) when the Assad goverment used chemical weapons. But he doesn't note that the Obama Administration forced Assad to abandon future use of chemical weapons (much more important than some symbolic punishment). Nor does Mr. Cohen note the recent diplomatic progress, never smooth but a possible path toward respite. And Mr. Cohen ignores the fact that the U. S. and allied air power is systematically destroying ISIS, our actual enemy in the area. Finally, Mr. Cohen ignores the legality of attacking the Assad government. There is no U. N. mandate, and the U. S. Congress has authorized attacks on Al-Queda-related groups, not on sovereign Syria.
This article is full of scarcasm. Come on, Mr. Cohen. Admit that you have no real idea how to solve the problem of Syria.
2
Mr. Cohen:
How many close relatives of yours will be fighting in these wars you so desire? For that matter, how many strangers in your zip code will enlist?
Don't dramatize deaths caused by overseas dictators only to minimize the need to fight them with the deaths of black, brown, and blue collar white troops.
How many close relatives of yours will be fighting in these wars you so desire? For that matter, how many strangers in your zip code will enlist?
Don't dramatize deaths caused by overseas dictators only to minimize the need to fight them with the deaths of black, brown, and blue collar white troops.
6
I recall this was the same speech Jimmy Carter made decades ago back in the late 1970s.
I’ll take that moniker, if the alternative is to embrace feel-good posturing and drift into another intractable war in which young Americans die for murky causes in the indifferent sands of the Middle East.
well said
well said
The combination of democracy, social media networking and "Breaking News" demands knee jerk reactions, and not restraint nor any long term strategy.
Comma except, he did not discuss the other power that the US possesses: the Good Old Dollar: GOD. How long will the US be able to hold on as the world's reserve currency? It is crumblling, crumbs at first, lumps later on.
You indict yourself, Mr. Cohen, in this thinly veiled critique of President Obama. You should have also added a paragraph to this effect.
"The conflicts in the Middle East cannot be understood--and thus properly addressed--unless we recognize that for various reasons, few of them good or appropriate, the UN ripped apart the fabric of Middle Eastern history and culture by dispossessing millions of Arabs from their ancestral lands in order to create Israel. This reprehensible act of Western colonialism has made achieving peace in the Middle East much more difficult, beyond the inherent religious and political rivalries inherent in this region..."
"The conflicts in the Middle East cannot be understood--and thus properly addressed--unless we recognize that for various reasons, few of them good or appropriate, the UN ripped apart the fabric of Middle Eastern history and culture by dispossessing millions of Arabs from their ancestral lands in order to create Israel. This reprehensible act of Western colonialism has made achieving peace in the Middle East much more difficult, beyond the inherent religious and political rivalries inherent in this region..."
It is rather amusing that Cohen would propose to put some words in Obama's mouth. How did he imagined that they would fit given the torrent that is coming out. And in fact of course Obama would have done a better job for us and the world if he had kept his mouth shut; if he hadn't told the world when he sent more troops into Afghanistan that he was going to pull them out by some future date, win, lose or draw thereby telling they just need to hold their water and they will win: if he hadn't said that Assad must go, thereby giving the Syrians the belief that if they rebel, we will at some point save them: then saying that Assad's WMD's are a "red line for him" and then doing nothing, thereby convincing Assad and the Russians, he wouldn't do anything no matter what they did; if he hadn't said he will destroy ISIS while still saying Assad must go, he wouldn't have us stuck in Syria flinging bombs all over the place to no avail: if he hadn't said the invasion of Iraq was stupid,, he wouldn't have pulled our troops out before the Iraqis got used to living under the government we gave them and he would have been free to acknowledge that the only reasonable ways of dealing with Syria was either to do what Bush did in Iraq or stay out altogether; and if he hadn't promised to shut down Gitmo, he would have had a place to put captured enemy combatants, and wouldn't have to adopt a policy of "taking no prisoners". If he had talked less, he wouldn't have done so much stupid stuff.
This simply an extremely complicated way of saying I'm a failure.
And yes Barack where foreign policy is concerned you are in fact a huge failure.
And yes Barack where foreign policy is concerned you are in fact a huge failure.
1
America's decline has been accelerated because of its Mideast adventures. Mr. Cohen is right about President Obama's implicit strategy, and it is the right strategy.
2
"Restraint was the wiser option..." Wish it had been so and Obama had not bombed Libya nor bombed Syria. Wish he had withdrawn all our troops, advisers, operatives, contractors, money and arms from the entire Middle East. Obama's military operations in the Middle East have made matters worse.
1
We've yet to see how his opening the money spigot to Iran, in effect fostering hegemonism on steroids, will affect the Middle East.
1
I largely agree with Obama's foreign policy, and Cohen's account is by and large a fair account of it. America needs to look after its own given that we have incredible challenges at home; American retrenchment seems apropos.
Of course, there is less than a year left on such a worldview. If Clinton is elected, I expect the neoconservative outlook to, sadly, re-emerge. And if Trump is elected...who the heck knows.
Of course, there is less than a year left on such a worldview. If Clinton is elected, I expect the neoconservative outlook to, sadly, re-emerge. And if Trump is elected...who the heck knows.
This is a good column. It brings to mind General Eisenhower's decision to invade Normandy during World War II. Thousands of troops were waiting to cross the English Channel. The weather was terrible. The seas were rough but it looked there might be a 24 hour break in the storm. Ike said "Let's Go" I don't like it but we'll go."
President Obama is not a neocon. I approve of that.
Only historians, looking back 50 or so years from now can truly judge whether Obama's approach was the better approach.
Only historians, looking back 50 or so years from now can truly judge whether Obama's approach was the better approach.
2
President Obama's foreign policy doctrine has been clear since his Nobel lecture-- Just Peace. It is a real theoretical approach. Further, regarding military options in Syria, see the letter written by Gen. Martin Dempsey to the Senate Armed Services Committee in July 2013. President Obama has executed a wise foreign policy. He has chosen the best of bad options in a complicated world.
3
GLOBAL CONFLICTS. In our day, there is no such thing as limiting the impact of foreign policy to one nation or area. The world is no longer biipolar when there were two great powers. It is multipolar. Look what's happened in Syria. It hasn't affected us directly in the US. But it's definitely affected our European allies in ways both powerful and unexpected. Now the countries of Northern Europe have welcomed great numbers of persons from Islamic areas of the world. Teaching the new guests the expectations of a secular society where many do not practice any organized religion is going to present huge challenges. For in the Mideast, shari'a, or religious law, is indistinguishable from civil law in many places. The newcomers come form countries where religious observance is often a big part of daily life and now live in countries where religious practice is largely ignored. Did the US really impose its will in Germany and Japan after their defeat in WW II? The Marshall Plan was designed to help them become self-reliant and democratic as quickly as possible. We provided material support and the people rebuilt their homelands. Unfortunately, that model has not worked in the Mideast, to the point that it sees irrelevant. One powerful factor is that we offer no religious support while those who would take over clearly do. The basis for both ISIS and Al Qaeda are to correct the failures of peoples of the world to observe Islam faithfully.
One point definitely jumps out - Obama should have supported the green revolution in Iran. What reason was there not to when he supported the arab spring everywhere else?
1
President Obama, having to live with the gung- ho adventurism of the Bush years, with all ist geopolitical consequences , tread the only nessecary way. He toned down the rethoric and the actual involvement in unwinnable wars. The genie Bush, Blair and Co released cannot be put back in the bottle.
1
Interesting sumup. I must admit, I agree with just everything in this implicit foreign policy.
1
Obama's rejection of military intervention and America as the world's policemen has a been a wise decision. Less is sometimes more. Unforeseen consequences are the certain opportunity cost of any military intervention.We have ample evidence of that. JFK's rejection of the generals recommendation to invade Cuba is an instructive paradigm. We did not know that Russia had 50,000 combat troops in Cuba along with tactical nuclear weapons targeting U.S. Marines at Guantanamo. JFK,without question,avoided WWIII. In a brilliant display of statecraft he preserved the peace by avoiding military action. Obama's wise restraint and targeted destruction of ISIS and Al Qaeda leadership has severely weakened them and avoided significant American opportunity cost and the guaranteed unforeseen problems.
1
Excellent. JFK made a similar speech at Washington University before he was gunned down. There is an element of our political establishment that desperately wants that "New American Century" where the US dominates all other countries. That element forced us into losing wars in Vietnam and Iraq. GOP Neocons forget that it was the war hero Eisenhower who ended the brutal war in Korea in favor of a detente with the Chinese and North Korea. Same president warned of letting the Neocons industrialists have too much power. Obama understands all of this and has done what is best for US interests in Syria knowing that an all out war with the Soviets, Kurds, Sunnis , Iranians, Hezbollah and possibly the Turks would rapidly escalate out of control . Furthermore the Congress made the final decision by refusing to authorize military involvement in Syria.
2
While the President may be motivated by US limitations on the international stage, he has failed to proactively make clear what behaviors will trigger an American military response. It may be necessary to scale down the scope of our core interests, but we must make them clear to both friend and foe. Failure to do so will encourage constant limit testing by the likes of Putin. These interest include:
A Doctrine on Critical National Interests - The US must make clear that we have a foreign policy agenda involving promotion of certain interests and suppression of certain threats. During the Cold War this consisted of containment of the Communist block. It must be updated for 21st century threats.
Commitment to allies - Which allies are we willing to protect with both blood and treasure? NATO allies? Western Europe? Saudi Arabia?
Real red lines for our enemies - Will attacks on Lithuania and Latvia be met with US troops? Will an attempted ISIS invasion of Jordan bring US boots on the ground?
A reduced international presence may be necessary, but ambiguity as to which groups we are allied with and what are our red lines for Assad and ISIS has created a disaster in Syria, with casualties approaching a half a million (Mr. Cohen chooses to use an outdated number). We can't let that happen again.
A Doctrine on Critical National Interests - The US must make clear that we have a foreign policy agenda involving promotion of certain interests and suppression of certain threats. During the Cold War this consisted of containment of the Communist block. It must be updated for 21st century threats.
Commitment to allies - Which allies are we willing to protect with both blood and treasure? NATO allies? Western Europe? Saudi Arabia?
Real red lines for our enemies - Will attacks on Lithuania and Latvia be met with US troops? Will an attempted ISIS invasion of Jordan bring US boots on the ground?
A reduced international presence may be necessary, but ambiguity as to which groups we are allied with and what are our red lines for Assad and ISIS has created a disaster in Syria, with casualties approaching a half a million (Mr. Cohen chooses to use an outdated number). We can't let that happen again.
2
President Obama should give the following speech.
“I entered the White House on a tide of goodwill for my essentially peace oriented approach to Foreign Policy Issues. I discovered foreign policy decision-making in the hands of those pursuing the 'Project for a New American Century' predicated on Regime change for any country that did not march to the tune of American Hegemony. For eight years I have been trying to restrain this War Party and I have suffered serious reverse in places like Syria, Ukraine, Libya. As a result of their ideological posturing my administration has created a major migration management problem for the European Union and the Middle East. So far I have one major success to my name – Iran.”
“I entered the White House on a tide of goodwill for my essentially peace oriented approach to Foreign Policy Issues. I discovered foreign policy decision-making in the hands of those pursuing the 'Project for a New American Century' predicated on Regime change for any country that did not march to the tune of American Hegemony. For eight years I have been trying to restrain this War Party and I have suffered serious reverse in places like Syria, Ukraine, Libya. As a result of their ideological posturing my administration has created a major migration management problem for the European Union and the Middle East. So far I have one major success to my name – Iran.”
1
Forgot to add:
"Oh, and by the way, I continue to commit illegal forays onto sovereign soil via drone attacks. In this fashion, I've killed countless non-combatants, including women and children, and helped to build a whole new generation of terrorists in the middle east"
Fixed it for 'ya.
"Oh, and by the way, I continue to commit illegal forays onto sovereign soil via drone attacks. In this fashion, I've killed countless non-combatants, including women and children, and helped to build a whole new generation of terrorists in the middle east"
Fixed it for 'ya.
3
There's a real difference between restraint and failing to stand up to being
bullied. With horrid results in the Mideast Obama has usually done the
latter. His refusal to back up his own redlines on Syria only gave the green light
to the Russians. If balancing the Mideast power alignments to favor Iran, still a cold hearted and ruthless enemy of everything we stand for, the future of that conflict torn region is even more threatened. And, at the cost of alienating
most Israelis, who hardly take Iranian threats cursorily, he coddled Teheran
to get a treaty that it needed far more than we, he lost a valuable opportunity
to regain the confidence and trust of those in both Israel and amongst the Palestinians who are still willing to take the chances for peace.
bullied. With horrid results in the Mideast Obama has usually done the
latter. His refusal to back up his own redlines on Syria only gave the green light
to the Russians. If balancing the Mideast power alignments to favor Iran, still a cold hearted and ruthless enemy of everything we stand for, the future of that conflict torn region is even more threatened. And, at the cost of alienating
most Israelis, who hardly take Iranian threats cursorily, he coddled Teheran
to get a treaty that it needed far more than we, he lost a valuable opportunity
to regain the confidence and trust of those in both Israel and amongst the Palestinians who are still willing to take the chances for peace.
2
Excellent Mr. Cohen. Those who lament American "exceptionalism" often mean American Militarism. As the "Arsenal of Democracy" we did turn the tide in the battle against Fascism, even as the Soviet Union paid the greatest price in life and limb. We also became the only major nation left intact after the slaughter and destruction of World War II was over.
Since then, the power of American Militarism has had far less success, in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America, often interfering in other country's civil conflicts with disastrous consequences to local populations.
We have built and paid a huge price for an enormous military/security apparatus at the expense of our own peoples well being and nation's infrastructure.
Now we are Number 1 in military power, but well down the list in social welfare, education, health care, transportation and national unity. Accepting the influence of regional powers, international law and international organizations is a matter of necessity and path to continued national success. President Obama knows this, it is time for the American people to accept it as well.
Since then, the power of American Militarism has had far less success, in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, South America, often interfering in other country's civil conflicts with disastrous consequences to local populations.
We have built and paid a huge price for an enormous military/security apparatus at the expense of our own peoples well being and nation's infrastructure.
Now we are Number 1 in military power, but well down the list in social welfare, education, health care, transportation and national unity. Accepting the influence of regional powers, international law and international organizations is a matter of necessity and path to continued national success. President Obama knows this, it is time for the American people to accept it as well.
3
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform since 9/11/01 and the U.S. Congress does not want to debate nor authorize nor pay for any American military action.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that there is no American military solution to the boiling cauldron ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that America has 22% of the nominal world GDP with 5% of the planet's people along with an annual military expenditure greater than the next eight nations combined.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that the gravest national security threat to American interests is by cynical corrupt inhumane hypocritical betrayal of America's founding values.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that there is no American military solution to the boiling cauldron ethnic sectarian socioeconomic political educational civil wars.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that America has 22% of the nominal world GDP with 5% of the planet's people along with an annual military expenditure greater than the next eight nations combined.
President Obama's explicit foreign policy reflects the reality that the gravest national security threat to American interests is by cynical corrupt inhumane hypocritical betrayal of America's founding values.
5
This fake speech defends the President by arguing that he did the best with what he had to work with. Does this mean that circumstances dictate his decisions? If that is true, then would any other Commander in Chief in his place during the last seven years have followed a different foreign policy? Obama has not shied away from all of Bush policies. Perhaps next president, whoever he/she is, will follow Obama's policies to the extent that circumstances demand it.
As Mr. Cohen demonstrates, it is not a new president that chooses our place in the world, as much as it is the new world that shares a common place with us.
As Mr. Cohen demonstrates, it is not a new president that chooses our place in the world, as much as it is the new world that shares a common place with us.
2
A friend of mine, long ago, suggested that the American president should be chosen by the citizens of the world because his foreign policy powers affect life in other countries much more than life in America - where he is restrained domestically by Congress.
If this were the case, I'd wage that Mr. Obama's "Implicit Foreign Policy" would receive a resounding vote of approval.
If this were the case, I'd wage that Mr. Obama's "Implicit Foreign Policy" would receive a resounding vote of approval.
171
Except the US didn't become a world superpower by allowing citizens of the world to dictate its foreign policy. This is the where Obama's strategy gets it very wrong.
1
Not from the countries that would be overrun by autocrats in the blink of an eye.
Actually, it is not that complicated, and this is really not a "new era". It is the same old planet, with the same old human nature, and the same old reasons for more wars.
We have wasted tens of Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American lives fighting other nations’ wars, over the past hundred years. (All but WWII were stupid for us to participate in.) So, this is not rocket science: avoid war at all costs. Use our military in only two ways: defending us when other nations attack us, and punishing nations which support terrorism. (It would have made much more sense to just punish Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia after 9/11 than to get entangled in foreign civil wars.)
We have wasted tens of Trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of American lives fighting other nations’ wars, over the past hundred years. (All but WWII were stupid for us to participate in.) So, this is not rocket science: avoid war at all costs. Use our military in only two ways: defending us when other nations attack us, and punishing nations which support terrorism. (It would have made much more sense to just punish Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia after 9/11 than to get entangled in foreign civil wars.)
2
The Republicans' love of war is mostly a sop to two important constituencies, the defense industry and the gun-toting 2nd amendment crowd.
The latter love to boast about needing guns to defend my family and my rights, but they don't volunteer to go where the real shooting exists. It's easier and safer to go to the range, shoot paper targets, and have a beer with their buddies bragging about how tough they are.
The defense industry support speaks for itself.
The latter love to boast about needing guns to defend my family and my rights, but they don't volunteer to go where the real shooting exists. It's easier and safer to go to the range, shoot paper targets, and have a beer with their buddies bragging about how tough they are.
The defense industry support speaks for itself.
1
Only time and presidential historians will review if this was a wise course of action. Many of these confirmed policy shifts have un-nerved many Americans. Putin as example expands at will, the middle east is sinking into all out war. Do we care ? Is being the worlds policemen our destiny or are we just another nation in a interdependent world? No mention that our standard of living has deteriorated, while we eneter into still another trade deal. RAcism under this half black President hasn't improved although it points to Obama's approach there is little if anything that has ever been done to solve that issue. Gettos and staggering un-employment of young black men is rampant as is crime and drugs.
1
Nice try Roger. implicit is a nice way of saying nothing was planned or done. I'm not fooled. Obama has ruined the US's foreign policy with muddled messages to our allies and our enemies.
And to draw attention away from these failures, Obama and company have through that their Cuba and Iran deals will save their legacy.
Ummm. NO. It's bad. And American foreign policy needs a firm hand and understandable policy rather than the disaster this administration's minions have made of it.
And to draw attention away from these failures, Obama and company have through that their Cuba and Iran deals will save their legacy.
Ummm. NO. It's bad. And American foreign policy needs a firm hand and understandable policy rather than the disaster this administration's minions have made of it.
4
Cohen apparently cannot make up his mind. After publishing a scathing article on Obama's escape from responsibility in Syria he now takes it all back with an apology for the same irresponsibility.
In any case I wonder how many of those millions of people who might have been helped by a more decisive and wise American policy applaud this Doctrine of Restraint.
And I wonder too at the total escape from reality in celebrating a supposedly Iranian- American alliance as the Iranians do everything possible to humiliate and promise the eventual destruction of the Big Satan.
Shame on Cohen for is very selective presentation of the chaos of the Middle East in some part at least caused by the Obama restraint.
In any case I wonder how many of those millions of people who might have been helped by a more decisive and wise American policy applaud this Doctrine of Restraint.
And I wonder too at the total escape from reality in celebrating a supposedly Iranian- American alliance as the Iranians do everything possible to humiliate and promise the eventual destruction of the Big Satan.
Shame on Cohen for is very selective presentation of the chaos of the Middle East in some part at least caused by the Obama restraint.
3
Way too thoughtful for the typical United States citizen. Most of us, especially in the GOP, do not "do nuance."
1
Excuses, excuses and more excuses! Weak leadership, our enemies do not fear or respect him and certainly he cannot be counted on to keep his word more correctly describes Obama's foreign policy. Putin's Russia, a far weaker country, has over shadowed Obama's "lead by following" policy.
2
Consider this issue from another perspective. Just in Chicago, so far this year, the murder rate exceeds that of last year. And this is repeating itself in large cities all over the country. Question. If we, with all the resources of the "greatest county in the world", can't alter killings of our own citizens, in our own country, what chance do we suppose we'll have half way around the world in societies totally foreign to us? America, thy name is hubris.
3
it's not true. the murder rate in NYC has declined
Roger,
Implicit but unstated in your faux address, is the new fact that from now on we are electing a Commander-in-Chief. Formerly only designated by Congress, this Augustan mantle is now placed upon the President through the campaign process. He assumes the role the people urge upon him in the vast media square with a benediction. He is the mighty protector of the homeland and the sole initiator of targeted or signature killings as needed to underscore the implicit nature of his new and terrifying powers in which we are complicit. Ave, Caesar, ave.
Implicit but unstated in your faux address, is the new fact that from now on we are electing a Commander-in-Chief. Formerly only designated by Congress, this Augustan mantle is now placed upon the President through the campaign process. He assumes the role the people urge upon him in the vast media square with a benediction. He is the mighty protector of the homeland and the sole initiator of targeted or signature killings as needed to underscore the implicit nature of his new and terrifying powers in which we are complicit. Ave, Caesar, ave.
2
Roger Cohen has in many of his columns favored the interventionist route. This despite the record of human tragedy that has followed ever American American military intervention over the last thirty years. So the question is why? He is a smart writer and I suspect not unmindful of human suffering. So why dismember Iraq, destroy Libya and keep Syria on the regime change list concocted by the neocons of the Bush administration?
What are these "broader American interests" that arguably justify such actions? It's certainly not promoting democracy. Our relationship with the authoritarian Gulf states lays that argument to rest. And Mr. Cohen's characterization of Obama's "tough love" to Israel is a fiction. Military support and intelligence cooperation with Israel have never been stronger.
So why do we really have hundreds of military bases around the globe and a history of intervention that includes both financial strangleholds and actual invasions? My opinion is that we ares still playing from the Council on Foreign Relations playbook of 1945, which held that the country that controls energy resources controls the world. And controls trillions of dollars that flows west to banks and corporations. We have become an empire, albeit a different type than previous ones.
But who really benefits from these policies? It's clear who pays for them in life, liberty and treasury. But who really benefits? What do you astute readers of foreign affairs think about this age of intervention?
What are these "broader American interests" that arguably justify such actions? It's certainly not promoting democracy. Our relationship with the authoritarian Gulf states lays that argument to rest. And Mr. Cohen's characterization of Obama's "tough love" to Israel is a fiction. Military support and intelligence cooperation with Israel have never been stronger.
So why do we really have hundreds of military bases around the globe and a history of intervention that includes both financial strangleholds and actual invasions? My opinion is that we ares still playing from the Council on Foreign Relations playbook of 1945, which held that the country that controls energy resources controls the world. And controls trillions of dollars that flows west to banks and corporations. We have become an empire, albeit a different type than previous ones.
But who really benefits from these policies? It's clear who pays for them in life, liberty and treasury. But who really benefits? What do you astute readers of foreign affairs think about this age of intervention?
8
The problem isn't the reality of the limits of American power. All power is limited. If only by the historically proven diminution caused by trying to achieve unlimited power.
The problem is that some democrats see the proper limits of American power corresponding with what those limits were in early 1939. And that perhaps this President has been secretly harboring a yearning for, "good old days" like those.
The problem is that some democrats see the proper limits of American power corresponding with what those limits were in early 1939. And that perhaps this President has been secretly harboring a yearning for, "good old days" like those.
1
We haven't "clinched" a foreign policy deal since WW II. Remembering all those in the military who have died and will live their lives in pain, I wish for them, that all of our Presidents since Johnson, had pursued an implicit foreign policy.
For somebody who has been so vehemently opposed to Obama's foreign policy and inaction in Syria in particular , you seem to have a remarkable grasp of his thought process.
Obama's approach has been completely rational and served cold. It's unspectacular, but get's us to the next day. He understands better than anybody how not to make a losing position worse.
Obama's approach has been completely rational and served cold. It's unspectacular, but get's us to the next day. He understands better than anybody how not to make a losing position worse.
5
The core issue is that Obama and his team have done little or nothing to improve the situation you describe. We abandoned allies. We allowed the Syrian refugee crisis to upend the EU, and in our absence we allowed Putin and Iran to fill the enormous power vacuum, destroying the lives of millions. Heck, we've even allowed the Saudi's to destabilize several countries and wipe out tens of thousands high paying blue collar oil patch jobs here at home. Obama's foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster.
3
The right is selling nostalgia. Their constituents are dreamers and want to return to the post WWII years. Jobs are not coming back either. Not as we knew it. America's power is truly tied to it's economic health not it's military power. Revamp education, retrain workers and tell the truth once and for all. Stop leading voters on with the usual bull. This I direct to the right and the left.
3
I believe most important part of Cohen's message is,
We are in 21st century and obvious issue is
we have more than 2 superpowers,
USA, Russia, China, India and EU.
In late 20th century we have only 2
USA and USSR
Yes we have plenty of money, but world too.
So who would like to contest the war machine.
We are in 21st century and obvious issue is
we have more than 2 superpowers,
USA, Russia, China, India and EU.
In late 20th century we have only 2
USA and USSR
Yes we have plenty of money, but world too.
So who would like to contest the war machine.
If we can somehow put to bed the misguided notion of American "exceptionalism," our foreign as well as domestic policy will help re-direct our attention from swagger to clear-eyed realism. America is better than being a braggart; we need to marshal our resources to fit the world's many challenges that can be addressed without resort to military strutting.
133
Sadly, Leo Strauss is the foundation for most right wing posture from Reagan on up to and including the Cheney/Rumsfeld war in Iraq. The need to maintain the illusion/myth of Exceptionalism is critical to the Neo-Con world view. Since there was zero contrition on the right after that disaster, nor one second in the the time-out corner for Iraq, in favor of immediate challenge to the new president who was elected to stop the madness and clean up the mess, I doubt very much that there will ever be an honest reconsideration of American Exceptionalism till we are finally circling the drain as a result of that hubris.
Saying that we cannot be who we were in 1945 is insane and Obama would never say that. One can't separate who we were in 1945 from who we were in 1941 and quite possibly who we should have been in 1939.
No sane president will ever say those words as part of a pre-amble to our role in the world.
Who we were in 1945 and what we chose to do (rebuild Europe, and stay involved with the World, help create the UN and support the creation of Israel) are now part of what it means to be American.
That sentence is too provocative for any White House to ever utter, in part because it will never be 1945 again and in part because so much of what we did in 1945 was morally and ethic required of us.
No sane president will ever say those words as part of a pre-amble to our role in the world.
Who we were in 1945 and what we chose to do (rebuild Europe, and stay involved with the World, help create the UN and support the creation of Israel) are now part of what it means to be American.
That sentence is too provocative for any White House to ever utter, in part because it will never be 1945 again and in part because so much of what we did in 1945 was morally and ethic required of us.
24
Agreed, and we didn't do it for oil.
1
So what is required of us now?
In a world of 7.4 billion people, with a surface area of 192 million square miles and with a USA border of 170,000 square miles, it is about time we realize that we cannot police the world or set up Democracies in theocratic "republics". It is time to let some things happen that we cannot control.
1
America pays the price of its adventurism while the Chinese reap the benefits. American troops secure the countryside in Afghanistan so the Chinese can get the mining contracts.
The middle-east is torn into pieces because of American interference over the decades, starting from Iran in the 50s and onwards from there. Let's stay out of it, guard our own security, and let things settle into their natural order.
The middle-east is torn into pieces because of American interference over the decades, starting from Iran in the 50s and onwards from there. Let's stay out of it, guard our own security, and let things settle into their natural order.
2
It’s a mistake to expect that the problems in the Mid-East and Eastern Europe that are mentioned in this article will go away. At best, they will need to be managed with no end in sight.
Our foreign policies require a combination of military force and “soft” power, depending on the situation. In today’s rapidly changing world, there are no clear rules. Obama has been skillful in using a combination of force and diplomacy, but has been much criticized, in part, because his decisions do not conform to a pattern that can be easily articulated. Critics have had a field day with the ambiguities and tentativeness of Obama's decisions. But it can be argued that the ambiguities and conflicting cross-currents in various conflicts has required situational responses.
Going forward, our presidents and other leaders will have to wean the American public and the media away from simple views that our engagement in various conflicts can be categorized as a choice between a willingness to go to war or appeasement. They will need to educate the public why restraint is needed in one situation and more forceful action is needed in another.
We can navigate our way through these conflicts, but it will be tedious and boring in terms of headlines and the mythical stories our culture thrives on. But the alternative of asserting our military power as a loaded solution, readily available for use, has too often turned out to be a tragic and costly fantasy.
Our foreign policies require a combination of military force and “soft” power, depending on the situation. In today’s rapidly changing world, there are no clear rules. Obama has been skillful in using a combination of force and diplomacy, but has been much criticized, in part, because his decisions do not conform to a pattern that can be easily articulated. Critics have had a field day with the ambiguities and tentativeness of Obama's decisions. But it can be argued that the ambiguities and conflicting cross-currents in various conflicts has required situational responses.
Going forward, our presidents and other leaders will have to wean the American public and the media away from simple views that our engagement in various conflicts can be categorized as a choice between a willingness to go to war or appeasement. They will need to educate the public why restraint is needed in one situation and more forceful action is needed in another.
We can navigate our way through these conflicts, but it will be tedious and boring in terms of headlines and the mythical stories our culture thrives on. But the alternative of asserting our military power as a loaded solution, readily available for use, has too often turned out to be a tragic and costly fantasy.
154
"They will need to educate the public why restraint is needed in one situation and more forceful action is needed in another." How right you are, and what a heavy lift, given the 2x2, B&W pixilation of politics today.
Excellent assessment.
Excellent assessment.
The business of the Greed Over People is to keep the war machine going, and cash in at every turn. If they continue to control our government, not only will they continue to crumble foreign nations, but they will do the same to this one. In the end, all they care about is how much money they can make, and damn the citizens of the US and the world. I support the President. Other countries must solve their own problems, in the end.
2
Maybe some level of war machine is necessary to defend the boundaries of civilization. However, like all things, it is critical to insure that the folks who define the boundaries and the level of defense required don't have too much of a vested interest in self and tribe.
This presents a critical issue in a world with physical (national) boundaries, because the turf itself limits the objectivity of the 'definers'.
The US has thrived in the past, by understanding that life and human welfare transcend national boundaries. We have always failed when we tribal turf to narrow our vision.
This presents a critical issue in a world with physical (national) boundaries, because the turf itself limits the objectivity of the 'definers'.
The US has thrived in the past, by understanding that life and human welfare transcend national boundaries. We have always failed when we tribal turf to narrow our vision.
1
Yep, restraint is an absolute buzz killer come election day. Nobody will run to the polls to support restraint. Fear is what motivates us, and we want to do something about it, now. We want hits, we want violence, we want crushing blows, as we sit there watching football as election day approaches. We want boots on the ground and rockets in the air. And guns in our purses. The Republican Party gets it. Fear. Boogeymen. Armageddon. And the only cure may be bringing back the draft. That way everybody gets a chance to get shot and come home in a coffin, even rich kids. Bring back the draft, a perpetual draft. And then maybe, just maybe, restraint will become a viable political platform.
324
This 'disease of immediate results' is amplified by business practices that successfully rely on short term feedback to adjust the life and death of business.
In modern business, "short term" has been progressively reduced from annual, to quarterly, to immediate by automation and improved communications.
This works in business, because business is a human creation that's built inside a 'rule-based' bubble of certainty.
Government can leverage these ideas to improve efficiency in areas that demand social certainty (such as courts, old age protection, education, health care, and national defense). However, we are not yet in a position where we can create certainty for every aspect of human endeavor.
In the end, 'the business of government' is all about creating a bubble of certainty that protects and promotes the interests of ALL of the governed regardless of their productivity, creed, color, or ideology.
Currently, Western civilization appears to be going through one of its periodic social revolutions that arise out of failed social and economic policies that drive change through popular discontent.
The cold, hard fact, is that this is one area where the US (and democracy) can clearly continue to lead.
The vast majority of the world's population lives without either certainty or economic opportunity, and the lesson for us is to find ways to restore and promote those essential ingredients, first at home, and then around the world.
In modern business, "short term" has been progressively reduced from annual, to quarterly, to immediate by automation and improved communications.
This works in business, because business is a human creation that's built inside a 'rule-based' bubble of certainty.
Government can leverage these ideas to improve efficiency in areas that demand social certainty (such as courts, old age protection, education, health care, and national defense). However, we are not yet in a position where we can create certainty for every aspect of human endeavor.
In the end, 'the business of government' is all about creating a bubble of certainty that protects and promotes the interests of ALL of the governed regardless of their productivity, creed, color, or ideology.
Currently, Western civilization appears to be going through one of its periodic social revolutions that arise out of failed social and economic policies that drive change through popular discontent.
The cold, hard fact, is that this is one area where the US (and democracy) can clearly continue to lead.
The vast majority of the world's population lives without either certainty or economic opportunity, and the lesson for us is to find ways to restore and promote those essential ingredients, first at home, and then around the world.
I agree in theory about the draft being an "equalizer" and something that causes the whole country to seriously think about becoming involved with conflict, but having come of age during the Vietnam debacle, I recall that plenty of people - mostly rich and powerful - were able to weasel (no offense meant to the actual animal) out of going to war. I'm not sure it would be any different now. If anything, money talks even louder now than before as we continually become more corrupt as a country.
Democracy requires a draft.
The only ones exempt should be single heads of households.
Rich, poor, black, white, red, or green, all should serve.
Chicken hawks will be much more restrained when it's their sons or daughters being led to the slaughter.
Bigots will be forced to confront their biases when their commanders give them an order.
A mandatory draft will allow Americans to see each other as comrades instead of "the other".
You can be certain that war will be the choice of last resort when all Americans have skin in the game.
The only ones exempt should be single heads of households.
Rich, poor, black, white, red, or green, all should serve.
Chicken hawks will be much more restrained when it's their sons or daughters being led to the slaughter.
Bigots will be forced to confront their biases when their commanders give them an order.
A mandatory draft will allow Americans to see each other as comrades instead of "the other".
You can be certain that war will be the choice of last resort when all Americans have skin in the game.
1
There's good reason Obama did not deliver that speech.
It clearly doesn't cut the mustard and demonstrates how the pendulum has swung too much from an activist and careless president to an isolationist one.
Sure there are a couple of success stories, but ultimately Cohen's list makes a compelling case for the US to stand up for the humanitarian values it has -mostly successfully - defended.
We don't need to go back to the appalling days of W's reign, but Nature abhors vacuum. Wishful thinking of multi-lateralism will just give the baton of power to a Putin or a Jinping.
No need to tempt them.
It clearly doesn't cut the mustard and demonstrates how the pendulum has swung too much from an activist and careless president to an isolationist one.
Sure there are a couple of success stories, but ultimately Cohen's list makes a compelling case for the US to stand up for the humanitarian values it has -mostly successfully - defended.
We don't need to go back to the appalling days of W's reign, but Nature abhors vacuum. Wishful thinking of multi-lateralism will just give the baton of power to a Putin or a Jinping.
No need to tempt them.
4
The real question is that if this is the new reality do we still need to spend more than the next 10 countries combined on defense. Or should we revamp our military to protect the US only and not half the world. Is it time for US troops to leave Europe, S Korea, Okinawa, etc. Our 4,000 plus nuclear warheads protect us now and will continue to for the foreseeable future from any existential foreign threats. Historically empires die under the costs of maintaining them.
10
I hope I am missing something but the Cohenist context/subtext suggests thst the President hss something to apologize for in exercising prudence and restraint. Far from it. Not only is the world complex, but the President has to deal with a GOP that is not only obstructionist at home but also limited in global affairs to nostalgia and bombast. As the world gets smaller, apparently the prespectives of many Americans get narrower and narrower.
11
"The consequence is that American power still counts but no longer clinches the deal."
American power couldn't even influence our so-called 'allies' that get upwards of $5 Billion a year to stop violating international law, and end its 50 year old occupation. What influence exactly did we have before Obama to make any country to do what they didn't want to do?
American power couldn't even influence our so-called 'allies' that get upwards of $5 Billion a year to stop violating international law, and end its 50 year old occupation. What influence exactly did we have before Obama to make any country to do what they didn't want to do?
2
Pretty much sums it up, with all its ambivalence. Have to take the bitter with the sweet. Thing is, a more active and coherent foreign policy can only succeed if its architects craft it based on the world as it is and works, rather than as their ideology or their base supporters imagine it to be and work. Unfortunately, I don't see that arising with any of the likely successors.
If Obama ever gave such a speech, many thoughtful Americans would find themselves in total agreement. Cohen seems to assume, as many others do, that the US has magical powers to resolve ancient conflicts and impose order where chaos has existed for centuries. Thank goodness Obama is wiser, certainly wiser than his predecessor whose foolish blunders have cost this country dearly with little to show for the sacrifices made. Cohen's endless advocacy for American interventionism is very tiresome.
22
But it's not just defeatism. It goes deeper than that. Susan Rice calls it "integration." What she means is that the United States is just another country, like Kenya, like Morocco, like India. On moral grounds, we should only act as part of a concert of nations, expressing the collective will of a mostly non-European community of mankind. It's the opposite of American exceptionalism.
It is said that President Kennedy wept for his country when he contemplated the consequences of the defeat at the Bay of Pigs. I wonder if anyone on Susan Rice's staff has had the decency to weep for what has happened to us in Syria.
It reminds me of something Ted Cruz recently said: "This is what a world without America is going to look like."
It is said that President Kennedy wept for his country when he contemplated the consequences of the defeat at the Bay of Pigs. I wonder if anyone on Susan Rice's staff has had the decency to weep for what has happened to us in Syria.
It reminds me of something Ted Cruz recently said: "This is what a world without America is going to look like."
26
Nothing has happened to "us" in Syria and that is the point. Do you want your child to die to liberate Syria? Syria is not Europe in 1945. Europe was rebuilt, along with Japan, because those nations understood what was needed to remain part of the 20th Century. Too much of the Middle East is embroiled in a war from the 12th Century and they have no interest in joining the 21st Century. Until the citizens of the Middle East decide to join the rest of the modern world, with women's rights, civil law and an end to feudalism, there will be little role for American hard power and a long, hard slog just to maintain a lid on the cauldron that exists.
2
Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Thailand, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Somalia, Libya, Tunisia, Israel, Yemen, West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is what the world looks like with American meddling. JFK tried covert and overt action to depose and kill the Castro brothers. JFK began the descent into Vietnam. Neither Cruz nor any of the Republican candidates have ever served in the military.
3
Nothing happened to 'US' in Syria. We did make one mistake with regard to Syria, which I believe increased the Syrian death toll. That was saying, 'Assad must go', which apparently cause some Syrians to believe that there would be an American military deployment - which led them to attack Assad, who of course, then attacked them, leading to a great deal of unnecessary death, and now, a horrific refuge crisis. When will out government lear to keep it's (collective) mouth shut until a decision is made about what to do- or not do.
2
This may indeed be an accurate speech. But former President Jimmy Carter said in June 2015 that he considered President Obama's foreign policy successes to be minimal. I voted for Obama twice, and I think his domestic policies have been admirable. I also strongly opposed invading Iraq. But I also consider Obama's foreign policy to be weakly executed. Is our gradual decline inevitable with the rise of China and India, and the resurgence of Russia? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. I'm guessing if the next President is Clinton or Trump we'll see a change, and then we'll know whether it's a change for the better or worse.
3
"The consequence is that American power still counts but no longer clinches the deal."
The Republicans have a different opinion, which will be tested very early in 2017 if they win the White House -- probably with Iran first, and possibly China. They insist and believe that unilateral American power can still "clinch the deal." We may end up going to war as a result, but this is the primary foreign policy difference between the parties today.
The Republicans have a different opinion, which will be tested very early in 2017 if they win the White House -- probably with Iran first, and possibly China. They insist and believe that unilateral American power can still "clinch the deal." We may end up going to war as a result, but this is the primary foreign policy difference between the parties today.
2
Republican objectives are based on oil. With the drop in oil prices, I doubt that the American People will want to fight another war where-by Haliburton capitalizes by over 950% on the backs of over 75,000 American casualties. Especially since Haliburton moved to the Middle-East to avoid taxes, and stiff the American people for another $20 Billion of their revenue.
If only we had learned this restraint earlier! Our meddling all over the world to push short-sighted strategic interests, coddling authoritarian states and dictators to sate our addiction to oil and resources, choosing winners and losers in centuries-old civil wars, disrupting regimes, etc are all coming to roost. In this inter-dependent, information-savvy, 21st century world, neither cold war-style military firepower nor vacuous platitudes can win over folks smart enough to understand our limitations and foreign policy double standards. Kudos to Obama for exercising restraint.
10
Somewhere Albert Einstein is rolling in his grave.
The definition of insanity is continuing to dither in the fantasy that the 2008 Barack Obama ever existed.
Obama was never the antiwar progressive drum major of change who agreed at the 2008 Democratic Primary Debate with Dennis Kucinich to disband the defense department and create a department of peace.
Obama was never going to take office, remove all US troops from the Middle East, and explain the new realities of military interventionism. Obama was never going to say the words liberals longed to hear, that Bush ruined everything over there, it's not fixable so we're getting out of the nation building business.
As a matter of fact, he did just the opposite. As a Black attorney in Washington DC, we have word for someone who pretends to be someone he's not to get what he wants, and then turns out to be the opposite of everything he pretended to be: Obama.
The definition of insanity is continuing to dither in the fantasy that the 2008 Barack Obama ever existed.
Obama was never the antiwar progressive drum major of change who agreed at the 2008 Democratic Primary Debate with Dennis Kucinich to disband the defense department and create a department of peace.
Obama was never going to take office, remove all US troops from the Middle East, and explain the new realities of military interventionism. Obama was never going to say the words liberals longed to hear, that Bush ruined everything over there, it's not fixable so we're getting out of the nation building business.
As a matter of fact, he did just the opposite. As a Black attorney in Washington DC, we have word for someone who pretends to be someone he's not to get what he wants, and then turns out to be the opposite of everything he pretended to be: Obama.
3
During Bush's term over 15,000 American lives were lost in terror attacks, and oil war injuries [battle wounds, suicides, etc. etc. etc.,]. As a White professor, I can clearly state that, because of Obama, America has turned a corner and has been vastly improved. To imply otherwise is pure Republican amnesia.
1
@ DC Barrister. Your post makes absolutely no sense to me. Maybe you were caught up in a 2008 Obama = Jesus fantasy, and reality has crashed it to the ground?
Obama never claimed to be antiwar. He clearly made the distinction between “Afghanistan – the good war” and Iraq, the stupid mistake.
He never said he was going to remove all troops from the ME, but he did pledge to end the war in Iraq, which he did (albeit sending limited troops back in to deal with ISIS, whose existence is directly tied to that stupid war). Of course he didn’t say that Bush ruined everything over there. Would have been accurate, but not diplomatic. However, he practically said the exact thing when he said a big part of his foreign policy was to “not do stupid things”. Who do you think he was talking about?
Your assertion of a bait and switch from Obama is unfounded. I voted for him in 2008 and 2012 and he has been just about everything I thought he would be, much positive than negative.
Obama never claimed to be antiwar. He clearly made the distinction between “Afghanistan – the good war” and Iraq, the stupid mistake.
He never said he was going to remove all troops from the ME, but he did pledge to end the war in Iraq, which he did (albeit sending limited troops back in to deal with ISIS, whose existence is directly tied to that stupid war). Of course he didn’t say that Bush ruined everything over there. Would have been accurate, but not diplomatic. However, he practically said the exact thing when he said a big part of his foreign policy was to “not do stupid things”. Who do you think he was talking about?
Your assertion of a bait and switch from Obama is unfounded. I voted for him in 2008 and 2012 and he has been just about everything I thought he would be, much positive than negative.
2
Roger Cohen has World War II nostalgia, a complaint common among those who wish for more American wars in the Middle East. There hasn't been an intervention or invasion since 1945 that hasn't echoed that high point in American heroism. But it was a unique event, played out among peers, among advanced nation states. All these other opportunities for heroic war that Cohen pines for are quite different, as we painfully learned in Vietnam, Cambodia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Nuclear weapons made war with our peers obsolete. We can war with tiny, poor nations with fervid and arcane causes and commitments, but we'll never "win." We'll be worn down and retreat, once again. It's a lesson Cohen can't learn. Weak policing is probably the best we'll be able to accomplish.
3
Well put Mr. Cohen. Hopefully President Obama will speak to the country with these sentiments in mind plus many more reasons for his policies and educate those who still think that global power only exists in the use of military strength. Unfortunately, the candidates vying for the GOP nomination heavily preach on the use of our military to regain the greatness of America, to which the ignorant consider to be leadership. This group cannot comprehend thoughtful and intelligent policies when blustering demagoguery satisfies them.
This country suffered greatly under GOP intransigence and obstructionism and now the one's who suffered the most turn to those who preach a return to a world that no longer exists.
This country suffered greatly under GOP intransigence and obstructionism and now the one's who suffered the most turn to those who preach a return to a world that no longer exists.
2
Foreign Policy has always been about nuance and tradeoffs, and is always context dependent. This is no longer a bipolar or a unipolar world.
But what hampers us is the electorates' impatience and ignorance, wanting the Hollywood ending, often with guns blazing. And candidates pander to that nonsense.
And mistakes are going to happen, though the purists, especially it seems many on the far left, like to pretend that those mistakes are definitive.
And tradeoffs mean that it's rare that everyone is happy. So, Foreign Policy is a minefield for any President or candidate.
It's a complex world. We hope that adults with sound values, experience, and judgement get elected. The costs of failure are too dire to contemplate.... and we should all be very concerned by the current politic farce playing out around us.
But what hampers us is the electorates' impatience and ignorance, wanting the Hollywood ending, often with guns blazing. And candidates pander to that nonsense.
And mistakes are going to happen, though the purists, especially it seems many on the far left, like to pretend that those mistakes are definitive.
And tradeoffs mean that it's rare that everyone is happy. So, Foreign Policy is a minefield for any President or candidate.
It's a complex world. We hope that adults with sound values, experience, and judgement get elected. The costs of failure are too dire to contemplate.... and we should all be very concerned by the current politic farce playing out around us.
3
The tone of Cohen's previous columns might tempt one to suspect a satirical intent behind this one. The good sense that pervades it, however, convinces me that such is not the case. Taken seriously, Cohen's analysis has explained the American dilemma better than any op-ed piece published in the NYT in some time.
American influence since WWII has always proved most effective when presidents focused on diplomacy and soft power, not the mailed fist. The military did play an important role, as a deterrent to Soviet aggression and as a guarantor of freedom of commerce on the seas. Even in short, limited wars with well-defined goals, such as the first Iraq conflict and the air campaign against the Serbs, America could achieve positive results.
But when presidents depended on the military as the main instrument of foreign policy, we accomplished little at very high cost. The names Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan will not feature in any future triumphal hymns of the armed forces. Only from the perspective of these misadventures can one gain any understanding of Mr. Obama's policy in Syria.
The ultimate impact of his policy in the ME will remain unknown for some time. But the accord with Iran offers at least the possibility of an improvement in relations with that country and thus a reduction of tensions in the region. One can only hope that the November election does not bring a return of the belligerent approach favored by the GOP.
American influence since WWII has always proved most effective when presidents focused on diplomacy and soft power, not the mailed fist. The military did play an important role, as a deterrent to Soviet aggression and as a guarantor of freedom of commerce on the seas. Even in short, limited wars with well-defined goals, such as the first Iraq conflict and the air campaign against the Serbs, America could achieve positive results.
But when presidents depended on the military as the main instrument of foreign policy, we accomplished little at very high cost. The names Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan will not feature in any future triumphal hymns of the armed forces. Only from the perspective of these misadventures can one gain any understanding of Mr. Obama's policy in Syria.
The ultimate impact of his policy in the ME will remain unknown for some time. But the accord with Iran offers at least the possibility of an improvement in relations with that country and thus a reduction of tensions in the region. One can only hope that the November election does not bring a return of the belligerent approach favored by the GOP.
3
Am I the only reader to detect the condescension that drips from this "speech"? A fundamental shift in US policy that has sowed confusion among allies and enemies alike, which itself is a great recipe for chaos and instability, had to be kept "implicit". Apparently, the President was convinced that he could not articulate a convincing vision of his foreign policy and instead hid his intentions from the American public until he achieved his "fait accompli."
Worse, nowhere in the "speech" are we told what in fact are the critical US national interests that need to be protected.
Even the history is wrong. As Cohen should recall, President Truman acquiesced to the post-WWII public demand to "bring our boys home", thereby compromising whatever negotiating leverage we might have had with the Soviet Union. So, the underlying premise of some sort of unquestioned military superiority in 1945 is a myth. And it's a bad idea to ground a novel foreign policy on a false premise.
The US became the West's policeman by default. Europe, for a variety of reasons, was content to live beneath the US security umbrella - effectively outsourcing its security and costs. While the Cold War battle of ideas was won by the West, Europe needs to step up now and help defend its legacy.
For many, the US still stands for a certain idea of personal freedom and that is continuing exceptionalism. Turning our back on the Green Revolution so as not to offend Iran's genocidal theocrats will come back to haunt us.
Worse, nowhere in the "speech" are we told what in fact are the critical US national interests that need to be protected.
Even the history is wrong. As Cohen should recall, President Truman acquiesced to the post-WWII public demand to "bring our boys home", thereby compromising whatever negotiating leverage we might have had with the Soviet Union. So, the underlying premise of some sort of unquestioned military superiority in 1945 is a myth. And it's a bad idea to ground a novel foreign policy on a false premise.
The US became the West's policeman by default. Europe, for a variety of reasons, was content to live beneath the US security umbrella - effectively outsourcing its security and costs. While the Cold War battle of ideas was won by the West, Europe needs to step up now and help defend its legacy.
For many, the US still stands for a certain idea of personal freedom and that is continuing exceptionalism. Turning our back on the Green Revolution so as not to offend Iran's genocidal theocrats will come back to haunt us.
2
"Restraint" might be an accurate word to describe the overall architecture of Obama's foreign policy, but on the ground the Obama administration "works" problems and works them every day subject to new constraints. The goal is avoid future no-win quagmires. Some of the new rules are:
First rule: deployment of conventional American ground forces means you've already lost the war. Deploy the troops, jump into the quagmire. Troops don't rebuild countries; at best they inadvertently destroy them.
Second rule: put American interests first. Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim nations want American troops to do their fighting for them for their goals, not America's. Obama has firmly established a principle that indigenous forces have to do the ground fighting. "If you want it, you fight for it."
Third rule: acknowledge the Big Boots Metric: for every conventional division deployed, $10 to $20 billion in graft and corruption must be spent. The necessary corruption guarantees eventual defeat and withdrawal.
Demonstration of the new American political rule: neither the Congress nor the voters will support major military intervention in the Muslim or African worlds. An intervention in Syria could cost in excess of half a trillion; the public would rebel.
The public looks at the opportunity costs of spending on domestic programs versus foreign military interventions; politicians won't get on the wrong side of the calculation.
First rule: deployment of conventional American ground forces means you've already lost the war. Deploy the troops, jump into the quagmire. Troops don't rebuild countries; at best they inadvertently destroy them.
Second rule: put American interests first. Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim nations want American troops to do their fighting for them for their goals, not America's. Obama has firmly established a principle that indigenous forces have to do the ground fighting. "If you want it, you fight for it."
Third rule: acknowledge the Big Boots Metric: for every conventional division deployed, $10 to $20 billion in graft and corruption must be spent. The necessary corruption guarantees eventual defeat and withdrawal.
Demonstration of the new American political rule: neither the Congress nor the voters will support major military intervention in the Muslim or African worlds. An intervention in Syria could cost in excess of half a trillion; the public would rebel.
The public looks at the opportunity costs of spending on domestic programs versus foreign military interventions; politicians won't get on the wrong side of the calculation.
305
I agree with everything you say so eloquently except "politicians won't get on the wrong side of the calculation".
Our problem is that in our world that tends to read only the headlines and not the content, the 'wrong side of the calculation' often gets bigger headlines which is what the politicians want to boost their egos."
Our problem is that in our world that tends to read only the headlines and not the content, the 'wrong side of the calculation' often gets bigger headlines which is what the politicians want to boost their egos."
Under your second rule, you left out Israel!
The theme that the U.S. can no longer engage in nation building is key. There was a time 100 years ago when Europe, the Middle East, China etc knew little about the U.S.. With global communication everything is in real time. Those in the Middle East do not need to guess what their lives could be like if their countries were mixed race democracies. The fact that they choose another path cannot be blamed on ignorance. If they choose to engage in racial and religious based violence it must be because that is what they want to do. The U.S. needs to work to maintain peace in International territory. They can do this by keeping shipping and airline traffic safe. Beyond that what goes on in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter is the business only of those involved.
Tough choices call for reflection, and for pause, before embarking in an all out war. Things might have been different if Bush/Cheney had not invaded Irak (on false pretenses), as it left a sour taste for further adventurism and even rightful outrage of the injustice perpetrated by a thug (Assad). Obama, in spite of his ill-fated 'red line' backfiring on him, realized he was not ready to topple this criminal without creating chaos in the region. The unraveling of violent inter-tribal fights, once the strongmen (dictators) fell, reminds me of Tito's Yugoslavia, and the mayhem upon his demise, rabid nationalisms, leading the Serbs to kill at will (genocidal, indeed). Last though not least, Obama realized that the indigenous population had to show its willingness to fight the good fight, adopt as their own the extremist islamist (jihadism) destruction, for their own survival. Absent that, invading the Middle East again (troops on the ground) would have defeated the U.S., as Russia was in Afghanistan before. Perhaps, Obama's foreign policies might have been more acceptable if he used his gifted oratory, unfortunately absent, and disallowing the mounting of nasty rumors of defeatism. Perhaps his advisers were too inbred, not allowing some fresh air, new ideas to flourish. Historians will be debating our involvement in foreign affairs for a long time to come, and trust a dignified place is assigned. Still, we ought not rejoice, with all the ongoing suffering at hand.
40
This is a false narrative trying to retrospectively make sense of a chaotic 8 years of foreign policy meanderings. The evidence does not show restraint it only shows confusion.
No president has ever spent more money on the military than Obama and drone strike assassinations are at all time highs. The Middle East is in complete chaos. We have actually been watching genocide in Syria although nobody has called it by it's proper name. We have been all talk to the point where we are just irrelevant. Nobody outside the US cares what President Obama says any longer.
Building bridges to Iran and Cuba is a joke for 8 years of work. Iran may be a complete failure and Cuba only has a chance because Castro is close to dead and they are in pathetic shape. NATO is not in healthy shape and our relationship with Europe is tepid at best. Those alliances are much more important than Iran and Cuba.
It's too bad that we have squandered all this time and money and seen so many lives lost with our loose talk. We could have just cut the military budget to zero for the past 8 years and had about the same effect. Thomas Jefferson projected more power and respect in his time and he didn't even have a Navy or a budget for one when he started.
.
No president has ever spent more money on the military than Obama and drone strike assassinations are at all time highs. The Middle East is in complete chaos. We have actually been watching genocide in Syria although nobody has called it by it's proper name. We have been all talk to the point where we are just irrelevant. Nobody outside the US cares what President Obama says any longer.
Building bridges to Iran and Cuba is a joke for 8 years of work. Iran may be a complete failure and Cuba only has a chance because Castro is close to dead and they are in pathetic shape. NATO is not in healthy shape and our relationship with Europe is tepid at best. Those alliances are much more important than Iran and Cuba.
It's too bad that we have squandered all this time and money and seen so many lives lost with our loose talk. We could have just cut the military budget to zero for the past 8 years and had about the same effect. Thomas Jefferson projected more power and respect in his time and he didn't even have a Navy or a budget for one when he started.
.
55
"The Middle East is in complete chaos."
I remember the night the Senate voted to go to war in Iraq in the fall of 2002. As I listened to the speeches on the radio, I kept shouting: "No! This is the Middle East. This is lighting a torch in a dynamite factory." It was obvious to me, a layperson, that this was no mere ill-conceived American incursion - not Grenada or El Salvador or even Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Philippines.
For 50 years American administrations had managed not to set the Mideast on fire - even after the Iranian Revolution; even after the Kuwait invasion. But the "New American Century" folks who ran the Bush administration's foreign policy had been determined since at least the late 1990s to gain a new client state in the Gulf and to challenge Iran. If the economy had not collapsed in 2008, the plans to gear up for a direct war with Iran would probably not have been stopped, as they were.
Yes, the Middle East is in chaos. It sure is. The death toll, the destruction of ancient civilizations is beyond measure.
But to place this at Obama's door is a mere Republican talking point. If you set the Mideast on fire, chaos is what follows.
I remember the night the Senate voted to go to war in Iraq in the fall of 2002. As I listened to the speeches on the radio, I kept shouting: "No! This is the Middle East. This is lighting a torch in a dynamite factory." It was obvious to me, a layperson, that this was no mere ill-conceived American incursion - not Grenada or El Salvador or even Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Philippines.
For 50 years American administrations had managed not to set the Mideast on fire - even after the Iranian Revolution; even after the Kuwait invasion. But the "New American Century" folks who ran the Bush administration's foreign policy had been determined since at least the late 1990s to gain a new client state in the Gulf and to challenge Iran. If the economy had not collapsed in 2008, the plans to gear up for a direct war with Iran would probably not have been stopped, as they were.
Yes, the Middle East is in chaos. It sure is. The death toll, the destruction of ancient civilizations is beyond measure.
But to place this at Obama's door is a mere Republican talking point. If you set the Mideast on fire, chaos is what follows.
4
Obama's foreign policy is little more than a series of narratives: Pivot to Asia. AQ on the run. ISIS contained geographically. Airstrikes flown.
The narratives are much tougher than the reality behind them. He has created an illusion of activity with few actual accomplishments.
Every now and then his narratives are blown apart by reality -- ex., Benghazi's video, war hero Bergdahl, Syria's red line.
The narratives are much tougher than the reality behind them. He has created an illusion of activity with few actual accomplishments.
Every now and then his narratives are blown apart by reality -- ex., Benghazi's video, war hero Bergdahl, Syria's red line.
1
the writer seems to have forgotten the costs of both the Afgan and Iraq wars and the trillions they continue to cost...in both lives and dollars.
2
You say, "No president wants to make a speech called “The Consequences of the End of the American Century.” It’s political suicide."
This is no secret to foreign policy and political science professionals on the right or the left and to all citizens who can follow logic and have long memories. Everyone in this country prefers the spread of democracy around the world. However, the financial, human and political costs of war and regime change are acceptable only in the short-term. This political reality requires a measured approach.
This is no secret to foreign policy and political science professionals on the right or the left and to all citizens who can follow logic and have long memories. Everyone in this country prefers the spread of democracy around the world. However, the financial, human and political costs of war and regime change are acceptable only in the short-term. This political reality requires a measured approach.
171
"Everyone in this country prefers the spread of democracy around the world." However, can anybody tell me about even one instance where we helped overthrow a government where the result was anything resembling a democracy? I certainly can't.
31
South Korea, Germany, Japan, Italy. Enough Said?
1
"Every...prefers the spread of democracy around the world." Perhaps but history has proven that we are often not pleased with the voting records of people "around the world."
1
The only problem is US defence spending at $600 bil has not only not decreased, it has increased under Obama from the already monstrous levels of the Bush administration. How is that consistent with restraint and realignment to domestic priorities ?
7
It's unclear to me how you would rather things be done. It's pretty obvious, or should be, that one reason we have stayed safe for so long is our ability to protect ourselves and to aggress against those who threaten us. Having a big stick is not the same as using it - often just having that big stick is enough to keep the bullies away. Isn't that obvious?
Possibly the biggest strategic omission of the US Foreign Policy in the last 8 years - and quite longer - was allowing all its natural allies to methodically and progressively reduce their military capabilities , getting weaker . That forced America to effectively stand alone on ALL fronts , a job way too heavy and too costly , even for a super superpower .
Consider Germany , Britain , France , Japan , Korea . America should have demanded of them to invest more and rebuild their military power and assume more regional responsibility . Instead , they were - and are - getting a free ride on American might , masquerading as "Allies" , but truly lacking in teeth or influence . Do Putin , China , Iran and others take any of them seriously in the international arena ? Not really .
Yes , there were token involvements here and there , but they were tiny and hardly meaningful .
However , imagine a much stronger Japan and Korea taking part in the Pacific front , assisting the USA in its China policy .
Imagine more muscular Germany , France and Britain taking a more active roll in the Middle East , reducing the need for American military .
With stronger and more active allies , President Obama could have managed a more effective EXPLICIT Foreign Policy . When choosing not to demand more strength and more resulting involvement from those who could - and should - help , there was no other choice for America but to maintain an IMPLICIT and more reserved Foreign Policy .
Consider Germany , Britain , France , Japan , Korea . America should have demanded of them to invest more and rebuild their military power and assume more regional responsibility . Instead , they were - and are - getting a free ride on American might , masquerading as "Allies" , but truly lacking in teeth or influence . Do Putin , China , Iran and others take any of them seriously in the international arena ? Not really .
Yes , there were token involvements here and there , but they were tiny and hardly meaningful .
However , imagine a much stronger Japan and Korea taking part in the Pacific front , assisting the USA in its China policy .
Imagine more muscular Germany , France and Britain taking a more active roll in the Middle East , reducing the need for American military .
With stronger and more active allies , President Obama could have managed a more effective EXPLICIT Foreign Policy . When choosing not to demand more strength and more resulting involvement from those who could - and should - help , there was no other choice for America but to maintain an IMPLICIT and more reserved Foreign Policy .
4
"It's the economy, stupid."
What a wildly useful concept.
Military might and foreign influence come from economic strength. We have to be able to afford intervention, and people must want us to intervene. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we are not in a binary world of of influence. The world has changed, the economies have changed. We have changed.
We cannot just wave a big foam finger, and shout "We're number one!" and make it so. Adjusting to being part of the world rather than most of the world is the primary challenge our leaders need to oversee. And so far, we don't have a lot of them who understand this.
What a wildly useful concept.
Military might and foreign influence come from economic strength. We have to be able to afford intervention, and people must want us to intervene. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, we are not in a binary world of of influence. The world has changed, the economies have changed. We have changed.
We cannot just wave a big foam finger, and shout "We're number one!" and make it so. Adjusting to being part of the world rather than most of the world is the primary challenge our leaders need to oversee. And so far, we don't have a lot of them who understand this.
3
The speech would require humility. That quality is lacking in the current President.
It would also require time (which is also in short supply - as the President lounges through his remaining time in the White House).
It would also require time (which is also in short supply - as the President lounges through his remaining time in the White House).
4
I heartily disagree. Pres. Obama's speeches are a model of restraint and respect present in those of a few other politicians. Can you name one?. He is polite to a fault and this is sometimes equated with weakness.
The bluster and lack of respect coupled with a total lack of substance in the speech of most of Mr. Obama's detractors makes me wonder if some sort of "political license" shouldn't be required to run for office. Physicians, contractors, teachers, and many others are required to demonstrate competence before they practice their respective disciplines. (Can you imagine a physician who would just say no to a vital treatment for his patient because the patient was of a different political party?) Name-calling, bluster and lies are what passes today for political discourse.
Pres. Obama is probably the hardest working POTUS this country has seen in recent times. The image of Obama's "lounging through his remaining time in the White House" is almost as absurd as the writers first assertion that the President lacks humility. Granted he did have the audacity to get elected.
The bluster and lack of respect coupled with a total lack of substance in the speech of most of Mr. Obama's detractors makes me wonder if some sort of "political license" shouldn't be required to run for office. Physicians, contractors, teachers, and many others are required to demonstrate competence before they practice their respective disciplines. (Can you imagine a physician who would just say no to a vital treatment for his patient because the patient was of a different political party?) Name-calling, bluster and lies are what passes today for political discourse.
Pres. Obama is probably the hardest working POTUS this country has seen in recent times. The image of Obama's "lounging through his remaining time in the White House" is almost as absurd as the writers first assertion that the President lacks humility. Granted he did have the audacity to get elected.
1
It might have been added that other countries, and especially our European allies need to step up and play a greater role in situations where they have the more significant interest. Historically the problem as been whenever the U.S. steps up, they step back....let the U.S. suffer the human loss, carry the economic load, deal with the resulting quagmire and instability. The problem of Islamic terrorism is not a U.S. problem alone, and the refuge flow from Syria, North Africa, etc. stands as proof that Europe has a greater need in solving these problems then we do. Do to proximity they have a greater stake in Russian equanimity then we do. Yes we should support them, but no we should not always have to take the lead.
3
Roger, Why don't you care about the murder rate in Chicago, and the children being shot and dying there? Isn't that a warzone? Why don't you care about the families of Flint, Michigan, who might need to relocate because their natural resources -- water -- has been contaminated to the point they likely should leave their homes?
Why do you think the people of the world are more important than our American brothers and sisters? The president owes no one an apology. Why do you think America needs to spend times on the problems of other countries when we have our own that need addressing?
Where do you live when you stay in America, anyway? Are your children all foreign-educated like you?
Why do you think the people of the world are more important than our American brothers and sisters? The president owes no one an apology. Why do you think America needs to spend times on the problems of other countries when we have our own that need addressing?
Where do you live when you stay in America, anyway? Are your children all foreign-educated like you?
2
Sometimes, doing nothing works. Anyway, he was busy working on his green legacy, but now the courts are getting in the way, maybe Cuba will have to be his legacy.
2
Makes so much sense to me. But two questions: 1. would building a refugee city along the Syrian-Turkish border under a no fly zone be sustainable? I'm sure the Europeans and Saudis would be glad to pay for it to stem the refugee tide and prepare for the return of refugees to their homes in Syria if peace is achieved. And 2. Why doesn't Obama give this speech?
5
"...and let us also not forget that we are reaping what we have sown. Our foreign policy since WWII has been ostensibly protecting freedom and democracy in the world--that was the narrative we fed to the American public. But our true foreign policy has been that of the think tanks as revealed by the Pentagon Papers: a real-politik aimed at securing American hegemony and control of world markets. The discrepancy between this real and avowed foreign policy has made us odious in the eyes of the world, and this too has weakened our influence."
11
"Tough love for Israel." This speech may be hypothetical by design, but it's hardly a secret that Obama detests Bibi Netanyahu and was sorely disappointed when Israelis went to the polls last March and re-elected Netanyahu as Prime Minister (warts and all) anyhow. And Obama has the gall to pride himself on restraint when he did everything he could to influence in the outcome of the Israeli elections?
After reading the rest of this cringe worthy foreign policy address is it any wonder that Donald Trump has taken such a commanding lead in the GOP race? Is it any wonder that Trump's message of "making America great again" is resonating with average voters who are sick and tired over the fact that Obama turned America into an international laughingstock. Hopefully, the days when America is nothing more than a helpless giant piñata will be over soon.
After reading the rest of this cringe worthy foreign policy address is it any wonder that Donald Trump has taken such a commanding lead in the GOP race? Is it any wonder that Trump's message of "making America great again" is resonating with average voters who are sick and tired over the fact that Obama turned America into an international laughingstock. Hopefully, the days when America is nothing more than a helpless giant piñata will be over soon.
1
sorry - no a laughingstock at all. in fact the prior president transformed US policy from considered to aggressive and looked to all the world like a cowboy. we are back where we should be.
3
The key to any rational foreign policy is to correctly evaluate and characterize what is really going on globally. What has occurred in most "developing countries" since WWII is a breathtakingly rapid population growth that has far outstripped these countries' ability to support their populations. This has destabilized their political and social structures. The only political form possible becomes dictatorship, pure administrative power is necessary to keep the teeming masses under control.
This teeming, faceless humanity becomes the seedbed of radical ideologies, as we know fundamentalist Islam has taken on this role in giving these masses a rationale for their existence.
President Obama knows that attempting to assert American control over the many global hotbeds is simply impossible, the best the (still relatively stable) developed world can do is to practice containment. From the Bush/Iraq disaster we know what happens when the US attempts to do anything beyond containment.
This teeming, faceless humanity becomes the seedbed of radical ideologies, as we know fundamentalist Islam has taken on this role in giving these masses a rationale for their existence.
President Obama knows that attempting to assert American control over the many global hotbeds is simply impossible, the best the (still relatively stable) developed world can do is to practice containment. From the Bush/Iraq disaster we know what happens when the US attempts to do anything beyond containment.
7
But I thought Paul Ehrlich was totally wrong about that population thing, big time, as Donald would say. And climate change- can't be anything to that either.
Actually I think Renaldo is on to something here.
Actually I think Renaldo is on to something here.
1
Great article Roger. The key statement:
'My priority was to avoid overreach in the use of American power, adjust our ambitions to the realities of the world and devote resources to neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, inequality and health care.'
I, and I believe many Americans, feel that way. It's really time to take care of our own.
'My priority was to avoid overreach in the use of American power, adjust our ambitions to the realities of the world and devote resources to neglected domestic priorities including infrastructure, inequality and health care.'
I, and I believe many Americans, feel that way. It's really time to take care of our own.
14
The doctrine of restraint as practised by President Obama in his foreign policy, and his willingness to change the strategic priorities and goals accordingly in the changed world of the post-cold war era if signal the end of Pax-Americana, it also marks a bold move on the part of Obama to so recalibrate the US foreign policy choices as to best serve the country's interests abroad without compromising the domestic priorities of peace and development. It will be a while before America realises the importance of Obama's much needed course correction towards moderation from the hitherto practised disastrous and reckless foreign policy pursuits by his predecessors.
65
The end of Pax Americana might be a good thing in the short term, but when Putin's nibbles in Eastern Europe turn into bites, and the Baltic states are being harassed inside and out, and a Russo-Iranian-Iraq-Syrian alliance sits astride the Middle East, and China begins to dominate Vietnamese and Japanese waters, and Kim Jong Un threatens to turn Seoul or Tokyo into glass and has the means to do it...who ya gonna call? Ghostbusters?
2
The US' multilateral foreign policy stance that combines a mix of diplomacy and hard power as being currently done seems perhaps a right response to the Russian, Chinese or the Iranians influence seeking geopolitical moves.
The primary limit on American power today is the gigantic waste of that power.
That gigantic waste was urged by Cohen and like minded, such as Friedman, based on lies spread by the likes of Judith Miller.
That gigantic waste was opposed by Obama. He did everything he could to stop it -- ineffectively, as it turned out, but not by Obama's preferences.
The foreign policy establishment did everything it could to force his hand to continue the waste. Cohen was part of forcing that waste, as was Hillary as Sec of State. They succeeded.
The permanent national security state that defines what is a "serious person" managed to define the limits of the possible.
Cohen played a role in that. Now he decries the damage he helped do.
America without the burden of those foolish adventures would still stand astride the world in unmatched power potential, and would be the uncontested leader. That is what was wasted.
It was not Obama or his vision that wasted it. It was those like Cohen and their vision that wasted it.
So now he writes a speech putting in Obama's mouth a confession to doing what Cohen himself helped do, not Obama.
This could not be more wrong.
That gigantic waste was urged by Cohen and like minded, such as Friedman, based on lies spread by the likes of Judith Miller.
That gigantic waste was opposed by Obama. He did everything he could to stop it -- ineffectively, as it turned out, but not by Obama's preferences.
The foreign policy establishment did everything it could to force his hand to continue the waste. Cohen was part of forcing that waste, as was Hillary as Sec of State. They succeeded.
The permanent national security state that defines what is a "serious person" managed to define the limits of the possible.
Cohen played a role in that. Now he decries the damage he helped do.
America without the burden of those foolish adventures would still stand astride the world in unmatched power potential, and would be the uncontested leader. That is what was wasted.
It was not Obama or his vision that wasted it. It was those like Cohen and their vision that wasted it.
So now he writes a speech putting in Obama's mouth a confession to doing what Cohen himself helped do, not Obama.
This could not be more wrong.
86
Why is Cohen publishing an imaginary speech which is in opposition to what he himself (Cohen) often advocates, that is intervention in the Middle East? Does he expect to get credit for being on both sides of the question?
18
Unfortunately the only category where we lead the world left to us is military power. That being the case we have relied upon it too much. It hasn't worked. When you listen those who feel a need to show our "exceptionalism" with wars and conflict, all we accomplish is death and destruction. When the only "tool" you have is a hammer, all the problems in the world look like "nails".
1
Yes, "In 2016, we have no business building other nations"
Missing
But we have to take responsibility for our past mistakes, starting with accepting those refugees we created by invading Iraq
Other than that, excellent.
Missing
But we have to take responsibility for our past mistakes, starting with accepting those refugees we created by invading Iraq
Other than that, excellent.
5
No, you are wrong. We are not responsible for taking in refugees from Syria due to our misguided war in Iraq. They are separate countries, and separate conflicts.
What apologists such as yourself refuse to acknowledge ignore is that these people themselves have responsibility for their actions. As idiotic as dubya's misadventure in Iraq was, it gave the Iraqis a blank slate, an opportunity to create any kind of civil society they wanted. Instead, they chose religious civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocidal murder. NOT our fault,
Note that, by your thinking, you should be arguing that Britain and France should be taking in refugees because they so poorly drew borders after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
What apologists such as yourself refuse to acknowledge ignore is that these people themselves have responsibility for their actions. As idiotic as dubya's misadventure in Iraq was, it gave the Iraqis a blank slate, an opportunity to create any kind of civil society they wanted. Instead, they chose religious civil war, ethnic cleansing and genocidal murder. NOT our fault,
Note that, by your thinking, you should be arguing that Britain and France should be taking in refugees because they so poorly drew borders after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.
There was a time when sending a few warships to a boisterous country was sufficient to quell the disturbance. Such domination is always based on the relative power of the entities involved. What we have now is that even a small country cannot be dictated on because it has the means by which to offer reasonable resistance and it will make you pay for your intervention. We have overwhelming firing power and, if we wanted, we could lay wast a whole country. But short of this madness, we can no longer impose our will, even when we have spent years, lives and resources. Moreover, there is the problem of on how fronts are we willing to spread ourselves. For some, it is painful to accept that we are no longer the power of 1945. So each situation must be considered singly: can we sustain the loss of lives, can be afford to spend our treasure, what are the chances of success, what important strategic interest of ours is threatened. A generation ago, Tom Lehrer satirized the propensity of the US to get involved everywhere by singing:
"When in doubt, send in the Marines". Well, the Marines can no longer solve our problems.
"When in doubt, send in the Marines". Well, the Marines can no longer solve our problems.
44
The cost of being the world's police force is too high financially and in terms of deaths of Americans. This is true especially as the multi-national corporations, our military protects, move else where to pay lower taxes. Apple IP to Ireland for example. We need a new financial model if we are to continue to "walk the beat" worldwide.
28
If not now, when?
If not us,who?
The entire planet is breaking into two zones of stability and chaos. It may not be possible for America to stem the tide of the spreading chaos. Does that means we should not try? There are other means of trying besides military force. Is there a level of chaos where military force is justified? There used to be.
For decades now, the US has unjustly used military force not to prevent chaos, but to create it. We destabilized vast areas of the planet for political and economic gain. We disguised our actions as being motivated by humanitarian concerns. They were not. The body count of world dead since Viet Nam numbers in the millions. Trillions have been lost.
Now, the world is facing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Africa and southern Asia are at constant war. Famine, thirst and disease are rampant through these regions. Religious extremists are plunging these areas into barbarism and horrible brutality.
The problem is so huge that we say it's not our problem. It's their problem. They have to sort it out.
OK. Then let them die. Let the chaos unfold.
But consider this. Our world is comprised of the sum of its parts. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rising tide of barbarity. We are one community. As barbarism spreads, the sanctity of life everywhere is cheapened. As it becomes excusable to let babies die over there, babies can die over here. They already are. We shoot them.
If not us,who?
The entire planet is breaking into two zones of stability and chaos. It may not be possible for America to stem the tide of the spreading chaos. Does that means we should not try? There are other means of trying besides military force. Is there a level of chaos where military force is justified? There used to be.
For decades now, the US has unjustly used military force not to prevent chaos, but to create it. We destabilized vast areas of the planet for political and economic gain. We disguised our actions as being motivated by humanitarian concerns. They were not. The body count of world dead since Viet Nam numbers in the millions. Trillions have been lost.
Now, the world is facing a humanitarian crisis of biblical proportions. Africa and southern Asia are at constant war. Famine, thirst and disease are rampant through these regions. Religious extremists are plunging these areas into barbarism and horrible brutality.
The problem is so huge that we say it's not our problem. It's their problem. They have to sort it out.
OK. Then let them die. Let the chaos unfold.
But consider this. Our world is comprised of the sum of its parts. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rising tide of barbarity. We are one community. As barbarism spreads, the sanctity of life everywhere is cheapened. As it becomes excusable to let babies die over there, babies can die over here. They already are. We shoot them.
13
"Does that means we should not try?" These are not sporting events where a great try that failed can be wonderful. A failed military intervention, no matter the effort and good intentions, causes more harm than good.
2
I'm all for helping the rest of the world as soon as our own house is in order. At the moment we have enough problems in our own country to take care of. I resent spending money that we could use to help our own citizens on third world countries that, after we leave, decide they hate us.
2
Another call for the use of the men & women in our military. Get all the young men & women in your family to enlist, then all of your friends kids enlist. Now that all those you care about are in uniform, let us know if you want them shipped off to fight a war with no end in sight!
1
"The consequence is that American power still counts but no longer clinches the deal. "
--- It sure "clinched the deal" in Vietnam & Cambodia!
--- It sure "clinched the deal" in Vietnam & Cambodia!
37
What on earth could you possibly mean by this?
Well said. I appreciate the President's restraint. Just make a list of the problem areas in the article. It is long; many of those places are quagmires; two of them we fought long and hard loosing thousands of young Americans to questionable ends far short of anything even remotely resembling peace and stability. AND the article does not even mention North Korea, China or the myriad dictatorships and wars in sub-Saharan Africa with which the POTUS must deal.
It is a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow, but we can no longer be the defender of the free world and the leader in all fights. Many Americans will not accept that, which means many more young Americans will die in various unwinnable wars which last years and end in useless outcomes. I always find it ironic that many of the most bellicose among us expect someone else's children to fight the battles. I actually favor re-instituting the draft not because I believe we need more wars, but because I think there is value in required service for all. Interestingly, many of those who tout "American exceptionalism" and believe that aggressive confrontation should be the backbone of our foreign policy do not support the draft because their bravado also assumes that the dying will be done by someone else.
It is a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow, but we can no longer be the defender of the free world and the leader in all fights. Many Americans will not accept that, which means many more young Americans will die in various unwinnable wars which last years and end in useless outcomes. I always find it ironic that many of the most bellicose among us expect someone else's children to fight the battles. I actually favor re-instituting the draft not because I believe we need more wars, but because I think there is value in required service for all. Interestingly, many of those who tout "American exceptionalism" and believe that aggressive confrontation should be the backbone of our foreign policy do not support the draft because their bravado also assumes that the dying will be done by someone else.
207
You do realize he is taking pot-shots at the President, do you not?
Absolutely right about the draft and there should be no exceptions for those in school or who are married or for anything else.
Does the world apologist mean anything to you Roger? Factual or not, the spectacle of a journalist writing this is disturbing on several levels related to your and the Times's independence and the President's disinterested approach to leadership. How is this any different from propaganda?
8
It is an opinion piece, DP. You are free, of course, to disagree but freedom of speech and journalism means Mr. Cohen is also free to state his ideas. I don't see apology here. I see pragmatism. Are you willing to go and die in Syria or fighting ISIS? I hear they are recruiting freedom fighters on the sides which Americans say they support (if you can clearly figure out which is the right "side"). If you are not willing to die for Syrians or Iraqis, it is hypocritical to propose sending others to die for your opinions.
32
Our president is too knowledgable and nuanced for the citizenry to understand. Same as Abraham Lincoln was. Lincoln gave his life and many others to preserve our nation. May not Obama be trying his best to save the world? Thank you, Mr. President for your wisdom.
9
This is an op-ed. That means its his opinion.
1
Kudos Roger, a column from my erudite friend that accurately describes the dilemma America finds itself in after enduring the financial fraud and starting of a war that has all but destroyed the Middle East during the Bush years with help from the Clintons on both fronts: Bill, on whose watch Glass Steagall was dropped, allowing the banksters to spread their seeds of mass destruction and with respect to our "Chameleon in Residence "Hillary she voted for the most unnecessary, costly war in two generations; had the trillions spent on that insane war been spent on rebuilding America we would find all of our citizens once again competitive in a changing world and America ready to face the challenges faced at home and abroad. Instead we have had eight years of manipulation of the monetary system by the fed to aide and abet the criminals on Wall Street producing nothing other than the next bubble waiting to pop and a future faced by the responsible among us of negative returns on our meager savings(NIRP). Oh and Roger I feel it is disingenuous at best to imply there was any legitimacy to the overthrow of Egypts first duly elected President, this was plain and simple a coup, much like the one in Ukraine engineered by us to benefit our "friend" in the M.E. There's an expression in Yiddish Roger that might sum up our foreign policy mistakes in the M.E., "with friends like this who needs enemies". Our President as well as Bernie recognize the need for restraint and rethink.
56
With regard to Clinton repealing Glass-Steagall, you're falling prey to the right wing media campaign. The congressional vote for G-S was: House 83%; Senate 91%. In other words, veto proof majorities. And, the act was not the "repeal Glass-Steagall Act," but rather the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. Note that these three were all Republican Senators and the act was the accomplishment of long-term Republican goal.
2
Seems the money giant is jumping out of his box. Is there no one but Obama who understands the plaint of but a few trying to keep him there? I do agree that Glass Steagal (?sp) was the genesis of the horror now about to descend upon us.
1
" The pendulum swings — and American adventurism may well make a comeback with my successor."
I think we can pretty well guarantee it if a Republican wins the White House.
I think we can pretty well guarantee it if a Republican wins the White House.
75
Obama's approach was the correct approach with regard to avoiding any more new military engagements, albeit he couldn't bring himself to extricate us from Afghanistan or Iraq completely. If Clinton is elected, she'll reject his approach - as she has already - and we'll be locked in undeclared, draining battles all over the globe; America will be in tatters because of her demonstrably poor judgment, her irrational animosity toward Russia, her desire to placate the military industrial complex, her abject "greed is good" philosophy, her biased view of Israel, and her blatant disregard for both average American wallets and American military lives. Her presidency would all but assure our nation's demise.
War has the most devastating of consequences to any nation that elects to indulge in it. America is still suffering, and will for at least another generation over the toll that Iraq and Afghanistan has taken. Bernie Sanders understands the importance of avoiding violent conflict; even Trump understands it. But not Hillary Clinton. Of all of the candidates, she is the most likely to engage in military combat. Perhaps it's her need to prove something; perhaps it's just her desire to dominate. Whatever the reason, she is insincere when she equates herself to Obama's presidency. Clinton seems to desire global power, and that would come with a terrible cost. She wanted a no fly zone in Syria; never forget that. The consequence would have been unimaginable for America.
War has the most devastating of consequences to any nation that elects to indulge in it. America is still suffering, and will for at least another generation over the toll that Iraq and Afghanistan has taken. Bernie Sanders understands the importance of avoiding violent conflict; even Trump understands it. But not Hillary Clinton. Of all of the candidates, she is the most likely to engage in military combat. Perhaps it's her need to prove something; perhaps it's just her desire to dominate. Whatever the reason, she is insincere when she equates herself to Obama's presidency. Clinton seems to desire global power, and that would come with a terrible cost. She wanted a no fly zone in Syria; never forget that. The consequence would have been unimaginable for America.
43
I don't believe any of this for a second. Just Sanders propaganda.
And you don't see the glaring paradox?
How can Obama be avoiding any new military engagements, while simultaneously deploying US troops to countries he couldn't bring himself to "extricate" us from? Obama has deployed US combat forces in Syria and Libya, both constitution new military engagements.
What Obama has done over the last 7 years is conduct neocon chickenhawk nation building war on the down low, with the news media refusing to speak above a whisper about it.
Obama is a disgrace.
How can Obama be avoiding any new military engagements, while simultaneously deploying US troops to countries he couldn't bring himself to "extricate" us from? Obama has deployed US combat forces in Syria and Libya, both constitution new military engagements.
What Obama has done over the last 7 years is conduct neocon chickenhawk nation building war on the down low, with the news media refusing to speak above a whisper about it.
Obama is a disgrace.
2
Ms. Carolyn, I wish you'd cease pillorying Hillery.
You are beginning to make me love her.
And I really did not want that.
You are beginning to make me love her.
And I really did not want that.
1
Obama’s quandary is understandable. As president it would mot behoove him to herald the demise of United States hegemony. However, the appraisal of the malaise of western society is vastly understated. Roger Cohen believes that a more apt policy could assuage a process that is historically inevitable. The world order is crumbling. Only politicians continue to assert the slogans and antiquated precepts of world that no longer exists. A generation has evolved that no longer believes in the dreams of the past. A more aggressive posture can only hasten the disintegration. A “hands off” policy will simply allow the process to run its course.
A far reaching approach would be to plan the rehabilitation of the oncoming chaos.
A far reaching approach would be to plan the rehabilitation of the oncoming chaos.
7
Oswald Spengler <-> Casandra. We are doomed to succumb to simplistic chest-beating nativism. Thus it ever was.
America has not withdrawn from the world stage, but pivoted to respond to the realities pointed out by Mr. Cohen. Yet these realities are somewhat self-inflicted. Spending a trillion dollars trying to get 18 and 19 year old Marines to help bring an end to sectarian conflicts older than America is about the dumbest, most ignorant attempt at foreign policy this country has seen. Republican talk about the President's weakness. What they don't want to understand is that the President is constrained by their weaknesses. We would still be the preeminent power in the world if not for them. It was Reagan and the Bushes who blew up the deficit. It was Bush II who wasted obscene sums of money on Iraq. Imagine what a trillion dollars would have done for our schools, our infrastructure, our criminal justice system, higher education, or health care. Our interminable Middle Eastern safari has now committed us to more conflict in the once-Fertile Crescent. It has forced us to develop counter-insurgency capabilities when we need rapid deployment and naval forces to challenge Russia and China. What do these Republicans propose? More conflict, more belligerence, and more embarrassment. Our power is rooted in our economy, our financial health, our military power, and the integrity and principle to rally the world to our side. All of these have been gutted by conservatives. They wouldn't know the meaning of American power even if it hit them with a pointless drone strike.
388
Did you hear the recent comment by Laurent Fabius (socialist)? Accusing the US of "ambiguity" and lack of leadership? It's not simple.
America has been universally rejected as universal custodian and advocate of humanity wide noble objectives and as policeman.Except where needed as ultimate protector, i.e. W Europe, it has and its imperialism and submission to Zionism has been unanimously rejected by all particularly in the Arab /Moslem world where it has become the alter ego of their prime enemy : Israel!
1
"In 2016, we have no business building other nations. It is for them to decide their fates."
So then, why, Mr. Cohen, have you been so critical of our policy toward Syria? If the USA should not be in the business of nation-building, why would we aggressively seek Assad's removal and then walk away leaving the chips to fall where they may? My point is that there is no point to forcibly ousting Assad if we are not willing to engage in nation-building. Now, the question of whether or not to engage in an effort to build a new Syria is another issue. Personally, I see doing so as a dead end with no end of problems for the USA. Current diplomatic efforts to end the fighting and increased humanitarian assistance is the only sensible response to the Syrian issue at this point in time.
So then, why, Mr. Cohen, have you been so critical of our policy toward Syria? If the USA should not be in the business of nation-building, why would we aggressively seek Assad's removal and then walk away leaving the chips to fall where they may? My point is that there is no point to forcibly ousting Assad if we are not willing to engage in nation-building. Now, the question of whether or not to engage in an effort to build a new Syria is another issue. Personally, I see doing so as a dead end with no end of problems for the USA. Current diplomatic efforts to end the fighting and increased humanitarian assistance is the only sensible response to the Syrian issue at this point in time.
49
Wonderful article. This is an excellent summary of President Obama's foreign policy of restraint. We obviously cannot be policeman of the world. The savings of lives and money under this policy are immeasurable.
47
Is this actually Neville Chamberlain?
Whether explicit or implicit, I am grateful we have a President who avoided dragging us into the middle of the great, likely multi-generational, and bloody Shia - Sunni conflagration.
252
So this would be a bad time to tell you Obama has been deploying US combat forces all over the Middle East his entire presidency?
1
What was Libya?
1
Nobody expects us to solve the Shia-Sunni problem. That's not the issue. The issue is that when you make a commitment, you have to honor it. Otherwise, the consequences can be horrendous.
This is in my view a clear and accurate explanation of a smart, realistic and ultimately most effective foreign policy. One could in fact argue that the 'limits' to American might were always there. The clear cold calculus must lead one to the conclusion that the jingoistic adventures in Iraq of Obama's predecessor are in fact the ones that have laid bare the limits of American influence, if not military might, for all the world to plainly see. If 1945 is to be considered the time when we were at the top of such might, then one must remember the FDR precept to 'talk softly but carry a heavy stick'. That precept was disastrously discarded for the opposite, namely to shout loudly but then not have the will or foresight to recognize that a lot stick using would be required. So, in conclusion, what this article ought to have further pointed out that despite our formidable arsenal, it is smart negotiation that made us powerful and indispensable. FDR, Ike, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush Sr. and now Obama got that. Not many others who have sat in that Oval Office did....
27
Actually, it was Theodore Roosevelt who said it was important to speak softly but carry a big stick.
7
That was Teddy Roosevelt, not FDR speaking of speech & sticks. Ike was also wise in fearing the military-industrial complex. The problem is that wars create large profits for military based industries and the executives & shareholders of these businesses.The longer wars go on the profits roll in. It's time to accept that wars are the customers for military profiteers and a few thousand deaths of young people dying is part of the overhead and another uncounted and unrecognized economic externality.
1
It was Theodore Roosevelt who said "Speak softly but carry a big stick," not FDR. But otherwise I agree with you: American power has limitations, especially when the goal is to control another nation's destiny when that nation has modern armaments and contains partisans of extreme ideologies supported by other nations with modern armaments and lots of money.
All true and I am glad of it.
24
No, it is anything BUT true; if obama did not want to back up his redlines in syria - HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SAID IT.
He is the one who has set himself up as a phony/fraud/dilletante with no backbone, by making these lofty speeches about protecting democracy seekers and then walking out on them, whether in iran or in syria.
He is the one who has set himself up as a phony/fraud/dilletante with no backbone, by making these lofty speeches about protecting democracy seekers and then walking out on them, whether in iran or in syria.
1
I wish that were Obama's thinking but it isn't. I can understand the difficulty for the President to admit defeat in conflicts he inherited, but I can't forgive his starting new ones. Why did the US government need to cook up a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, with the goal of bringing it into NATO? This was bound to be unacceptable to Russia, and by escalating the conflict we are flirting with disaster. Why did our government join with its most unsavory Militant Islamist allies to start a bloody civil war in Syria, and why does it continue to feed the flames? The US became a blatantly criminal rogue state under Bush, and Obama has kept it on this course, except that we have not put large numbers of our own troops into these wars of choice. Mr Cohen finds that regrettable. Is he ready to send his own family members into the fight?
3
@Paul Easton
The United States didn't cook up anything in Ukraine, the Ukrainians did that themselves--your conspiracy theories notwithstanding. The US also didn't start the civil war in Syria, Assad did when he used excessive deadly force against protesters.
The United States didn't cook up anything in Ukraine, the Ukrainians did that themselves--your conspiracy theories notwithstanding. The US also didn't start the civil war in Syria, Assad did when he used excessive deadly force against protesters.
1
this has points of the speech given to the UN last year, and implicit policy only appears as indecisive. Implicit means restraint as the Middle East continues to churn and settle down, where its own nations have the responsibility to set things right. It's slow, for sure, but 100 years after WW I the battle lines (post-Ottoman borders) remain. And hearts and minds generally have grown colder, with power shifts occurring regularly. Just keep an eye out for pockets of hope!
1
Perfect... exactly represents Obama's thinking... and you know you'll never hear him make those claims because they represent the cultural antithesis of the majority of macho-gun toting electorate.
70
Perhaps you will hear President Obama make those remarks if he repeats President Eisenhower's example of speaking of the military-industrial complex at the end of his term in office. Let's wait and see.
2
The macho gun toters are no longer a majority.
2
So, James, who do freedom loving, liberal people turn to for help. Have Putin, Un, Xi, the Ayatollahs, Assad, suddenly disappeared? I agree that the Western Democracies need to do more to defend themselves, but where is the leadership to help people who share our values?
2
As counterpoint, here’s the speech an HONEST President Obama might have given.
“My fellow Americans:
“For 70 years, the U.S. defended the free world, gaining a modicum of stability that allowed it to build from the devastation of war a general prosperity it never knew before. During that time, our partners shifted resources from their own defenses to the building of social welfare networks that we couldn’t afford while also protecting them, although we tried. But I now want to do far more domestically than we can while also serving as the guarantor of global stability. Consequently, I’m making changes, despite the risks they entail.
“We largely will disengage from our former guarantees of protection. We will downsize our military dramatically, in order to shift resources to our OWN social safety nets. We will rely on our allies to defend THEMSELVES; and, if they can’t, they must adjust their values and their own ways of life to accommodate that reality. They must become more relevant to their own security … or else.
“I understand that they may not be able to do this without blood in their own streets, in which case the world will become less free and more vulnerable to the strongman, the buccaneer, the religious excessive; and could evolve in ways that damage the stability that trade requires and on which millions of American jobs depend. If so, then it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
“TANSTAAFL. And if Earth loses its last best hope of freedom, then that’s just too bad.”
“My fellow Americans:
“For 70 years, the U.S. defended the free world, gaining a modicum of stability that allowed it to build from the devastation of war a general prosperity it never knew before. During that time, our partners shifted resources from their own defenses to the building of social welfare networks that we couldn’t afford while also protecting them, although we tried. But I now want to do far more domestically than we can while also serving as the guarantor of global stability. Consequently, I’m making changes, despite the risks they entail.
“We largely will disengage from our former guarantees of protection. We will downsize our military dramatically, in order to shift resources to our OWN social safety nets. We will rely on our allies to defend THEMSELVES; and, if they can’t, they must adjust their values and their own ways of life to accommodate that reality. They must become more relevant to their own security … or else.
“I understand that they may not be able to do this without blood in their own streets, in which case the world will become less free and more vulnerable to the strongman, the buccaneer, the religious excessive; and could evolve in ways that damage the stability that trade requires and on which millions of American jobs depend. If so, then it’s a risk I’m willing to take.
“TANSTAAFL. And if Earth loses its last best hope of freedom, then that’s just too bad.”
4
Interesting - not wholly true as we do still support our allies. Your 'speech' seems to suggest that our allies should not defend themselves; that we should keep a strong military because they do not and, therefore, fail to care for our most vulnerable at home (though they do that). I am far from an isolationist, but the reality is that can no longer be the great defender, protector, and leader in every fight. We need to lead in some, participate in some, and stay out of some. That is just realistic. As to the US being "the last best hope for freedom" for the world. Look how well that kind of thinking turned out in Iraq. The strongest supporters of that war (I was not one) went in with a giddy belief that they were spreading democracy, improving the world, and making change which would benefit the 'free world.' Instead, nearly 15 years on we have a violent and destabilized mess which is fertile ground for ISIS.
98
Anne-Marie:
The few who thought we went into Iraq to make a better world were a tad more focused perhaps on eliminating a Saddam that gassed his own people and sons who established rape rooms and tossed people into bone-crushers, feet-first. We did succeed at this, though a lot of Iraqis seem to have forgotten about that.
All that notwithstanding, I've always favored weaning the Euros off complete military dependency on us, but I've also seen it as a generational thing. To seek to accomplish it in eight years seems destined to fail, if "success" is defined as a Europe capable of largely defending itself without destroyed social welfare schemes and about a trillion pints of their own blood in the streets. As it is, it seems more likely that we'll need to re-declare Fortress America and just hope for the best.
The few who thought we went into Iraq to make a better world were a tad more focused perhaps on eliminating a Saddam that gassed his own people and sons who established rape rooms and tossed people into bone-crushers, feet-first. We did succeed at this, though a lot of Iraqis seem to have forgotten about that.
All that notwithstanding, I've always favored weaning the Euros off complete military dependency on us, but I've also seen it as a generational thing. To seek to accomplish it in eight years seems destined to fail, if "success" is defined as a Europe capable of largely defending itself without destroyed social welfare schemes and about a trillion pints of their own blood in the streets. As it is, it seems more likely that we'll need to re-declare Fortress America and just hope for the best.
1
@ Richard - RL good to see you back to your more thoughtful side as compared with several recent efforts. It would be very interesting if one could or wanted to take the time tp read some substantial literature on the transitions you point to. I listened yesterday to part of the parliamentary debate concerning what Sweden's relationship with NATO should or might be.
However, right now in all of Europe but especially in Sweden and Germany the discussion focuses on how we can provide for the all-time record number of asylum seekers taken in per capita in these two countries.
I wonder also, if Donald Trump were to become president and actually do some of the military things he proposes to do while also declaring Muslims as a people to be kept out of America whether we would experience for the first time their (whoever their might signify) boots on our ground and their bombs falling on us.
Larry
However, right now in all of Europe but especially in Sweden and Germany the discussion focuses on how we can provide for the all-time record number of asylum seekers taken in per capita in these two countries.
I wonder also, if Donald Trump were to become president and actually do some of the military things he proposes to do while also declaring Muslims as a people to be kept out of America whether we would experience for the first time their (whoever their might signify) boots on our ground and their bombs falling on us.
Larry
2
Amid the campaign posturing and Chickenhawk saber-rattling about not one, but many nations around the world.
We must support Israel, but we cannot afford to embolden that nation's radicals including the current PM by offering unconditional support for their every move.
Dealing with the real world, instead of a NeoCon world or the most recent iteration, is the essential reality. It can be a awful feeling, but there is a difference between engaging intelligently and swaggering our way down the world of hostile streets.
The excess of swagger (and much else) is lost in the fantasies of the current campaign season - just it's been obscured by the racist internal war to delegitimize a black president over an eight year span.
It would not have changed the world left by the Iraq disaster, among other things, but cooperation instead of obstruction would have helped many more Americans understand more of reality.