Actually, Obama Does Have a Strategy in the Middle East

[freshwest]

The president is neither a dove nor a hawk. He’s a fierce minimalist.

Peter Beinart - Aug 29 2014


Larry Downing/Reuters

President Obama’s critics often claim he doesn’t have a strategy in the greater Middle East. That’s wrong. Like it or loathe it, he does, and he’s beginning to implement it against ISIS. To understand what it is, it’s worth going back seven summers.

In July 2007, at a debate sponsored by CNN and YouTube, Obama said that if elected president, he’d talk directly to the leaders of Iran, Syria, Cuba, and Venezuela. Hillary Clinton derided his answer as “irresponsible and frankly naïve.” The altercation fit the larger narrative the media had developed about the two Democratic frontrunners: Obama - who had opposed the Iraq War - was the dove. Hillary - who had supported it - was the hawk.

But less than a week later, a different foreign-policy tussle broke out. Obama said he’d send the U.S. military into Pakistan, against its government’s wishes, to kill members of al-Qaeda. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act,” he vowed, “we will.” Suddenly, Obama was the hawk and Clinton was the dove. “He basically threatened to bomb Pakistan,” she declared in early 2008, “which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take.”

So was Obama more dovish than Clinton or more hawkish? The answer is both. On the one hand, Obama has shown a deep reluctance to use military force to try to solve Middle Eastern problems that don’t directly threaten American lives. He’s proved more open to a diplomatic compromise over Iran’s nuclear program than many on Capitol Hill because he’s more reticent about going to war with Tehran. He’s been reluctant to arm Syria’s rebels or bomb Basher al-Assad because he doesn’t want to get sucked into that country’s civil war. After initially giving David Petraeus and company the yellow light to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, he’s wound down America’s ground war against the Taliban. Even on Libya, he proved more reluctant to intervene than the leaders of Britain and France...

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/actually-obama-does-have-a-strategy-in-the-middle-east/379368/

NOTE: You may have stumbled into the BOG, or Barack Obama Group. The BOG is not a Forum, but a group set up as a safe haven for like minded people. Our SOP is pinned to the top of the thread index page.

[Cha]

1. Thank you for posting that here, fresh. The wise "hawk".. from your link..

"But less than a week later, a different foreign-policy tussle broke out. Obama said he’d send the U.S. military into Pakistan, against its government’s wishes, to kill members of al-Qaeda. “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act,” he vowed, “we will.” Suddenly, Obama was the hawk and Clinton was the dove. “He basically threatened to bomb Pakistan,” she declared in early 2008, “which I don’t think was a particularly wise position to take.”

NO.. he didn't "basically threaten to bomb Pakistan, Hillary". But, as we all know he did get bin laden.

Hillary.. embellishing a-gain.

[freshwest]

3. She's very hard to understand. I did find an article where she argued with Obama on UHC vs. what

became Obamacare.

I've always wondered about the vehemence of ODS among some HRC supporters. She does not have a problem with PBO and I don't believe he has one with her.

Some have never gotten over her loss to him. I did not find her ideas to be original. She may be great behind the scenes with all the nuances. She came off as very hawkish in the debates, with only Gravel and Kucinich for immediate withdrawal from Iraq, etc.

Edwards, et al, didn't vary from the hawkish line, either. HRC and the hawkish crowd were touted by media as the 'serious' contenders. It turned me off. Nothing to me is more serious than promoting peace, social justice and saving the biosphere.

Obama, on the other hand, in that debate saw both sides. While the anti-war candidates were not treated with respect by the 'serious' ones, Obama showed the anti-war side the respect they deserved and went about discussing their differences.

That was what got my attention, a person who was clearly thoughtful, willing to treat others as equals naturally and not protecting ego or for ambition.

That was a big issue with me after listening to fulminating repukes for years with their hubris of calling the dead by that hateful term, 'collateral damage.' No attempt to paint Obama with that broad brush will work. All efforts to make him into a hawk or a Bush are irrational failures.

He won the Nobel Prize because he had a vision to quit warmaking and he's implemented it. I've said before though, that the absence of war is not always peace. We will see lesser than war level conflicts with hideous acts and brutality keep on happening until they are resolved.

There is no freedom gained by war, just a status quo, either the old one survives, or a new one takes its place. PBO has urged maintenance of a civil, secular society to create peace. Despite the horrors we are seeing in the media, in other places the world is peaceful, green and thriving. And those who live in those places are blessed.

HRC may be turn out to be an excellent POTUS, but she simply does not resonate with me. I will admit my bias without attacking her. On social issues, she is strong. We cannot stand aside and let the Koch conquest be completed.

[Major Hogwash]

2. Of course he does.

What the vast majority of critics of President Obama don't understand is that Obama is on top of the situation.
Obama has a world view that is long term, not short term.
So, while his positions may look bad politically because of the Faux News 24-hour news cycle, they are good positions to have for our country for historic reasons.
Obama's decisions and actions are good in the long run.
After nearly 30 years of the United States being led by rightwing figure heads, phonies, fakes, and frauds as President, we now have an intelligent, down to earth, honest to god, thoughtful Democratic President in the White House running our country.

Enjoy it now while Obama is the President because every day that he is in office is a great day for America.
The real problem that most of Obama's critics have is that they are not used to having a genius in the White House.
And there is no doubt that Obama is a genius.
Obama is exactly the kind of man that the founding fathers wanted as a leader of this country.
That's the hope that the founding fathers had for this country, that smart men like Obama would be drawn into running for positions of high office in our government.

[Jamaal510]

4. A healthy medium between the two extremes.

I don't a president who would bomb everyone in sight (*cough* McCain *cough*), and I simultaneously don't want one who would run away from the rest of the world and possibly have our enemies run over us. I think so far, O is doing it right.

[IrishAyes]

5. I don't know whether the people where I retired

here in the remote reaches of the Midwest have started to wise up a little or whether they just got tired of uselessly yanking my chain about this greatest of all presidents ever! but things have certainly been a little quieter of late.