Can We Finally Admit US Foreign Policy is a Disaster?

[meazza]

Canada is in a pissing match with Russia over territory in Arctic, with melting ice caps exposing new and strategically important territory which both Russia and Canada are claiming as their own.

 

When the Canadians are sabre rattling, you know the world is really about to end.

 

I have already begun taking courses in Russian. The new empire.

[Deranged Rhino]

I have already begun taking courses in Russian. The new empire.

 

:lol: Smart! That's streets-ahead.

[Chef Jim]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russian-nuclear-bombers-buzz-northern-europe/

 

We might have to reactivate this site. This place is very cool and very close to SF.

 

http://www.nps.gov/goga/nike-missile-site.htm

Edited September 20, 2014 by Chef Jim

[DC Tom]

:lol: Smart! That's streets-ahead.

 

It's like I said...

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/170982-solar-power/#entry3259208

[Koko78]

I have already begun taking courses in Russian. The new empire.

 

I, for one, welcome our new Russian overlords.

[truth on hold]

Why Obama’s ISIS Strategy is Incoherent

 

 

by

Robert Freeman

 

If there is a single word to describe Obama’s campaign against ISIS, it is “incoherent.” It doesn’t hold together even on its own terms. And in the context of a larger strategy for the Middle East it is delusional, even destructive of U.S. interests. The reason is that the U.S. doesn’t control the strategy. Until it does, it will only meet continued confusion, mis-direction, and defeat.

 

The most important thing to understand about ISIS is that it is a U.S. creation. The first step in its creation was the U.S. destroying the corrupt but stabilizing regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

 

The second step in ISIS’s creation was the U.S. campaign to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria.

 

The third step in ISIS’s creation came when the U.S. organized Saudi Arabia and Turkey to fund and support the proto-ISIS rebels in Syria.

 

The forces most able to defeat ISIS are those of Iran, Syria, and Russia which have the strategic position, manpower, and organization to dispatch ISIS in short order. But Obama cannot ask for their help because the U.S. is engaged in hostilities against all three.

 

The ISIS imbroglio lays bare the embarrassing truth of U.S. policy in the Middle East: that it is controlled by Saudi Arabia and Israel, for their own benefits, and not for that of the U.S.

 

http://www.commondre...tegy-incoherent

Edited September 22, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[/dev/null]

http://online.wsj.com/articles/bret-stephens-what-obama-knows-1411425811

[B-Man]

Confederacy of Dunces?

From the president on down, they are in resolute denial about radical Islam.

 

By Victor Davis Hanson

 

The military effort against the Islamic State hinges on a successful threefold approach involving intelligence, homeland security, and diplomacy. Unfortunately, the Obama administration does not have much past history in these areas to warrant confidence.

 

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper just announced that the U.S. has underestimated the Islamic State. Clapper was probably correct, if unwise in apprising the world of U.S. incompetence. But he left out of his apologia any mention of why the U.S. has continuously downplayed the dangers of radical Islam. The answer is largely found among the Obama team, of which Clapper is a key part, and which has constructed its assessments to fit preconceived political directives.

 

The overriding belief of the Obama administration is that there is not really a radical Islamic movement that seeks to destroy the present nation-state order in the Middle East, form some sort of caliphate out of the mess, and then marshal the region’s population and resources to attack the West.

 

 

Clapper himself usually adheres to that belief. He once described the radical Islamist Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as largely secular. His veracity and his judgment are equally suspect. Under oath before Congress, he once insisted that the NSA did not gather information on ordinary Americans — a flat-out lie (or, as he put it, the “least untruthful” answer he was in a position to give). He also once assured us that Moammar Qaddafi would survive in Libya.

 

More the link:

 

.

[Security]

I have already begun taking courses in Russian. The new empire.

 

Rumandarain, or Russianese?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Security

[blzrul]

Our foreign policy is a disaster because it's not driven by concern for the safety of our citizens or righteousness or anything else but unbridled economic greed. War is always good business. Throw in a bunch of oil and blammo - there it is.

[B-Man]

"I have a picture of what I estimate to be a six-year-old girl in a gingham party dress, white tights, a little red band around her wrist, Mary Janes.

 

"And she's lying on the ground and her head is gone. This could be an American child; it could be a European child. It could be a child anywhere. And this is the mentality of the group that we are so concerned with. They have killed thousands. They are marching on. They have an army. They're well-organized. Many of us believe they're aimed at Baghdad, perhaps our embassy there. And who knows what else?"

 

Diane Feinstein, on "Face the Nation" yesterday.

 

 

.

[DC Tom]

"I have a picture of what I estimate to be a six-year-old girl in a gingham party dress, white tights, a little red band around her wrist, Mary Janes.

 

"And she's lying on the ground and her head is gone. This could be an American child; it could be a European child. It could be a child anywhere. And this is the mentality of the group that we are so concerned with. They have killed thousands. They are marching on. They have an army. They're well-organized. Many of us believe they're aimed at Baghdad, perhaps our embassy there. And who knows what else?"

 

Diane Feinstein, on "Face the Nation" yesterday.

 

 

.

 

And yet, no one gave a **** when it was the Interahamwe. And were emphatically against doing anything when it was Saddam.

 

That's the real reason our foreign policy is so !@#$ed up. It's completely inconsistent for being completely opportunist and capricious, and the rest of the world knows it.

[3rdnlng]

Our foreign policy is a disaster because it's not driven by concern for the safety of our citizens or righteousness or anything else but unbridled economic greed. War is always good business. Throw in a bunch of oil and blammo - there it is.

 

I am in no way defending our policies (as much as they can be called policies) in the Middle East or elsewhere but you need to explain your pronouncement bolded above. I think Obama is a rank amateur and reacts in a way that reflects his vision of how things should be rather than how they really are.

[blzrul]

I am in no way defending our policies (as much as they can be called policies) in the Middle East or elsewhere but you need to explain your pronouncement bolded above. I think Obama is a rank amateur and reacts in a way that reflects his vision of how things should be rather than how they really are.

I'm referring to our foreign policy, as the discussion was initiated, over the long term. After totally getting it wrong for so many years, there's nothing anyone can do now to fix it, not in the near term anyway. This has nothing to do with Obama. The special interests who benefit from war don't care who's POTUS.

 

There is NOTHING wrong with seeing things as they should be, by the way. Those are goals. You don't have goals, you never gonna get anywhere. In sales we call it assuming the sale. You don't always win the deal, but you certainly win a lot more when you operate on the assumption of how it should be, i.e. a closed deal.

[Deranged Rhino]

I'm referring to our foreign policy, as the discussion was initiated, over the long term. After totally getting it wrong for so many years, there's nothing anyone can do now to fix it, not in the near term anyway. This has nothing to do with Obama. The special interests who benefit from war don't care who's POTUS.

 

There is NOTHING wrong with seeing things as they should be, by the way. Those are goals. You don't have goals, you never gonna get anywhere. In sales we call it assuming the sale. You don't always win the deal, but you certainly win a lot more when you operate on the assumption of how it should be, i.e. a closed deal.

 

[3rdnlng]

I'm referring to our foreign policy, as the discussion was initiated, over the long term. After totally getting it wrong for so many years, there's nothing anyone can do now to fix it, not in the near term anyway. This has nothing to do with Obama. The special interests who benefit from war don't care who's POTUS.

 

There is NOTHING wrong with seeing things as they should be, by the way. Those are goals. You don't have goals, you never gonna get anywhere. In sales we call it assuming the sale. You don't always win the deal, but you certainly win a lot more when you operate on the assumption of how it should be, i.e. a closed deal.

 

So, there's nothing anyone can do to fix things but there's nothing wrong with seeing things as they should be? Talk in circles much? Obama screwed up big time by not leaving a force in Iraq. He's doing the same thing in Afghanistan. These people (ISIS and others) have come right out and told us that they are at war with us but Obama sees things as it should be, or as he wants it to be.

[truth on hold]

 

The special interests who benefit from war don't care who's POTUS.

 

That's exactly right. One of the best statements I've seen here in a long time. Its why the partisan mucky mucks on either side don't get it. Potus has far less influence on policy than most realize. He ha term limits whereas Mideast war hawk senators like McCain, schumer, and graham do not. He inherits a massive entrenched bureacracy at the state department with people with their own selfish interests. Legislation has already been passed tying his hands in a lot a of ways. Big money lobby groups like oil, defense and Israel heavily influence campaigns and policy. There are also hawks in the media like fox spreading propaganda.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Deranged Rhino]

That's exactly right. One of the best statements I've seen here in a long time. Its why the partisan mucky mucks on either side don't get it. Potus has far less influence on policy than most realize. He ha term limits whereas Mideast war hawk senators like McCain, schumer, and graham do not. He inherits a massive entrenched bureacracy at the state department with people with their own selfish interests. Legislation has already been passed tying his hands in a lot a of ways. Big money lobby groups like oil, defense and Israel heavily influence campaigns and policy. There are also hawks in the media like fox spreading propaganda.

 

Wait... You let the Commander in Chief off the hook because he has term limits and "less influence on policy", but Senators somehow have more influence and thus are more responsible because they're only there to feather their own nests? That's about as logical and coherent as our current foreign policy, so at least you're on message.

 

Come on, JTSP, if you're going to take on Blz's argument you can't parse the responsibility down to just Republican Senators while absolving the president. That's missing the point more than you're claiming the partisans miss it.

 

IF you believe that war is more profitable than peace and there are organizations/businesses/groups beyond government who push that agenda, you have to concede that the only way to make that plan work would be to work with both sides of the aisle. Otherwise, you're being dishonest, or naive.

[truth on hold]

 

 

Wait... You let the Commander in Chief off the hook because he has term limits and "less influence on policy", but Senators somehow have more influence and thus are more responsible because they're only there to feather their own nests? That's about as logical and coherent as our current foreign policy, so at least you're on message.

 

Come on, JTSP, if you're going to take on Blz's argument you can't parse the responsibility down to just Republican Senators while absolving the president. That's missing the point more than you're claiming the partisans miss it.

 

IF you believe that war is more profitable than peace and there are organizations/businesses/groups beyond government who push that agenda, you have to concede that the only way to make that plan work would be to work with both sides of the aisle. Otherwise, you're being dishonest, or naive.

Clearly I cited a lot more than republican senators in my post. And my post also contained a democratic senator schumer. Thats the problem with a partisan view, you see things that arent there and your analysis is failed from the start. Carrying on yhe democrat theme Leiberman, a democrat at the time, sponsored the bill authorizing war on Iraq. Clearly both sides of the aisle are being worked. They may not agree on gay marriage, but when it comes time to tap the pockets and lives of Americans for foreign wars not in our interest, miraculously a consensus suddenly emerges.

Edited September 23, 2014 by Joe_the_6_pack

[Deranged Rhino]

Clearly I cited a lot more than republican senators in my post. And my post also contained a democratic senator schumer. Thats the problem with a partisan view, you see things that arent there and your analysis is failed from the start. Carrying on yhe democrat theme Leiberman, a democrat at the time, sponsored the bill authorizing war on Iraq. Clearly both sides of the aisle are being worked. They may not agree on gay marriage, but when it comes time to tap the pockets and lives of Americans for foreign wars not in our interest, miraculously a consensus suddenly emerges.

 

Calling me partisan is funny. But what is the solution then?