U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 69th United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York, September 24, 2014. REUTERS/KEVIN LAMARQUE
Niall Ferguson, Wall Street Journal: The Real Obama Doctrine
Henry Kissinger long ago recognized the problem: a talented vote-getter, surrounded by lawyers, who is overly risk-averse.
Even before becoming Richard Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger understood how hard it was to make foreign policy in Washington. There “is no such thing as an American foreign policy,” Mr. Kissinger wrote in 1968. There is only “a series of moves that have produced a certain result” that they “may not have been planned to produce.” It is “research and intelligence organizations,” he added, that “attempt to give a rationality and consistency” which “it simply does not have.”
Two distinctively American pathologies explained the fundamental absence of coherent strategic thinking. First, the person at the top was selected for other skills. “The typical political leader of the contemporary managerial society,” noted Mr. Kissinger, “is a man with a strong will, a high capacity to get himself elected, but no very great conception of what he is going to do when he gets into office.”
WNU Editor: Niall Ferguson is one of those few analysts/commentators that I will concede is smarter than I am (so is Henry Kissinger) .... but in this commentary I am in disagreement with him. From my vantage point President Obama's global doctrine has been very simple to understand .... avoid the major wars that are now engulfing a good part of the world .... and if one does become involved .... keep the U.S. footprint at a minimum. This may be a frustrating policy to follow and/or implement in certain conflicts .... Syria and Iraq are two text book examples of that .... and especially in a global environment where the overall bloodshed and carnage is increasing ersulting in a mass migration crisis .... but the American people have made it very clear that they are not interested in fighting these major conflicts .... especially in wars that show no resolution unless a massive intervention is involved with a long term occupation strategy. Hence .... we have what we have today. A minimal bombing campaign in Iraq and Syria, a minimal force in Afghanistan, and special forces involved involved in almost every other trouble spot. This mindset is not only on the Democrat side .... Donald Trump has also articulated somewhat the same policy .... "better let the Russians bomb the various terror groups in Syria than the U.S." .... but unlike President Obama .... he has not suffered the same political consequences from such a position. In the end .... I know that the U.S. will have to reassert itself back on the international scene .... and that a long term strategy will need to be articulated. But President Obama is now a lame duck, and he has doubled down on his efforts to keep the U.S. out of a major war .... regardless of the consequences and what the next U.S. President will be faced with.
36 comments:
WNU,
" but the American people have made it very clear that they are not interested in fighting these major conflicts" We'll have to disagree, the American people do not want to fight wars without the intent to win. They are not anti-war in general. You may have answered that in your next sentences, but it is something that people misunderstand about the US.
" Niall Ferguson is one of those few analysts/commentators that I will concede is smarter than I am (so is Henry Kissinger)"
I've never seen either in shorts.
I don't see the American people as pro or anti war as much as I see them divided. I have lived near and worked in the US for a great deal of time. In my lifetime I have not witnessed so much division in the US along class, ethnic and political lines as I have in the past seven or so years.
Obama, who does not strike me as particularly brilliant, certainly understands that the country he presides over is in no fit shape to enter into a major conflict with even a serious middle power like Iran, let alone a major one such as Russia. It is no secret that the economy is sluggish if not half dead. A growing number of people do not trust the US Gov or any other instution. There are growing areas of unemployment, urban decay, crumbling infrastucture and near anarchy. If anything, the US is a candidate for a major civil conflict or at the very least, many years of decline to the march of civil unrest.
We should expect to see greater polarization as time goes by. If the section of the population who are still committed to the maintenance of "the Empire" gains power and pursues a more robust interventionist policy, it will only aggravate American contradictions and hasten the already inevitable decline.
The United States of America is in big trouble. Barry Obama knows it. If anything, he's just trying to hold things together and get out of office before it all falls apart around him.
Further to that, it is highly debatable that the US has been an overall force for good (a very subjective word) in the world. It follows that more US military or non mikitary intervention is in no way a formula for a "better" outcome. It is high time for other nations, Canada for one, to put on their big girl panties, stop apeing the practices and policies of dying/dead empires, and start working within the new reality.
We differ here WNU.
Bad news WNU Editor,
"...
The decision to dismantle the Pentagon’s training program — whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria — may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.
U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/...
War with Russia will start soon.
Jay .... when I read the Business Insider report that Saudi Arabia had shipped 500 TOW missiles to the Syrian rebels (with U.S. blessing) .... I said to myself that we are going down a very dangerous road.
WNU Editor,
The Saudi/CIA TOW's were used to take Ildib Province. They were used as Line of Sight "Bunker Busters".
The CIA Spooks are talking about providing the head chopping, heart eating jihadi's with medium range MLRS systems, ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.
Just what you want a terrorist to have.
I do hope and pray that we are not headed to war with Russia. Russia is the world's most powerful country, war with them would be problematic at best and suicidal at worst.
I am concerned the Russians may want this war more than the United States does. It would seem Russia's media allies could easily expose any efforts to arm Russia's enemies and put a quick stop to it.
In any event, none of these rebels are friends of the US and mostly enemies. As such, even in the unlikely event the rebels win the US gains nothing but a new enemy and an even more antagonistic relationship with Russia. As such, a far better approach would seem to be to work with the Russians on this. Doing so might even lead to better relations with Russia, Iran, Syria, and the BRICS.
For what its worth, the US has been declared "dead" or "dying" so many times over the last 30+ years that I've lost count. In those cases, declaring its death was premature and greatly exaggerated.
With that said among all of the major powers today the US faces a myriad of problems that are far greater than any of the others face. As they say, a broken clock is right twice a day. Hopefully that metaphor does not apply here.
James,
I think you are spot on. Very respectfully I can tell you seem to actually live in America as opposed to the number of arm chair America experts who don't even live here. Were this not so serious, I might find it amusing.
I might add that not only do Americans not want to fight wars where there is no clear cut objective to win but they also are reluctant to get involved in a situation where no American interests are being advanced.
Justifying these involvements becomes even harder when most Americans are struggling just to feed their families, keep a roof over their heads, keep their jobs, if they have them, and, as for retirement, few of them can even begin to contemplate preparing for that. On top of this, America's Canadian neighbors to the north and most Western Europeans enjoy a higher standard of living, better health care, a better quality of life, and more opportunities for advancement than most Americans can dream of. As such, why would America want to "reassert" itself in the Middle East. If it must do so, "reassert" itself as a junior partner to Russia. Perhaps this type of reassertion might actually bear positive fruit.
Please understand no disrespect is meant to anyone. Dialogue on this is greatly appreciated.
"Obama, who does not strike me as particularly brilliant, certainly understands that the country he presides over is in no fit shape to enter into a major conflict with even a serious middle power like Iran, let alone a major one such as Russia."
Maybe under Obama America is not even fit to fight a small power of the size of Lithuania.
That whole leadership and policy thing.
But hey we got another Democrat president and we got our Million Man March back. So there is progress and vision!
Meanwhile keep funding Sanger's Planned (Un)Parenthood, aborting black babies and keeping the black family suppressed.
With the leadership and priorities of Obama maybe America should stay away from wars with countries the size of Tonga or larger.
BTW when Are Michelle and Barack going to split and when is Obama going to sero-convert?
James. If the cause is right .... I have no doubt that the U.S. will fight. Case in point .... a few days after 9/11 I was asked by some of my former colleagues in the Russian FO on what would I advise Russia to do. I told them that the best policy would be to lay low, do not provoke, offer help even though it will be refused, and let the U.S. anger be focused on those who perpetuated that act and/or supported it. No surprise .... within 3 months the Taliban were decimated and overthrown. The post Afghan period is another story .... but the real story is that when the U.S. is unified in war, no one can match their ferocity and determination to win.
Sighhh .... I knew that picture of me and my shorts and socks in China would haunt me one day.
Once again, I tend to lean toward B. Poster's position. As for Canada's standard of living; we suffer from an affliction of idiocy in power that continues to take aim at health care and other services. In short, the very things that have made Canada a great place to live.
This idiocy also informs our foreign policy which largely consists of being among the loudest of the hysterical anti Russian choir while pimping put our military to curry favourite with those we assume will make a few of us rich (er). It's is as stupid a policy as it is dangerous.
A robust Canadian policy would be to enhance the things that make the country strong (like health care) and augment them with stronger investments in education. We could then relate to, and help, the world with something sorely needed: a strong health service model and educated people who do not believe men rode around on dinosaurs 6000 years ago.
An informed, rational relationship with the Russians (and Chinese) would most certainly add value, as well as longevity, to the Canadian experience. Throwing money at foolishness such as f35, $30 million a day bombing campaigns to no good end, and ridiculous military posturing in general will, no ofence, only get our asses whooped; and deservedly so.
As it stands, our credibility as an independent nation with something positive to contribute to the world is currently around zero and dropping. This is in keeping with our domestic decline. Both are driven, again, by backwardness posing as legitimate policy.
For instance; Canada could offer assistance in re-establishing health services in the secured zones of Syria. This would go some way toward helping our relationship with the Russians, not to mention the Syrians.
A good way to help our American friends would be to lead the way for a change.
Good friends don't toady.
They might become upset with us for speaking up but, in the end, they'll respect us more; if my American friends and family are any indication.
I want them to have a mass extinction event.
Regardless,
Knowing that the Canadian Government (regardless of the party) will not speak against this craziness and seek accommodation with the Russians has me preparing to spoil my ballot.
I'm getting to the point where I'm done praying and focusing more effort on preparing for the worst.
What really scares me is that we have seen no mass organization against war in the US (or Canada).
I really do believe most people are just more concerned with day to day survival.
Some Canadians suffer from the same disease as a certain type of European.
Please note Europe is now gone. In another generation Canada will have all the ills of immigration that America does.
Canada was just fortunate in that it is situated in a cul de sac as well as sitting under an umbrella.
I find some smug Canadians so precious and pretentious.
If the venal Merkel gets her way, will Munich be celebrating Oktoberfest a generation from now or will ethnic Germans be much like Christians in Lebanon?
Free healthcare and jobs for everyone and everything will be alright (especially in Syria). I got a bridge in Brooklyn I can sell you. I was shocked when I read a book by a Mongolian looking back to the good ole days, when the Mongolians took what they wanted from the settled people. Do you still believe all that stuff about symbiosis and commensualism in biology. I do to an extent. But it is not as harmonious as it is depicted in the textbooks. 25% or more of the bodies white blood cells are in the GI tract.
Shocker of all shockers (well something else will come down the pike) is that the bubonic plague originated as harmless gut bacteria and only needed 2 mutations to become a scourge. That is a good analogy for life.
Just build a health care in a safe zone or in cooperation with the Russians and I am sure we can solve the Syrian War. Oh and Erdogan will help, for suuureee!
We've had the ills of immigration for some time now. It's called colonization. Stop by sometime and speak with the aboriginals. They aren't so pretentious.
As for Europe, see above.
I don't know which Canadians you refer too but not all of us believe that Canada is some paradise of health care and whatever. Nor are we so hip on immigration (especially said aboriginals).
It is worthy of note that Syrians, for instance, were not nearly as interested in mass emigration when there was a semblance of order, peace and, yes, government services. Same goes for Libyans and not a few others. Canada did little to dissuade them from wanting to leave their homes while doing much to help bring on the conditions for evacuation. These mass emigration inducing activities were and are not exclusively military in nature by the way.
So, in my not too pretentious or smug Canadian view,
what we bin doin' ain't bin workin' an we need to be tryin' sumpin' difn't. Cuz dis here shit be gettin' fo' real fo' sho' qwik, fas, n in a hurry. N dat Mista Drummund bowlshit dat B runnin' out yo mouf on dis heer florum ain't no souloosion 2 dis here convohloosion.
"25% whitey layin' down the tracks in da GI" my natchul born Canadian ass.
Homey.
A very pretentious patriarch,
http://russia-insider.com/en/christianity/syrian-christian-leader-tells-west-stop-arming-terror-groups-who-are-massacring-our?utm_source=Russia+Insider+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=e9ac25bc0e-Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c626db089c-e9ac25bc0e-227205149&ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=e9ac25bc0e&mc_eid=630ea7d1c3
RRH you can have your long lost Canadians back, the Apaches and the Commanches. The Hopi will breath easier. On another note you are lucky the Alqonquins adopted maize, otherwise the Iroquois would have... Well we saw what the did during the Beaver Wars and we know form the language map what they did before.
You might learn a little lesson from the Europeans, the Hungarians, who are not Indo-European. Neither is Charles Bronson.
The Atlantic was a a little bigger barrier than most, but things happened as they do not as they ought.
While you are at it cry me a river.
"25% whitey layin' down the tracks in da GI" my natchul born Canadian ass" That is a true fact. So learn it. So is the bubonic plague evolution There are similar laws to the one oft state "Nature abhors a vacuum" The Kumbaya krowd should learn it.
RRH
You did not bother to look up a damn thing. Insecure are you?
And no tears here.
I'm not disputing the count in the GI or the plague or who it chose and why; just the analogy. Nor am I making a moral argument. I'm sure those original Canadians had a whole slew of immutable laws too. It is to say the wheel turns; even in Hungary and man is the motive force of history. Not the upper GI.
I do fall in line with you on the kumbaya club though. It's one reason why i don't need the Hungarians. The Russians have more to offer Canada in terms of lessons.
Past that, it seems to me that ol cognitive sences could use a some of those anti bodies.
Nice rapping with ya.
You missed the whole reference to Charles Bronson as it applies to the Americas, which is par for the curse for you.
You're right didn't bother.
You're right; couldn't care less about Bronson.
You're right.
More insecure by the day.
You know Aizino,
I've been thinking. You re a bit abrasive but you tried to pass some information to me to explain your position. I was rude and flip in my replies. I owe you an apology.
While I won't say that I will end up in agreement, I should at the very least, give someone who has taken the time to read and learn their due ---regardless of their conclusions--- I should also have the good sense to thank them for their time.
So, I'm not home right now but I do have a book or two on the items you brought up. Ill give you your due and look things up to get and get a better understanding of your position. I'll even check on Chuck Bronson. Who I think you are saying is of native American extract and was just as full of hell as anyone else.
Naturally this doesn't mean we won't be at; that's if we do communicate again.
Apologies
RRH
Charles Bronson was a polock (& a Great American), which is not much of an insult at all unless you use a nasty tone of voice. It simply means Polish Man.
Now once you scratch the surface, you will find he is of Tartar ancestry.
All seas are not made of water.
I like Charles Bronson. His actual name is Charles Dennis Buchinsky, but he was not Polish (his parents were Lithuanian). I understand the misunderstanding .... my last name ends with a "ski" .... so people think I am Polish until they see me turn red. :)
I stand corrected.
The essential point stands. Mr Bronson is of Tartar ancestry unless my memory of the Wiki article is more flawed than I realize.
I really like his movie "Death Hunt", which takes place in the Yukon.
He did have Tarter blood .... but Russians say that they have tarter Blood. One Upon A Time In The West is my favourite Bronson film.
I like Bronson too. My favourite is the twilight zone episode where he is a soldier in the aftermath of an apocalyptic war and he meets a female soldier from the other side.
Thank you both
Oh and I might have some of that blood too. My father's family is Chaykoski.
http://m.livescience.com/51394-plague-evolution.html
I'll be damned....
I read the Russian and Kipchak (Cuman) nobility intermarried. They may not have been allied initially, but after the Kipchak settled the Pontic Steppe they did eventually ally and intermarry.
Nothing shabby about a wife that can ride a horse and shoot well.
My spouse claims to be a better shot than me and use to quote Marx very, very well.
If Mr Bronson had been around and young enough, he would have had what it took to be in an "Expendables" Movie.
I do not know about the Twilight Zone episode. Something to search for this weekend.
He'd have had what it took to do I Am Legend and it would have been off the hook.
WNU Editor,
The episode is called "Two". It was the first time I ever saw Charles Bronson. After that it was Mr Majestyk and The Mechanic.
On another note. Have you ever used "The Beast" with Jason Patrick and George Dzunda as your movie for the night?
Post a Comment