Canadian Political Events

Beyond Canada => American Politics => Topic started by: SuperColinBlow on June 05, 2019, 04:27:25 pm

Title: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 05, 2019, 04:27:25 pm
What I have noticed about foreign policy in the U.S. is that it's quite fluid. You make an agreement with the U.S. and it has a maximum shelf-life of 4 years, 8 if you're lucky. In other words, the life of one particular administration.

During the Cold War there was a "bipartisan consensus" on most foreign policy issues. But the Cold War is over, and the parties today disagree on what to do about just about everything in the world.

The U.S. government is notoriously short-sighted. We think in terms of the next midterm election, the next few years, the next fiscal quarter.

I think we'd piss a lot less people off if we were a little more consistent, and honored agreements in the long term instead of having them more or less expire every time a new bunch gets in the white house. The lesson other countries would learn from this is, "don't make an agreement with the Americans, the next president won't honor it."

I admit that I'm not an IR professor or anything like that, but it's something I've just noticed over the years.

Thoughts?
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: wilber on June 05, 2019, 07:25:13 pm
The change is that with Trump, you have to wonder what it will be tomorrow, not four years from now.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: MH on June 06, 2019, 05:54:38 am
Pre-Trump it vacillated between self-iinterest and altruism, as famously explained in Kissinger's great book 'World Order'

That was bad enough... and you would get switches from term to term or even within one term... then you get Trump.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: waldo on June 06, 2019, 10:36:23 am
What I have noticed about foreign policy in the U.S. is that it's quite fluid. You make an agreement with the U.S. and it has a maximum shelf-life of 4 years, 8 if you're lucky. In other words, the life of one particular administration.

During the Cold War there was a "bipartisan consensus" on most foreign policy issues. But the Cold War is over, and the parties today disagree on what to do about just about everything in the world.

The U.S. government is notoriously short-sighted. We think in terms of the next midterm election, the next few years, the next fiscal quarter.

I think we'd piss a lot less people off if we were a little more consistent, and honored agreements in the long term instead of having them more or less expire every time a new bunch gets in the white house. The lesson other countries would learn from this is, "don't make an agreement with the Americans, the next president won't honor it."

I admit that I'm not an IR professor or anything like that, but it's something I've just noticed over the years.

Thoughts?

you mean all the stupid shyte the U.S. does around the world... failed nation-state building... presuming to extend upon self-serving agenda-driven "American/western values"... oil security couched in "regime change", failing to honour agreements it does sign, bullying NATO to extend upon so-called American foreign-policy, strutting around the world in the name of self-proclaimed American exceptionalism......... like that? Is that what you call, as you say, "fluid"?

and then there's Trump! Paris Climate agreement - scratch! Iran nuclear deal - scratch! TPP - scratch! You know, cause Obama!!! As much as Canada is quite obviously influenced on so many fronts by American intrusion into Canada (overt and subtle), Trump raised the profile on that to the nth degree. Nothing said it clearer than the U.S./Trump admin imposing tariffs on Canadian steel/aluminum... claiming Canada as a national security threat to the U.S.!

PM {Pierre} Trudeau captured it most succinctly in 1969:
(https://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-living-next-to-you-is-in-some-ways-like-sleeping-with-an-elephant-no-matter-how-friendly-and-pierre-trudeau-187018.jpg)
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: MH on June 07, 2019, 05:52:31 am
Waldo, you must have *some counter examples ?
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: segnosaur on June 07, 2019, 12:11:39 pm
What I have noticed about foreign policy in the U.S. is that it's quite fluid. You make an agreement with the U.S. and it has a maximum shelf-life of 4 years, 8 if you're lucky. In other words, the life of one particular administration.
I don't know if its quite as fluid as you are making it out to be.

For example, some trade deals (e.g. NAFTA) have ~25 years (through both Democratic and republican administrations). NATO hasn't really changed much. It kept its isolationist policies against Cuba for decades. It still abides by various arms control treaties (such as various nuclear test ban agreements). And the US still follows the Munroe doctrine.

Granted, Trump has been an absolute wrecking ball (pulling out of NAFTA,TPP and the Paris accords), harming America's standing in the world and showing itself to be completely untrustworthy. But he seems to be the exception. Usually most presidents don't made radical changes because they are either willing to stick with what works, or if they make changes will do so slowly over time.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 09, 2019, 04:20:30 pm
You all mention Trump quite often; not taking up for him (I don't approve of his foreign policy mistakes either) but it pre-dates him, and it will post-date him as well.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 09, 2019, 04:23:00 pm
I don't know if its quite as fluid as you are making it out to be.

For example, some trade deals (e.g. NAFTA) have ~25 years (through both Democratic and republican administrations). NATO hasn't really changed much. It kept its isolationist policies against Cuba for decades. It still abides by various arms control treaties (such as various nuclear test ban agreements). And the US still follows the Munroe doctrine.

Granted, Trump has been an absolute wrecking ball (pulling out of NAFTA,TPP and the Paris accords), harming America's standing in the world and showing itself to be completely untrustworthy. But he seems to be the exception. Usually most presidents don't made radical changes because they are either willing to stick with what works, or if they make changes will do so slowly over time.

The things that we are consistent on are still there because they continue to suit us (or we assume they still suit us).
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 09, 2019, 04:26:08 pm
you mean all the stupid shyte the U.S. does around the world... failed nation-state building... presuming to extend upon self-serving agenda-driven "American/western values"... oil security couched in "regime change", failing to honour agreements it does sign, bullying NATO to extend upon so-called American foreign-policy, strutting around the world in the name of self-proclaimed American exceptionalism......... like that? Is that what you call, as you say, "fluid"?

yes it is what I call fluid. It's f***** up for other reasons, but fluidity is one of them.

perhaps if Congress had more oversight on matters of foreign policy, particularly the Senate, it wouldn't be as wishy-washy.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Rue on June 11, 2019, 07:12:06 am
yes it is what I call fluid. It's f***** up for other reasons, but fluidity is one of them.

perhaps if Congress had more oversight on matters of foreign policy, particularly the Senate, it wouldn't be as wishy-washy.

The Congress already does. This "wish washy" is as a result of dead lock. The US system as you well know basically creates 3 decision making centres, one in the House of Reps, one in the Senate, and then POTUS (office of the Prez). The three are supposed to check and balance each other to prevent any one of those 3 from being an absolute dictator. So it can and does cause that wishy washiness you say absolutely-its a stalemate as  many opinions bog down and everyone scrambles to find neutral words to seek compromise to push stuff through as law. You are right it can cause indecision and grid lock as elected reps preoccupied with special interest groups who lobby (bribe) them and their own cnstituents meander all over the place deciding where to stand on any issue . It can make a dog's breakfast of watered down pablum laws at times.  Our system does the same thing in a different way. Politics in a demoractic system is about wishy washy compromise. Its either that or you get dictators who impose. I will put up with the wishy washiness before dictators.

Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 11, 2019, 03:37:26 pm
Well, that is more with domestic politics. Don't forget that, over time, the use of "executive agreements" has increased. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidential foreign policy where the president can say "Oh, it's not a real treaty, just an executive agreement" and thus bypass senatorial consent. Senators stay longer than 4-8 years, typically. Presidents come and go.

The rough draft of the constitution (Aug. 6, 1787 "Report of the Committee of Detail") described a really weak presidency and most of the power over foreign policy was delegated to the senators.

Not saying we should go that route precisely, but a return to the classic "advice and consent" over all international agreements between the U.S. and another country would probably do us good.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: segnosaur on June 11, 2019, 04:56:34 pm
You all mention Trump quite often; not taking up for him (I don't approve of his foreign policy mistakes either) but it pre-dates him, and it will post-date him as well.
That's the thing... it doesn't really pre-date him. As I said, most presidents tend to continue agreements that the previous president had started. Obama maintained Troops in Afghanistan and continued the Iraqi withdrawl according to Bush's plans. Bill Clinton didn't pull out of NAFTA because it was negotiated by a republican. There have been over a dozen weapons treaties that have lasted more than a decade through multiple administrations.

Its only been Trump who has decided to be a complete and utter jerk by abandoning agreements. Not that changes didn't happen in the past, but they tended to be the exception rather than the rule.

And yes, Trump is mentioned quite often... basically because he is an outlier and needs to be addressed separately from other presidents.


Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Omni on June 11, 2019, 06:42:47 pm
That's the thing... it doesn't really pre-date him. As I said, most presidents tend to continue agreements that the previous president had started. Obama maintained Troops in Afghanistan and continued the Iraqi withdrawl according to Bush's plans. Bill Clinton didn't pull out of NAFTA because it was negotiated by a republican. There have been over a dozen weapons treaties that have lasted more than a decade through multiple administrations.

Its only been Trump who has decided to be a complete and utter jerk by abandoning agreements. Not that changes didn't happen in the past, but they tended to be the exception rather than the rule.

And yes, Trump is mentioned quite often... basically because he is an outlier and needs to be addressed separately from other presidents.

Especially after he made his statement today that he wouldn't have used Fat Kims half brother as an asset who was willing to provide info. to the CIA as to NK's plans for weapons nuclearization. He seems to forget the guy who he "fell in love" with is a murderous dictator. Oh but he got yet another "beautiful letter" from him today so all is well!
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Rue on June 12, 2019, 06:48:57 pm
Well, that is more with domestic politics. Don't forget that, over time, the use of "executive agreements" has increased. This is a get-out-of-jail-free card for presidential foreign policy where the president can say "Oh, it's not a real treaty, just an executive agreement" and thus bypass senatorial consent. Senators stay longer than 4-8 years, typically. Presidents come and go.

The rough draft of the constitution (Aug. 6, 1787 "Report of the Committee of Detail") described a really weak presidency and most of the power over foreign policy was delegated to the senators.

Not saying we should go that route precisely, but a return to the classic "advice and consent" over all international agreements between the U.S. and another country would probably do us good.

Good point. We see how many Presidents started wars without getting the Congress/Senate  to declare war. I will defer to your point on Defence policy for sure and where it ends and foreign policy picks up oh hell I don't know does anyone?  The US foreign and defence policies are so closely aligned. Its a fine line.

Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: ?Impact on June 12, 2019, 06:53:48 pm
We see how many Presidents started wars without getting the Congress/Senate  to declare war.

Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.

Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: wilber on June 12, 2019, 09:12:07 pm
Congress hasn't declared war since 1942.

Just don’t call it a war and you are good.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 13, 2019, 11:36:22 am
Police action, etc.

I seem to have been overruled on the bipolar disorder-nature of our foreign policy. But I must at this point state that we get into crap without an exit strategy. That's another thing. The USSR was in Afghanistan for 10 years. We've been in almost 20.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 16, 2019, 04:59:49 pm
One of if not the biggest problem with US foreign policy is they're helping China become a super power that will in the longterm become far, far, more powerful economically, militarily, politically etc than the US.  The rise in GDP of China has been astronomical the last couple of the decades. 

If the Chinese can manage to obtain average incomes even half of that as the US or any other western country they would become far more powerful than the US or any other country.  A country with 1.3 billion people + dramatically fast-rising economy + brutal totalitarian government = big trouble for ALL OF US.  Canada should be very nervous.

The US is sowing the seeds of its own loss of dominance.  At least Trump is kind of standing up to China, though not sure how effective that's been, but it's better that Obama who never wanted to rock the boat with anyone, god bless him but he was just too nice.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Omni on June 16, 2019, 05:40:16 pm
One of if not the biggest problem with US foreign policy is they're helping China become a super power that will in the longterm become far, far, more powerful economically, militarily, politically etc than the US.  The rise in GDP of China has been astronomical the last couple of the decades. 

If the Chinese can manage to obtain average incomes even half of that as the US or any other western country they would become far more powerful than the US or any other country.  A country with 1.3 billion people + dramatically fast-rising economy + brutal totalitarian government = big trouble for ALL OF US.  Canada should be very nervous.

The US is sowing the seeds of its own loss of dominance.  At least Trump is kind of standing up to China, though not sure how effective that's been, but it's better that Obama who never wanted to rock the boat with anyone, god bless him but he was just too nice.

Seems to me Trump's attempts to stand up to China amount to not much more than throwing around some tariffs and then sitting around while the markets crater. And then of course China responds in kind. Trump also gives people whiplash regularly when he does a complete about face on policies. Obama may have been "too nice" but things were a lot more stable domestically as well as internationally.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 16, 2019, 06:11:40 pm
Obama may have been "too nice" but things were a lot more stable domestically as well as internationally.

Domestically yes maybe although i wouldn't exactly call things stable under him as Americans became more and more divided under him (not as much as Trump though) and many of his poor actions/inactions  helped create the conditions for someone like Trump to become popular enough to get nominated & elected.  internationally I disagree.  I was just different kinds of instability.  Crimea, ISIS etc under Obama.  N.Korea and Russia were emboldened under Obama and caused instability too.  Not the most diplomatic or perfectly effective way, but I agree with Trump showing N. Korea who is boss.  Obama mostly just appeased everybody, he didn't use America power to force the hand of their rivals.  Iran might be an exception, but they weren't to be trusted anyways.

Obama was also all-around more satisfied with the status quo.  Not with everything of course, but he was basically Bill Clinton domestically and Jimmy Carter internationally (though not quite that bad).  If you rock the boat there's going to be more instability.  China needs to be put i its place, which which cause some instability.  Just as Canada has had to stand up to China and it's hurt us.

I'm not saying i agree with Trump's approach, but we need to stand up to China and not be satisfied with the status quo as we were under Obama/Bush Jr.  Even if Trump is an idiot I give him credit for trying.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Omni on June 16, 2019, 08:33:10 pm
Domestically yes maybe although i wouldn't exactly call things stable under him as Americans became more and more divided under him (not as much as Trump though) and many of his poor actions/inactions  helped create the conditions for someone like Trump to become popular enough to get nominated & elected.  internationally I disagree.  I was just different kinds of instability.  Crimea, ISIS etc under Obama.  N.Korea and Russia were emboldened under Obama and caused instability too.  Not the most diplomatic or perfectly effective way, but I agree with Trump showing N. Korea who is boss.  Obama mostly just appeased everybody, he didn't use America power to force the hand of their rivals.  Iran might be an exception, but they weren't to be trusted anyways.

Obama was also all-around more satisfied with the status quo.  Not with everything of course, but he was basically Bill Clinton domestically and Jimmy Carter internationally (though not quite that bad).  If you rock the boat there's going to be more instability.  China needs to be put i its place, which which cause some instability.  Just as Canada has had to stand up to China and it's hurt us.

I'm not saying i agree with Trump's approach, but we need to stand up to China and not be satisfied with the status quo as we were under Obama/Bush Jr.  Even if Trump is an idiot I give him credit for trying.

Not sure how you would conclude Trump showed NK who is boss when stated he and Kim "fell in love" and then Kim basically thumbed his nose at him to end the last summit and US sat. pics show they are continuing construction on nuke manufacturing sites.
Obama bombed the hell out of ISIS and put the infrastructure in place for his successor to carry on with it.
What has Trump done about Crimea, especially when he stated publicly in Helsinki that he trusts Putin more than the US intelligence network?
Our latest snub of China we have suffered some blow back from was done at the behest of the US government by arresting the Chinese exec. and what the hell have the US done about it? Nada.
I would say Trump is himself too unstable to achieve any sort of stability, save for domestically among his mostly non-college educated base which don't seem to care about or understand details.   
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 16, 2019, 09:57:06 pm
Not sure how you would conclude Trump showed NK who is boss when stated he and Kim "fell in love" and then Kim basically thumbed his nose at him to end the last summit and US sat. pics show they are continuing construction on nuke manufacturing sites.

We don't know how this will end.  We do know how it began.

Quote
Obama bombed the hell out of ISIS and put the infrastructure in place for his successor to carry on with it.

Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq too quickly before Iraq was able to take over, creating the vacuum that helped let ISIS be created and take over the northern part of the country and launch attacks into Syria.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Omni on June 16, 2019, 10:24:17 pm
We don't know how this will end.  We do know how it began.

Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq too quickly before Iraq was able to take over, creating the vacuum that helped let ISIS be created and take over the northern part of the country and launch attacks into Syria.

Obama was criticized for being slow in gearing up to dealing with ISIS but he had things in place and was fiercly attacking ISIS on the ground and in the air well before Trump came to power. Trump simply stepped up the effort.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: waldo on June 17, 2019, 12:12:52 am
Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq too quickly before Iraq was able to take over, creating the vacuum that helped let ISIS be created and take over the northern part of the country and launch attacks into Syria.

almost on par with Trump declaring, "Obama as the founder of ISIS"!

The ISIS Creation Myth (https://www.newsweek.com/2015/07/03/isis-george-w-bush-barack-obama-342613.html)

Quote
By 2008, the surge and the Awakening—as the Iraqi effort is commonly known—had driven Al-Qaeda militants into neighboring Syria, quelling much of the violence in Iraq. Bush then negotiated an agreement, which was approved by the Iraqi parliament, giving U.S. forces permission to remain in the country until 2011, along with immunity from arrest and prosecution.

That approval proved temporary. As the U.S. prepared to send the bulk of its troops home, Obama began negotiating a similar accord. His goal was to leave behind 5,000 soldiers to train the Iraqis and help with counterterrorism. But the negotiations didn't go well. Not only did Muqtada al-Sadr, the fiercely anti-American Shiite cleric, threaten to unleash his militia on any remaining U.S. troops, but the new government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was forced to acknowledge that most Iraqis wanted the occupation to end.

"Having foreign troops in your country is…an unnatural act," says James Jeffrey, who served as Bush's deputy national security adviser and Obama's ambassador to Iraq. "Giving them legal immunity is...even more unnatural. Because Iraq was a now parliamentary democracy, this required parliamentary approval. And parliament was simply not willing to give it."

With time running out, Obama ended the negotiations. By the end of 2011, all American troops were out of Iraq, and the president ran for re-election partly on his pledge to end the Iraq War. Soon afterward, however, al-Maliki, a Shiite, launched a sectarian campaign against Iraqi Sunnis, arresting senior officials for treason, driving others into exile and upending the fragile sectarian balance the U.S. occupation had enforced.

Three years later, al-Maliki had so thoroughly alienated Sunnis that when ISIS fighters began to slip across the border from Syria, they found a receptive ear in some Sunni areas for their anti-Shiite beliefs. Last summer, when ISIS troops swept into the country's northwest, Iraqi soldiers ran away, and Sunnis greeted the militants with the traditional Arab gifts of rice and flowers.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: ?Impact on June 17, 2019, 11:58:21 am
Obama mostly just appeased everybody, he didn't use America power to force the hand of their rivals.  Iran might be an exception, but they weren't to be trusted anyways.

I guess Libya never happened.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Omni on June 17, 2019, 12:28:32 pm
I guess Libya never happened.

What has me a little concerned at the moment with regard to potential near future foreign policy is what's happening with Iran. Pompeo said in an interview on Fox (where else) that he has "solid evidence" that Iran was behind the attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, and that he is discussing various responses with Trump, including a military one. Hopefully there are some cooler heads behind the scenes.   
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: Gorgeous Graham on June 17, 2019, 01:17:41 pm
Obama was criticized for being slow in gearing up to dealing with ISIS but he had things in place and was fiercly attacking ISIS on the ground and in the air well before Trump came to power. Trump simply stepped up the effort.

Yes he deserves good credit for essentially defeating them.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: segnosaur on June 17, 2019, 02:04:10 pm
Quote
Obama mostly just appeased everybody, he didn't use America power to force the hand of their rivals.  Iran might be an exception, but they weren't to be trusted anyways.
I guess Libya never happened.
Minor point: While the U.S. was involved in the bombing campaign against Libya, a lot of the early pressure came from other countries (such as France).
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: segnosaur on June 17, 2019, 02:23:34 pm
Quote
Domestically yes maybe although i wouldn't exactly call things stable under him as Americans became more and more divided under him (not as much as Trump though) and many of his poor actions/inactions  helped create the conditions for someone like Trump to become popular enough to get nominated & elected.  internationally I disagree.  I was just different kinds of instability.  Crimea, ISIS etc under Obama.  N.Korea and Russia were emboldened under Obama and caused instability too.
Domestically yes maybe although i wouldn't exactly call things stable under him as Americans became more and more divided under him (not as much as Trump though) and many of his poor actions/inactions  helped create the conditions for someone like Trump to become popular enough to get nominated & elected.  internationally I disagree.  I was just different kinds of instability.  Crimea, ISIS etc under Obama.  N.Korea and Russia were emboldened under Obama...
To be honest, I don't necessarily think Obama was to blame for those.

Crimea is far outside the American sphere of influence and its options for dealing with them were limited. ISIS did benefit from the withdrawl of American troops, but the withdrawal was following an agreement that had been made under Bush (and Iraq is an independent country; the U.S. can't unilaterally decide to station troops there.) North Korea has been a problem for pretty much every president. (After all, North Korea's first nuclear test was in 2006, when Bush was in power.)

It should also be pointed out that Obama's hands were often tied by congress, who took a very uncooperative stance over just about everything. For example, Obama wanted to take action against Russia over their election interference, but the Republicans in the senate would not support him.

Quote
Not the most diplomatic or perfectly effective way, but I agree with Trump showing N. Korea who is boss.
Except of course he didn't.
Quote
Obama mostly just appeased everybody, he didn't use America power to force the hand of their rivals.
He did greatly expand the use of Drone strikes.

And a failure to 'use American power to force the hand of their rivals' may not always be a good thing.

Quote
I'm not saying i agree with Trump's approach, but we need to stand up to China and not be satisfied with the status quo as we were under Obama/Bush Jr.  Even if Trump is an idiot I give him credit for trying.
China is a significant trading partner, and engaging with China in the past has been beneficial.

On the other hand, Russia is not an ally, and directly interfered in the U.S. election. China may not necessarily be 'trustworthy' but they are not as detrimental as Russia. Yet Trump has taken every opportunity to suck up to Putin.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 17, 2019, 08:01:33 pm
Yes he deserves good credit for essentially defeating them.

I don't agree. Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons, he announced Assad has "crossed the red line"; and apparently, there wasn't much on the other side of that red line. (e.g., they got away with more).

Then of course, it happened again under Trump whose initial position was "who cares" (until Hillary commented on his lack of response). Then he pulls us out of Syria, one of the things that apparently led to Mattis's resignation as SecDef.

See what I mean, now? It's like a game of ping pong. There's a tiny pocket of resistance left in Syria (to the government) and they're not going to last long. I wonder what the people of Syria think of our foreign policy now. Certainly THEY won't trust the Americans anymore.
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: segnosaur on June 18, 2019, 11:41:28 am
I don't agree. Assad attacked his own people with chemical weapons, he announced Assad has "crossed the red line"; and apparently, there wasn't much on the other side of that red line. (e.g., they got away with more).
Yup, Obama announced Syria had 'crossed the red line' and didn't follow through.

The problem with Obama is that he decided to go to congress to get authorization, and republicans in congress were in a contrarian mood (determined to oppose anything and everything Obama proposed.) Note that these are the same republicans who have praised Trump's attacks on Syria, despite the fact that they are roughly on the same scale.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/04/mcconnell-revises-history-syria/
Title: Re: What's wrong with U.S. foreign policy?
Post by: SuperColinBlow on June 19, 2019, 09:29:41 pm
Obama did that deliberately, knowing they'd refuse him, and he could blame someone else for his inaction. I'm not a conservative, but I've never liked Pres. Obama's foreign policy.

And the same people who praise him for withdrawing from Syria.