Contrary to necons; Obama must be a military strategy genius

[Starlight]

Your statement that Obama "is terrified to say the words radical Islam," implies that he's Muslim because this is what the folks who argue this use to support that view.

You're connecting some unrelated things here. The propaganda that Obama is weak on terror is what I was talking about. In that context, people like Ted Cruz have repeatedly argued that his failure to properly define and address the problem using the words "radical Islam" or "Islamic terrorism" is part of his general weakness in the war of terror.

Anyone who's familiar with me and has read my posts on the subject knows that I'm no fan of Bush, to put it mildly. But for you to logically look at everything Obama is doing and conclude that he isn't as bad, much less worse, than Bush in this matter I can only attribute to pure partisan bias.

I loathe Obama's foreign policies. But whatever way you slice it, he hasn't started two multi-decade wars like Bush did, he hasn't started a program for kidnapping and torturing innocent people like Bush did. I can't see how you can make Obama's crimes, of which there are many, rise to the level of Bush's.

Heck, we haven't heard hardly anything from Congress about him sending ground troops into these countries. That's incredible to me.

Congress is Republican controlled. The Republican party, in general, is happy to cheerlead any and every war from now until the end of time. Their fiscal conservatism seems to only apply to not being willing to lift the least finger to help poor Americans, but when it comes to the question of how much money should be spent killing people overseas then there seems to be no limit in their minds. But that's normal for them, so I don't really expect anything more of them. They're the party of the corporate billionaires, and billionaires don't tend to like having money taken from them and given to the poor, but they do tend to like government money being used to buy their military products.

Do I think the Democrat minority in congress are guilty of not doing more to publicly criticize Obama's military excesses? Absolutely yes. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and supposed to be the anti-war party. I get that it's very hard for a congressman to publicly criticize their own party's president because their own job security is dependent on the party helping them with future election campaigns, but they should have made a public stand nonetheless. But the extent to which even the democrats in congress are a bunch of bought-and-pair-for-sheep has become clear this election with how many of them endorsed Clinton from the start... and Clinton looks like she'll be one of the most interventionist and most pro-war presidents America has ever seen. (Both the Clintons would have made decent Republican presidents. It's bizarre they've seen fit to situate themselves in the democratic party.)

[Jaecp]

Triangulation politics, Star. It's the only reason why Clinton was a competitive candidate in 92. Third party helped, but it was shifting to triangulation instead of the progressive politics that had defined them that allowed the democrats to regain the white house. Iow, a rejection of populism

[seanD]

You're connecting some unrelated things here. The propaganda that Obama is weak on terror is what I was talking about. In that context, people like Ted Cruz have repeatedly argued that his failure to properly define and address the problem using the words "radical Islam" or "Islamic terrorism" is part of his general weakness in the war of terror.

I loathe Obama's foreign policies. But whatever way you slice it, he hasn't started two multi-decade wars like Bush did, he hasn't started a program for kidnapping and torturing innocent people like Bush did. I can't see how you can make Obama's crimes, of which there are many, rise to the level of Bush's.

Congress is Republican controlled. The Republican party, in general, is happy to cheerlead any and every war from now until the end of time. Their fiscal conservatism seems to only apply to not being willing to lift the least finger to help poor Americans, but when it comes to the question of how much money should be spent killing people overseas then there seems to be no limit in their minds. But that's normal for them, so I don't really expect anything more of them. They're the party of the corporate billionaires, and billionaires don't tend to like having money taken from them and given to the poor, but they do tend to like government money being used to buy their military products.

Do I think the Democrat minority in congress are guilty of not doing more to publicly criticize Obama's military excesses? Absolutely yes. The Democrats are supposed to be the party of the people, and supposed to be the anti-war party. I get that it's very hard for a congressman to publicly criticize their own party's president because their own job security is dependent on the party helping them with future election campaigns, but they should have made a public stand nonetheless. But the extent to which even the democrats in congress are a bunch of bought-and-pair-for-sheep has become clear this election with how many of them endorsed Clinton from the start... and Clinton looks like she'll be one of the most interventionist and most pro-war presidents America has ever seen. (Both the Clintons would have made decent Republican presidents. It's bizarre they've seen fit to situate themselves in the democratic party.)

If they had secret CIA torture sites under Bush, which we didn't know until later, there's no reason for me not to think this is still going on, especially when Obama has demonstrated a clear willingness to work his way around supposed technical laws against it. Granted, I can't prove that, but perhaps you're confusing stealth and openness and using them as a criterion by which to measure magnitude. That Obama is much more stealth seems to once again just prove my point that he's actually more strategically clever than Bush. But, again, neither here nor there. We agree, the two presidencies have been really freaking bad.

Reps have opposed Obama at every corner, at least those are the bemoans I hear from the left. So, if this is true -- that they're opposing him just for the sake of political means -- it's hard for me to believe they wouldn't oppose Obama just for the sake of it even on the matter of warmongering, especially when the Reps actually have public leverage against him (being that the public is jaded with war). They could fan the flames of the anti-war movement against Obama which would also create great pains for Hillary. Seems like they're passing up a brilliant election strategy. But the Dems, as you admit, are just as culpable. And that's the point of this thread. Why is this the case? And why do the neocons accuse him of being weak? Is it that Obama is just that masterful in his strategy or is it something else? I lean towards the former but can't really gauge the angle from the right.

[Adam]

I don't agree with Starlight that peace is preferable to war with Radical Islam, but at least his point of view expressed here is coherent.
What I most object to is that nothing seems to work out right for Obama. I don't know whether it's bad luck, bad policies, or self-contradictory opposition from the Republicans.

[Jaecp]

Spoiler, it's that last thing

[Starlight]

They could fan the flames of the anti-war movement against Obama which would also create great pains for Hillary. Seems like they're passing up a brilliant election strategy.

Yes. Although Trump is somewhat following that strategy against Clinton. While he sometimes says he'd "use torture, even if it doesn't work", most of the time he's advocated for a non-interventionist strategy, whereas Clinton is a war-hawk. That's one of two main reasons I'd prefer a Trump presidency over a Clinton one.

Traditionally though, Republicans are the pro-war party, so an anti-war strategy is strange for them. (But Trump is to the left of Clinton on many policies, which is all kinds of weird)

And why do the neocons accuse him of being weak?

Because no amount of war is ever enough for neocons. They always want more.

In general the problem is that the low-information right confuses personality and policy. Give them a person with an aggressive and bullying personality like Putin or Trump and it makes them happy - they respect that person as a "strong leader". Paying attention to the details of policy is above their IQ level for the most part, so they just think "Trump is a strong and forceful person who inspires confidence, so he'd have strong policies. Whereas Obama is a weak person, always apologizing for stuff, sipping his lattes, negotiating from positions of weakness not strength, so my gut tells me he's weak and would have weak policies." They will literally have no clue what the actual policies are, or what the facts are about foreign countries and what the US is actually doing in them. The idea that Obama is "too strong" in military policy doesn't compute to these people, it's not something that they're able to accept in their worldview.

[seanD]

What exactly is not working out right for him in regards to foreign policy? He wanted Gaddafi removed and now he's gone. He didn't get exactly what he wanted in Ukraine but that's more because of Russian interference than the republicans. Though he did get the former Ukraine regime ousted. They went to great pains to get into Syria to remove Assad, which was thwarted by pubic discontent and more Russian interference. So they armed terrorist groups. This didn't work. But after years of painstaking mission creep, they're finally in Syria now with boots on the ground without a peep from the public. Other than Assad being removed, at least at the moment, I'd say things are going pretty good for Obama, all things considered.

[Jaecp]

All that's true, Sean, and yet he's "weak"

[Starlight]

What exactly is not working out right for him in regards to foreign policy?

He wanted to end Bush's wars in the Middle East, but he's still got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has expanded drone strikes to six countries in total. He wanted to close Guantanamo, but failed. He wanted to help the Libyan people, but his intervention has led to chaos in the country that seems roughly as bad as Gaddafi was. He supported a coup in Honduras, and that's made things worse there. He's been all over the map on Syria and Assad, and his program to train moderate rebels failed so badly that they had literally "four or five" moderate rebel soldiers total after most of them had surrendered their US-supplied weapons to the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Elsewhere in Syria, militias armed by the pentagon have been fighting militias armed by the CIA. He hasn't been able to destroy ISIS despite tens of thousands of bombing strikes against them killing tens of thousands of people (because a military strategy is not going to work). Under his command, the US military has committed numerous war-crimes ranging from the deliberate bombing of a doctors-without-borders hospital in Afghanistan to bombing weddings and funerals.

Complete successes, which I 100% congratulate Obama for: Iran deal, Cuba.

Adequately resolved: Ukraine.

[Bill the Cat]

Spoiler, it's that last thing

Oh no. It's bad policies.

[Bill the Cat]

Complete successes, which I 100% congratulate Obama for: Iran deal, Cuba.

Letting Iran do their own inspections is worthy of congratulations? Freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars for them to spend on anti-American campaigns is worthy of congratulations? And all he did with Cuba was toss the white flag and surrender.

Adequately resolved: Ukraine.

Which he had nothing to do with.

[Starlight]

Letting Iran do their own inspections is worthy of congratulations? Freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars for them to spend on anti-American campaigns is worthy of congratulations? And all he did with Cuba was toss the white flag and surrender.

The bizarre thing about the US right is they flat out ignore all the numerous valid things to attack Obama and Clinton on, and instead manufacture absurd and false idiocies like these.

[Bill the Cat]

The bizarre thing about the US right is they flat out ignore all the numerous valid things to attack Obama and Clinton on, and instead manufacture absurd and false idiocies like these.

Keep your head down under, Star...

[Carrikature]

And why do the neocons accuse him of being weak?

From what I gather, it's mostly because he's not taking a hard-line attitude of 'meet our demands or else' with countries we view as significant threats. Couple that with his deference towards foreign dignitaries.

[Carrikature]

He wanted to end Bush's wars in the Middle East, but he's still got troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, and has expanded drone strikes to six countries in total. He wanted to close Guantanamo, but failed. He wanted to help the Libyan people, but his intervention has led to chaos in the country that seems roughly as bad as Gaddafi was. He supported a coup in Honduras, and that's made things worse there. He's been all over the map on Syria and Assad, and his program to train moderate rebels failed so badly that they had literally "four or five" moderate rebel soldiers total after most of them had surrendered their US-supplied weapons to the al Qaeda affiliate in Syria. Elsewhere in Syria, militias armed by the pentagon have been fighting militias armed by the CIA. He hasn't been able to destroy ISIS despite tens of thousands of bombing strikes against them killing tens of thousands of people (because a military strategy is not going to work). Under his command, the US military has committed numerous war-crimes ranging from the deliberate bombing of a doctors-without-borders hospital in Afghanistan to bombing weddings and funerals.

Complete successes, which I 100% congratulate Obama for: Iran deal, Cuba.

Adequately resolved: Ukraine.

I'm not sure he can take credit for any Iran, Cuba, or Ukraine. I might be willing to move Iran to 'adequately resolved', though. Otherwise I'm in full agreement with you here.

However, I'm not sure how many of these actions can be placed at Obama's feet. It's not clear who is selecting drone targets, for example.