web analytics
Currently viewing the tag: "Foreign Policy"
That’s a hell of a thing. Nicely done, Obama Administration! Obviously this is a small thing, but I’ve long thought that the travel ban to Cuba was one of the most obvious outright abridgments of freedom still on the books–there’s no other country Americans are legally forbidden from traveling to, even North Korea. It’s their right to allow us in or not, but the notion that a country is so evil that we have to be prevented from going there is just insane (China, of course, is also not banned). Re-examining this would be a fine next step.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: ,  
So we’re going to have a debate on the ISIS war three months (and however many billion dollars) into it. Funny that this comes out right after the election ends. Seems no logical reason for it, unless you assume that Obama wanted to spare Democrats a vote before the election, or that he figured a Republican Senate was likely and that they’d give him more power to make war than Democrats would. Or both! Not that he’s going to take no for an answer, so it’s all a farce anyway.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: , ,  
Jim Webb should run for president. This is sort of a better version of the Schweitzer for president idea–a presidential run focusing on a critique of hawkish foreign policy would be a worthy endeavor, considering that upwards of 70% of the Democratic base is dovish, and yet the Democratic Party is thoroughly hawkish in its elite makeup. Webb would be easily able to make a strong argument and communicate it well, and it would be unusually credible coming from him–even the mainstream media treats him as an authority on these issues, and he has the right resume–and he has nothing really to lose. It is admittedly very hard to imagine Webb assembling a winning coalition against Hillary–he would be in a good position to attract netroots activists and perhaps some conservative Democrats, though it’s hard to envision him really snapping up minority voters and women who strongly favor Hillary–but if he were to capture media attention and win a couple of primaries, it’s hardly inconceivable that it will force Clinton to make promises on the use of force that would constrain her later. There certainly is merit in providing a voice for the silent majority in any event, and a presidential campaign could be an easy way to create organization around the issue that will serve it going forward. Really, there’s nothing but upside to this whole concept. Also, he doesn’t stick his foot in his mouth every damn day he talks.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare

It’s eerie to see it laid out like this:

Obamafp

It’s been a year since he’s even broke even. And it’s clear that our year of intractable foreign crises can’t fully be blamed: this slide began last year. The key drop happened about a year ago, which was the time of the Syria debate. Then a little bounce back after that happened, followed by an even steeper drop.

What’s interesting is that this is entirely a second-term phenomenon, if you check the link you see that Obama’s approval ratings have been lame forever, but his actively terrible foreign policy ratings are rather new. It’s not even a matter of hawkishness per se, as the first term included the Libyan operation. I’ve been thinking recently about what’s different between the two terms of Obama, and probably the most interesting one is that Libya was sold self-consciously as an international, burden-sharing operation, while both Syria and the new Iraq thingy have been sold as American first and last. This is easy enough to explain away as the increased influence of Samantha Power, Obama’s UN Ambassador who hates the UN and loves unilateral action. (Just read her books.) The Libya bombing was a bad idea with bad results, but Americans were at least marginally willing to go along because of the work the Administration did to get allies on board. Obama’s second term has had the strong implication that America has to handle every world crisis alone, which is just about the worst argument you can make to the public at this time. They just won’t hear it, and I think this is where you see Power’s influence quite strongly. She’s a genocide scholar who unsurprisingly wants to stop what she sees as imminent genocides, immediately. On a side note, my wife (who is a genocide scholar as well) tells me that these are the last people in the world that you’d want setting foreign policy, almost universally they tend to be extremely hawkish and despise realism and practicality. We can in addition say they tend to ignore the political dimension as well.

You also begin to see just how much ground liberal hawks have had to give up between the disastrous outcomes of past adventures they support and the political realities they’ve helped to create. Obama seems to have absorbed the public’s severe distaste for ground troops or nation building and I believe him when he says there will be no troops. However, at some point liberal hawks will have to just confess that Iraq destroyed their worldview, since at present it can only offer bombs to any kind of crisis they want to go to work on. The question of “What comes next?” can no longer be answered. Compare this with the misguided but at least robust worldview of the Clinton-Blair days, where that question was UN Peacekeepers, basically. Didn’t work so well, but it was something, unlike the utterly intellectually unsatisfying liberal hawk worldview of today, where contradictions have been heightened to such an extent that all that remains is sanctimony and contempt for the limitations of power. Can’t wait for Hillary ’16!

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: , , , , ,  
I feel like the Germany spying scandal–and spying on allies in general–is roughly equivalent to masturbation: we’re all intellectually aware that everyone does it all the time, it’s not comfortable to think about, we all choose consciously not to think about it and part of being in society is in not drawing peoples’ attention to it. That’s the real problem here: we’ve made it impossible to politely push it from the foreground of their minds. Not sure if it’s scarier if Obama is in the loop on it or not.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: ,  

I honestly wonder what a complete US withdrawal from the Middle East would look like for us. I don’t think it would completely eliminate terror aimed at us–our support of Israel would still be a big sore spot, and while the notion that they attack us because “they hate our freedom” remains illogical and stupid, being #1 does mean you’re a target for all manner of people to take out their frustrations. I don’t think it would be a panacea. But I also think that there wouldn’t be much of a downside for America, being as we’ve proven entirely unable to shape or even respond to events there that “we” want to respond to, and eliminating one of the most-cited extremist grievances couldn’t hurt. Don’t know how much that reduces the threat, but even if it reduces it by a small amount, that’s a lot of money and lives we save with basically zero opportunity cost. Seems like a pretty good deal for me.

Of course, basically no politicians endorse this. I don’t really understand why. I mean, sure, Israel, but they’re the regional powerhouse at this point, and they survived for the first forty years of their existence when we didn’t station troops in the region (and when they were relatively weaker). Part of it may be that we’ve developed this region as the Ireland to our England, just keeping on with the rough tactics until we have “justified” all the resources we wasted on some unwise/narcissistic statebuilding project, until some futuristic George Mitchell puts it to rights. Undoubtedly much has to do with a three-letter word that begins with two vowels, though it needs to constantly be said that if the main goal of all this policy is to keep us from buying oil from people we don’t like, then our choices of allies in the region (e.g. Saudi Arabia) doesn’t make any sense. Nor does any of the rest of it.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: ,  

Larison as always is on point:

It seems more likely that Obama’s ratings on foreign policy keep dropping because he sets goals that his policies can’t achieve, and so his policies are inevitably perceived as ineffective. The perception that a policy “isn’t working” reflects poorly on the administration and contributes to the impression that it doesn’t know what it’s doing. This is true even when the public doesn’t want the U.S. to be involved in the first place. As I’ve said before, Obama sets himself up to fail by trying to take the “lead” in crises and conflicts that the U.S. doesn’t know the first thing about resolving. The mismatch between rhetoric and action has been a persistent problem for this administration. For instance, Obama has made unnecessary declarations about the legitimacy of other leaders and governments (e.g., “Assad must go”) that would seem to require much more aggressive policies than he or the public would be prepared to support. As a result, his policy is judged against the much higher standard that he unwisely set for the administration. Pursuing more ambitious hawkish goals with limited means puts Obama in a bad position at home as well, since it invites attacks from hawks that always want the U.S. to “do more” without giving anyone else something that they can fully support.

I tend to think that Obama’s mostly-terrible second term foreign policy is related mostly to being out of touch. Obama constantly shows signs of understanding that the American people do not want anymore foreign adventures–it is how he got elected after all–but he doesn’t seem to understand how intense that antipathy is. He also seems to think there’s a much bigger base of support for liberal-hawk policies than there is–outside of the think tanks and political elites it’s trivial. So when he deploys rhetoric similar to presidents going back decades about America’s special responsibilities and evokes fear of the consequences of inaction, as he did with respect to Syria, he’s speaking to an audience that outside of the 212 area code no longer really exists. I don’t think he can get away with ignoring the preferences of elites but he should be aware of the gulf between D.C. and the rest of the country. He does not seem to.

He’s also eliminated the careful balance of actual realists and interventionists of his early years with a slate of full-on interventionists, with Chuck Hagel as the lone sorta-realist, though he also happens to be the least politically powerful member of Obama’s team, someone whose, ahem, reticence in opposing the Iraq War until it was quite safe (and then quitting politics rather than fight for his convictions) has ensured that he has no base, left or right. What’s more, his team now consists entirely of loyalists who reinforce his worst instincts, and invariably push in the direction of more conflict and more engagement. In the first term we heard a lot about how Obama, like Lincoln, had constructed a “team of rivals” to advise him. Looking at how disastrously the Syrian misadventure, say, was handled, what seems clear now is that Obama’s team is little more than a closed information loop, in which perspectives other than liberal interventionism go unheard. I think it’s time we revise the notion that Obama loves debate and different perspectives at least slightly, as there’s little evidence he does in this area.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInShare
Lev filed this under: ,