Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Foreign Affairs
Related: About this forumAn Ambiguous Superpower
http://watchingamerica.com/News/240029/an-ambiguous-superpower/President Obama is not going to send the Marine Corps everywhere; however, the U.S. must not withdraw from the world.
An Ambiguous Superpower
Dagens Nyheter, Sweden
By Editorial
Translated By Grace Olaison
1 June 2014
Edited by Laurence Bouvard
~snip~
A president inherits wars, friends, as well as the enemies of his predecessor. Yet, Obama has managed to formulate two major foreign policy course changes: Poorly conceived military ventures must be avoided, which is agreeable. Focus should turn from the Middle East to East Asia, which is prudent, given China's growing economy and power. And yet, something seems amiss.
George W. Bush's unpopular war was an important factor behind Obamas election in 2008. The U.S. has withdrawn completely from Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan in late 2016. However, in Iraq, terrorism now thrives and is further fueled by the civil war in Syria. Obama leaves no scope for changing the timetable for Afghanistan, no matter what happens.
It is true that there is war fatigue in the United States, and that many would gladly let the world take care of itself. The president can argue that he is following the will of the people. Despite that, he has a lower approval rating for his foreign policies than in any other areas. One feasible reason for this may be that Obama is against practically everything, both isolationism and un-necessary war, making it harder to know what he actually wants.
During the intervention in Libya in 2011, Obama had already formulated a sort of doctrine: When America's safety is threatened, military force can be used without consulting outsiders. However, during other types of crises, there must be strong international support for an intervention, which should also be limited in time. Obama certainly has used military force and allowed hundreds of suspected terrorists to be killed with drones, but basically, he is an involuntary warrior.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 540 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
An Ambiguous Superpower (Original Post)
unhappycamper
Jun 2014
OP
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)1. This dovetails nicely with ...
his recent speech at West Point.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)2. I disagree with the point about Syria.
Obama and Kerry waved the big stick at Assad, Americans from both left and right were screaming at them not to use it, and then Assad agreed to have his chemical weapons destroyed.
American force was threatened...but not used...and most of the chemical weapons have now been destroyed.
That seems like a good result to me.