Discussion for article #223140
“credibly threaten consequences” code word for blow shit up.
Iraq, yeah I suppose there was a consequence there, but consequence of what? GWB was intent on going there but what was the trigger? 9-11 which Iraq had nothing to do with? “Hey Russia, we don’t like what yer doin so we’re gonna invade Bulgaria.” This is the foreign policy of brainless bullies.
1 Like
“…Obama’s foreign policy agenda…”
It’s already there, if the media bothers to take notice and report facts, instead of ginning up controversy.
Start with the elimination of nuclear weapons and keep going toward world peace. Don’t trip on climate change, though.
America has always held a policy of advancing freedom and democracy around the world. It’s called liberalism, but keep that part real quiet. We don’t want to upset the 1%.
1 Like
The president is so photogenic … for a war monger.
With any luck, the Afghans will be smart enough to stick to their guns and not sign a Criminals Get Out Of Jail Free card (which is what a “status of forces” agreement with the US is) and will kick our imperial asses out like the Iraqis did.
And for all the “let’s you and them fight” service-avoiding assholes from the “patriot party”: fuck you and drop dead.
No more imperial wars. None of us who served in any of America’s imperial wars of the past 50 years are “heroes.” We’re saps. Each and every one of us. Stupid enough to have believed the bullshit.
1 Like
Yes, but George Bush isn’t in the White House, and so, we didn’t invade Bulgaria.
See how that works?
The article does a good job outlining that actual, meaningful (in the sense of meaning anything to what might happen in the real world) debate that is going on over American foreign policy, and that Obama is about to make a big push on.
Should we have a more-hawkish, more active foreign policy, with more unilateral American action and more efforts made to achieve geopolitical objectives through the use of force?
Or should we pull back, be less hawkish, less activist, and less determined to call the shots throughout the world, including outside of international institutions?
This is a big deal. The differences between the two sides in this debate are a couple orders of magnitude more significant than the inter mural debates that take place on liberal blogs.
I remember back in 2009, when a similar big public debate happened over torture. And I remember quite a few of the people who’d been the loudest voiced against torture refusing to get in there and take the anti-torture side of the fight that was actually happening, that actually mattered, and instead, sat on the sidelines and devoted all of their commentary to denouncing the anti-torture side as insufficiently moral - which was also one of the lines of attack the pro-torture side was using to slam their opponents. The bottom came when supposedly anti-torture people started repeating the bogus CIA/Republican Party talking point about Nancy Pelosi being briefed.
Hopefully, this time, we can actually have all hands on deck, and there won’t be too many people deciding that they’re just too good to sully themselves with an effort that could actually mean something beyond insisting on their own moral superiority.
The President has already reframed how America can conduct its foreign policy.
The military threat to Syria was enough to dissuade it from using its chemical weapons against it’s own population and to disarm.
The economic threat to Russia was enough to stop it in its tracks from a full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
And the use of drones and special forces makes clear to every country, there is no corner of the globe out of reach of the United States military.
Of course these deal with the art of coercion and won’t be necessary for every problem an American President will encounter, in which case we can only hope the American people are smart enough to elect a President skilled at negotiation.
uncle t and his band of white ivy leaguers - making sure their fellow alumni are the only ones employed in america
1 Like
Hang “Foreign Policy!” How about “re-framing” life (Literally) for everyone stationed in Afghanistan and Waziristan, Not to mention their Families!
BRING THEM HOME FASTER!
Obama Seeks To Reframe Foreign Policy As Bush’s War Ends
No charge for the edit, TPM.
“Credibly threaten consequences” code word for:
If we don’t come up with another boogie man, the Military-industrial Complex doesn’t get to make and keep obscene amounts of money, bought and traded on innocent blood. (Our own and that of “foreign” people, who don’t matter in the slightest, to those making the money.)
Hooo-Ra, America!