- Jan 25, 2009
- 19,765
- 1,429
- Faith
- Oriental Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Others
Shalom 
For whoever may be interested, I came across a good review (IMHO) recently that greatly intrigued me when it came to noting some of the ways it seems that the president has been ignored on things foreign policy-related that have been beneficial to the nation...and focused on when it comes to the negatives he has done as well. To me, it seems inaccurate to focus solely on the negatives done by someone while intentionally ignoring where they do things that other presidents/leaders suggested and they were praised.
As said best in Obama's Foreign Policy Demonstrates Responsibility, Not Recklessness...:
Also, as one political analysist noted:
I think the article had many valid points, especially as it concerns giving credit where it is due. For others, again, I was curious as to the reasons you feel--or don't feel--that foreign policy practiced by the president has either been good or bad. Based on review of his track record and any facts you feel are relevant...as well as connected with what other presidential leaders have done.
If anyone would like to know some of my own personal stances, I've taken the time to give reference back to discussion where I specifically shared on each of them. I would rather not go back/bring up the issues in-depth/with detail again, unless I'm asked to do so and it seems necessary. Again, I've shared some of my views on the issue before on why I do feel personally that the president has indeed done A LOT of good things internationally---and wisely, when it comes to foreign policy. I have enjoyed seeing the work he has sought to do in the Asia-Pacific rim he comes from and expanding the influence that the U.S has had over there in those areas while also networking with people in the region (as shared here in #10/ #150 )..and and I've also shared in other discussions how the president has sought to support Israel in very good ways, from the ways it has sought to be a check on Iran via VERY strong/effective sanctions to the extensive miltitary aid/funding----with many in Israel populace/government noting that the strongest the U.S has ever been is with the current administration, even as the president doesn't seem to have the stance of giving in to anything/everything Israel wants and forcing others such as the Palestinians to work with Israel/find common solutions ( as seen in #156 #157 and #159 ). I think he has done good work as it concerns building bridges as he promised when it comes to working with inter-faith groups (as seen in his international work with Muslim/Arab communities both abroad and here in the U.S., more here , here, and #7 /#46 ).
I do think it was wise of him not to be for wiping out others who aren't even the problem like many war hawks in differing parties who are quick to resolve conflict by blowing an enemy out of existence (as shared here #415 , #35, #37 #177 when it came to some of the wisdom President Obama was seeking to utilize in the situation by NOT going to war/causing more drama in Syria by simply going to war with them)---and the same goes for Lybia, as it seemed the president was for the mindset of practicing Statemanship Of course, I'm not of the mindset that President Obama is a saint when it comes to war...for although he has had an international perspective due to travelling the world throughout his youth/working with differing groups, many of his foreign policies have indeed been very imperialistic. Obama's overall foreign policy philosophy has been postulated as "The Obama Doctrine" by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne as "a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness."....and other scholars such as Noam Chomsky have called him on it repeatedly throughout his term as it concerns where some policies have harmed others (and others have also critiqued the president on his stances internationally)... even though others have been beneficial for certain groups and others have debated the matter (as shared here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).
Although I'll share more in-depth elsewhere as discussion continues, I did want to note that I do feel the president has a respectable and popular foreign policy record to defend, at least in term of the headline items: killing Bin Laden, ending the Iraq war and drawing down in Afghanistan, toppling Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and (selectively) assisting the Arab Spring. By no means is it the case that there aren't areas of foreign policy where things could've been better and thus warrant of criticism. Nonetheless, it is difficult to cast the president as ‘soft’ on matters of national security. Opinion surveys through 2012 suggested that more Americans approved than disapproved Obama’s record on foreign policy.
Others say the president is weak, even though he has presided over SEAL raids to take out Somalian pirates and has dramatically expanded the anti-terrorist drone program from the levels it was at in the final years of the Bush Administration. More could be said, but I do think there are some things that cannot be overlooked.
Blessings...
For whoever may be interested, I came across a good review (IMHO) recently that greatly intrigued me when it came to noting some of the ways it seems that the president has been ignored on things foreign policy-related that have been beneficial to the nation...and focused on when it comes to the negatives he has done as well. To me, it seems inaccurate to focus solely on the negatives done by someone while intentionally ignoring where they do things that other presidents/leaders suggested and they were praised.
As said best in Obama's Foreign Policy Demonstrates Responsibility, Not Recklessness...:
President Obama’s foreign policy achievements have certainly been impressive during his first term. His signature moment would have to be the assassination of Osama Bin Laden. Republicans inexplicably refuse to give President Obama credit for Bin Laden’s death, but the fact remains that it was Obama as commander-in-chief who gave the final call to order American troops in to Pakistan. This mission was fraught with many risks, and Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons, was infuriated by Obama’s decision to launch the raid without issuing prior notice.
It is also completely valid to note that President Bush failed to capture Bin Laden in his seven years in office following the 9/11 attacks. He even admitted late in his presidency that catching Bin Laden was no longer a top priority of his. Additionally, Mitt Romney in 2007 refused to state if he would unilaterally go into Pakistan to catch Bin Laden. The fact is that Democrats are responsible for the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and that is a fact that Republicans simply cannot accept
President Obama has also successfully ended the War in Iraq. The last combat troops were withdrawn in December of 2011. While there is still a large American presence in Iraq, the fighting is officially over. Once again, we see Democrats cleaning up the Republican foreign policy mess. President Bush steered us into Iraq under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was a blatant lie that cost well over 4,000 American lives and $800 trillion dollars. Obama has also drawn down the War in Afghanistan, albeit after an initial surge early in his presidency.
We got to witness the difference between Obama's foreign policy and Bush's foreign policy during the brief conflict with Libya early in 2011. President Obama brought the United States into cooperation with NATO troops, and a balanced coalition was able to knock Moammar Gaddafi out of power. This is a sharp contrast from when President Bush defied international resistance and essentially single-handedly brought the United States into armed conflict. President Obama simply behaves more responsibly on the international stage, and recognizes the need for allies.
Most of the criticism that Governor Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, his running mate, direct toward President Obama in the area of foreign policy seems to revolve around his supposed inability to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, the Obama administration has hit Iran with some of the strongest sanctions in the history of the United Nations. These sanctions are crippling Iran’s economy and bringing them closer and closer to the negotiating table.
Governor Romney is reckless with his loose talk regarding war with Iran. President Obama has responded that war should only be a last resort, and this is completely accurate. Another large-scale war right now would cripple the United States' economy and would sentence thousands more of our troops to death. President Obama’s more nuanced approach to foreign policy is much more preferable to another war-mongering Republican's.
It is also completely valid to note that President Bush failed to capture Bin Laden in his seven years in office following the 9/11 attacks. He even admitted late in his presidency that catching Bin Laden was no longer a top priority of his. Additionally, Mitt Romney in 2007 refused to state if he would unilaterally go into Pakistan to catch Bin Laden. The fact is that Democrats are responsible for the capture of Osama Bin Laden, and that is a fact that Republicans simply cannot accept
President Obama has also successfully ended the War in Iraq. The last combat troops were withdrawn in December of 2011. While there is still a large American presence in Iraq, the fighting is officially over. Once again, we see Democrats cleaning up the Republican foreign policy mess. President Bush steered us into Iraq under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. This was a blatant lie that cost well over 4,000 American lives and $800 trillion dollars. Obama has also drawn down the War in Afghanistan, albeit after an initial surge early in his presidency.
We got to witness the difference between Obama's foreign policy and Bush's foreign policy during the brief conflict with Libya early in 2011. President Obama brought the United States into cooperation with NATO troops, and a balanced coalition was able to knock Moammar Gaddafi out of power. This is a sharp contrast from when President Bush defied international resistance and essentially single-handedly brought the United States into armed conflict. President Obama simply behaves more responsibly on the international stage, and recognizes the need for allies.
Most of the criticism that Governor Romney and Congressman Paul Ryan, his running mate, direct toward President Obama in the area of foreign policy seems to revolve around his supposed inability to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Yet, the Obama administration has hit Iran with some of the strongest sanctions in the history of the United Nations. These sanctions are crippling Iran’s economy and bringing them closer and closer to the negotiating table.
Governor Romney is reckless with his loose talk regarding war with Iran. President Obama has responded that war should only be a last resort, and this is completely accurate. Another large-scale war right now would cripple the United States' economy and would sentence thousands more of our troops to death. President Obama’s more nuanced approach to foreign policy is much more preferable to another war-mongering Republican's.
Obama has dramatically increased America’s presence in Asia, including signing a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with ASEAN and joining the East Asia Summit, and moved quickly and flexibly in response to the revolutions across the Middle East. He changed a 30-year relationship with Egypt in a week; helped to convince the Egyptian military not to fire on citizens in the first stage of the revolution; assembled and enabled a successful coalition to intervene in Libya; worked closely with Turkey, the European Union, and Saudi Arabia to increase pressure on Syria; cooperated with Egypt to broker a settlement in Yemen; and worked behind the scenes to convince Bahrain’s government to investigate its own violence against Shia protesters.
Moving south, Obama dedicated considerable resources to ensuring that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended Sudan’s civil war, was actually implemented, allowing South Sudan’s peaceful secession. Although engagement with Iran and North Korea may have failed, Obama did help to engineer a historic breakthrough with Burma. Finally, the US Senate ratified free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, clearing the way for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The common thread in all of these achievements is old-fashioned diplomacy. In choosing Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama appointed one of the world’s most admired women. She has lived up to her reputation. Similarly, Susan Rice has been a remarkably successful US ambassador to the United Nations, consistently delivering votes in the Security Council.
Obama is pursuing a coherent grand strategy – what he called in his 2009 inaugural address a “new era of responsibility.” On the international side, his national-security strategy holds that “the burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone.” The US strategic is committed to an “international order based on rights and responsibilities,” including a “broader voice – and greater responsibilities” for emerging powers, and the imposition of real consequences on countries that violate their international obligations.
Within two years of taking office, Obama helped to transform the G-8 into the G-20, secured the re-weighting of votes on the International Monetary Fund’s board away from Europe and toward new economic powers, and committed to supporting the candidacies of India and Japan for membership of a reformed UN Security Council.
His administration also devoted enormous energy to building and strengthening regional institutions. For the first time, the Arab League is playing an active role in addressing political upheaval and government brutality in its midst, as is the Gulf Cooperation Council. The African Union helped to restore democracy in Madagascar, aided in forcing Côte d’Ivoire’s president to leave office after losing an election, and sent troops to Somalia. The East Asian Summit is becoming a forum for region-wide security discussions, from the resolution of maritime disputes to fighting pirates.
Obama’s Republican opponents love to hammer home the phrase “leading from behind.” But they miss the point, for they imagine leadership as the equivalent of a nineteenth-century cavalry charge, in which the general is either out front carrying the flag or following along in the rear. Obama is actually far in front in terms of shaping the world’s norms and expectations. He leads from wherever he needs to lead in order to get results. And he’s gotten plenty
Moving south, Obama dedicated considerable resources to ensuring that the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, which ended Sudan’s civil war, was actually implemented, allowing South Sudan’s peaceful secession. Although engagement with Iran and North Korea may have failed, Obama did help to engineer a historic breakthrough with Burma. Finally, the US Senate ratified free-trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Colombia, clearing the way for the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.
The common thread in all of these achievements is old-fashioned diplomacy. In choosing Clinton as Secretary of State, Obama appointed one of the world’s most admired women. She has lived up to her reputation. Similarly, Susan Rice has been a remarkably successful US ambassador to the United Nations, consistently delivering votes in the Security Council.
Obama is pursuing a coherent grand strategy – what he called in his 2009 inaugural address a “new era of responsibility.” On the international side, his national-security strategy holds that “the burdens of a young century cannot fall on American shoulders alone.” The US strategic is committed to an “international order based on rights and responsibilities,” including a “broader voice – and greater responsibilities” for emerging powers, and the imposition of real consequences on countries that violate their international obligations.
Within two years of taking office, Obama helped to transform the G-8 into the G-20, secured the re-weighting of votes on the International Monetary Fund’s board away from Europe and toward new economic powers, and committed to supporting the candidacies of India and Japan for membership of a reformed UN Security Council.
His administration also devoted enormous energy to building and strengthening regional institutions. For the first time, the Arab League is playing an active role in addressing political upheaval and government brutality in its midst, as is the Gulf Cooperation Council. The African Union helped to restore democracy in Madagascar, aided in forcing Côte d’Ivoire’s president to leave office after losing an election, and sent troops to Somalia. The East Asian Summit is becoming a forum for region-wide security discussions, from the resolution of maritime disputes to fighting pirates.
Obama’s Republican opponents love to hammer home the phrase “leading from behind.” But they miss the point, for they imagine leadership as the equivalent of a nineteenth-century cavalry charge, in which the general is either out front carrying the flag or following along in the rear. Obama is actually far in front in terms of shaping the world’s norms and expectations. He leads from wherever he needs to lead in order to get results. And he’s gotten plenty
If anyone would like to know some of my own personal stances, I've taken the time to give reference back to discussion where I specifically shared on each of them. I would rather not go back/bring up the issues in-depth/with detail again, unless I'm asked to do so and it seems necessary. Again, I've shared some of my views on the issue before on why I do feel personally that the president has indeed done A LOT of good things internationally---and wisely, when it comes to foreign policy. I have enjoyed seeing the work he has sought to do in the Asia-Pacific rim he comes from and expanding the influence that the U.S has had over there in those areas while also networking with people in the region (as shared here in #10/ #150 )..and and I've also shared in other discussions how the president has sought to support Israel in very good ways, from the ways it has sought to be a check on Iran via VERY strong/effective sanctions to the extensive miltitary aid/funding----with many in Israel populace/government noting that the strongest the U.S has ever been is with the current administration, even as the president doesn't seem to have the stance of giving in to anything/everything Israel wants and forcing others such as the Palestinians to work with Israel/find common solutions ( as seen in #156 #157 and #159 ). I think he has done good work as it concerns building bridges as he promised when it comes to working with inter-faith groups (as seen in his international work with Muslim/Arab communities both abroad and here in the U.S., more here , here, and #7 /#46 ).
I do think it was wise of him not to be for wiping out others who aren't even the problem like many war hawks in differing parties who are quick to resolve conflict by blowing an enemy out of existence (as shared here #415 , #35, #37 #177 when it came to some of the wisdom President Obama was seeking to utilize in the situation by NOT going to war/causing more drama in Syria by simply going to war with them)---and the same goes for Lybia, as it seemed the president was for the mindset of practicing Statemanship Of course, I'm not of the mindset that President Obama is a saint when it comes to war...for although he has had an international perspective due to travelling the world throughout his youth/working with differing groups, many of his foreign policies have indeed been very imperialistic. Obama's overall foreign policy philosophy has been postulated as "The Obama Doctrine" by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne as "a form of realism unafraid to deploy American power but mindful that its use must be tempered by practical limits and a dose of self-awareness."....and other scholars such as Noam Chomsky have called him on it repeatedly throughout his term as it concerns where some policies have harmed others (and others have also critiqued the president on his stances internationally)... even though others have been beneficial for certain groups and others have debated the matter (as shared here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here).
Although I'll share more in-depth elsewhere as discussion continues, I did want to note that I do feel the president has a respectable and popular foreign policy record to defend, at least in term of the headline items: killing Bin Laden, ending the Iraq war and drawing down in Afghanistan, toppling Colonel Gaddafi in Libya, and (selectively) assisting the Arab Spring. By no means is it the case that there aren't areas of foreign policy where things could've been better and thus warrant of criticism. Nonetheless, it is difficult to cast the president as ‘soft’ on matters of national security. Opinion surveys through 2012 suggested that more Americans approved than disapproved Obama’s record on foreign policy.
Others say the president is weak, even though he has presided over SEAL raids to take out Somalian pirates and has dramatically expanded the anti-terrorist drone program from the levels it was at in the final years of the Bush Administration. More could be said, but I do think there are some things that cannot be overlooked.
Blessings...
Last edited:
