The Obama Doctrine: Is he an Imperialist With a Little Foot, or Just an Old-Fashioned Appeaser?
Here comes Ross Douthat, trying to sort out Obama’s foreign policy. He’s got the right idea: watch the actions, add them up, toss with just enough realism-speak, and voila! An Obama Doctrine.
Douthat rightly, I think, starts by saying that the Hagel and Brennan nominations to head the Pentagon and the CIA are good starting points for analysis, because they represent what he intends to do. And he’s got the major themes right, too:
Like the once-hawkish Hagel, Obama has largely rejected Bush’s strategic vision of America as the agent of a sweeping transformation of the Middle East, and retreated from the military commitments that this revolutionary vision required. And with this retreat has come a willingness to make substantial cuts in the Pentagon’s budget — cuts that Hagel will be expected to oversee.
But the Brennan nomination crystallizes the ways in which Obama has also cemented and expanded the Bush approach to counterterrorism. Yes, waterboarding is no longer with us, but in its place we have a far-flung drone campaign — overseen and defended by Brennan — that deals death, even to American citizens, on the say-so of the president and a secret administration “nominations” process…
To the extent that it’s possible to define an “Obama Doctrine,” then, it’s basically the Hagel-Brennan two-step. Fewer boots on the ground, but lots of drones in the air. Assassination, yes; nation-building, no. An imperial presidency with a less-imperial global footprint.
I don’t think this rises to the level of a strategy, let alone a doctrine. It’s all about tactics. It lacks a mission statement. What is Obama trying to accomplish? When and how will we know we’ve won or lost? And what is “imperial” about it? Are assassins “imperialists”?
Douthat seems to recognize this when he talks about Obama’s retreat from Bush’s “revolutionary vision.” A president in full retreat from those challenging America, and killing Americans and our friends and allies wherever they can, is hardly an imperialist, whatever his shoe size. Indeed, the president’s increasingly embarrassing insistence on cutting some sort of deal with the biggest and most aggressive American enemy — the Iranian regime that arms, trains, and supports most all of the killers — suggests that “appeasement” is a better description.
And yet, as Douthat (and Obama) would hasten to object, we’re killing a lot of al-Qaeda Arabs, aren’t we? And we certainly didn’t appease Osama bin Laden, did we? And Camp Gitmo is still producing obese terrorists, isn’t it?
True. These are the Bush tactics, carried forward by Obama. And the lack of strategic vision is also a carryover from the Bush years. The Bush Doctrine was enunciated early after 9/11: to wage war against the terrorist organizations that were targeting us, and against the states that supported them. That was the original rationale for going after Saddam, and the foundation for the campaign against the “Axis of Evil,” explicitly including Iran, Iraq and North Korea. But the Bush Doctrine was only fulfilled twice. It began and ended with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Long before Obama, the United States was seeking deals with Iran and North Korea, and embracing Syria as a friendly.
So Douthat’s claim that Obama has abandoned the “revolutionary” Bush policy is overstated; Obama is carrying on both the Bush tactics (from drones to vigorous interrogations to military tribunals) and the failed, post-revolutionary Bush strategery, as crafted by Colin Powell, Stephen Hadley, Condi Rice, and Richard Armitage.
To be sure, there is one big difference: where Bush seemed inclined to keep a meaningful number of fighting men and women on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sounded the retreat. That’s a big difference, and its consequences are much more significant than a smaller footprint in the region. Just ask our friends and allies in the Middle East. As Tony Badran writes, all our non-Israeli allies are Sunnis, and they see an Obama policy that seems consistently anti-Sunni. Take the Saudis, for example. They keep asking why the United States doesn’t support the Syrian opposition (contrary to what you read in the popular press, we have done next to nothing to help Assad’s enemies). And they ask why Obama is so acquiescent to Iraq’s top dog, Maliki, who supports Assad and enables Iranian assistance to the besieged tyrant in Damascus.
The other key Bush strategy was to take the fight to the enemy. That way, the fighting would be done in other people’s back yards. It seems that Obama is retreating from this approach which will greatly increase the chances of a significant domestic ‘incident’. To stretch a football analogy, it’s like retreating from an all out blitz defense to a soft Tampa 2. (Hey, the Super Bowl is coming up…)
He is neither, Michael.He is a satanist, committed to the destruction of America and the slaughter of our people. All that he does provides evidence for that conclusion. He violates the Constitution whenever he wishes. He spends with the intent to bankrupt us. He kills unborn babies and promotes homosexual sin. His insane healthcare plan ruins the economy and permits government to regulate all care. His bribery of tincuppers and giant corporations both is accomplished by robbing us of our savings by inflation and expansion of the money supply. He permits our declared enemies to acquire nuclear weapons, he send our troops all over the world, then ties their hands with absurd rules of engagement. He does all he can to suppress christianity and to promote islam, a satanic conspiracy
This is hypocritical since he does not believe in God. If he believed, he would obey, knowing that disobedience incurs damnation. He is well known in Chicago gay bath houses. He admits substance abuse. His personal records are so shameful that he has hidden them. He is acutely racist, and surrounds himself with other blacks, far out of proportion to their incidence in the general population. He lies constantly. His socalled “christian faith” comes from twenty years of Rev. Wrights’ damn the whites and goddamn america sentiments. He and his wife are flagburners. He uses our drones to murder american citizens abroad. All he does is evil-satanic. Dubya did the same, but in a much more modified manner, and is also a servant of satan.Obama is a sociopath, meeting every single one of the diagnostic criteria. His electoral edge was made by the votes of minorities, females, and the young. Thanks for nothing, you irresponsible illegitimates!
As long as people like Hannity & Levin continue to support any one that the liberal republican establishment chooses for the American people, nothing will ever get better. The right endlessly blames the left for Americas’ demise. While their last two presidential nominees were liberals.
As long as you continue to paint obama as the root of all evil you support the advancement of liberalism in the right.
I get it, o.k., obama is a liberal. But so is romney. So is mccain. So will the next republican nominee be, a liberal. The right invariably advances liberals. & pushes out conservatives like Santorum, Bachmann & West. So while you whine, you are destroying everything that is conservative.
The candidates on the right are never vetted by the right as to whether they are conservatives or not. They are merely advanced by “endorsements” & invariably the liberals rise & conservatives fall.
So the right today is fatally flawed. & it is incapable of seeing how it destroys conservatism in America, all by itself.
Yes, obama won. So will the next liberal. The right is not conservative when it comes to its’ elections. Quite the opposite, the right elects non threats to its’ own liberal life style.
Your opening sentence is ridiculous. I take it you’re a Ronpaulian?
quoting Douthat is ideological?
I’m no “Ron Paulian” but even I can see that the national GOP has been a false-flag operation for a very long time.
It’s time to starve it of contributions and instead give all the contributions to the candidates themselves, to super-PACs, and to state GOP organizations.
Please don’t confuse “Republican” with “Right” or “Conservative”. Levin especially, has always voiced contempt for the “go-along-to-get-along” members of the Republican Party who cave in to the Democrats in order to get invited to Georgetown cocktail parties. This is especially the complaint of the TEA Party: that Republicans simply won’t fight for a conservative agenda.
The harsh reality that the Republican establishment recognizes is that a true conservative candidate for POTUS in our not-so-newly center left electorate cannot garner the necessary number of votes to win. Fortunately though, true conservatives are enjoying more success on the state & local levels.
I think your conclusion, that Obama believes America is the problem, says it all.
But, logically, take any problem. No matter WHO or WHAT caused it, going forward the only question is, what is the (or a) solution?
Maybe he’s a throwback, an old fashioned isolationist, in effect. Then there are those who believe he hates to have to put ANY attention on foreign affairs, because it robs him of time he can spend organizing the “community” of the USA.
I just saw Bret Stephens’ 40 minute talk from right after the election. His worry is that it’s 1947 all over again.
Worse, it could be 1936, 1938, AND 1947 all together.
Running down the military, AND appeasing enemies simultaneously.
I’ve followed you for years, and it’s starting to become scary—that is, it seems like we’re always about to have to deal with a nuclear Iran, and it just seems to keep on not happening: yet. Just so wrt so many festering war zones, especially in the Middle East.
Why, I’m beginning to doubt my sanity—I really can’t believe we’ve made it to now, 2013, for heaven’s sake, without either a huge foreign disaster and/or economic collapse.
Will we die with a bang, or a whimper? I still think Mark Steyn “gets it”, though, and it’s just a matter of time.
BTW—given the crazy federal debt and deficit, and the easy money from the Fed, how can the CPI be so benign, where is the inflation?
I await the bond vigilantes.
Where are the equivalent types, wrt the looming “inflation” breakout of war, via Iran, et al? Besides you, of course.
Part of the Obama doctrine has been the Hillary doctrine.
And THIS is what Hillary Clinton is all about.
The Obama Doctrine, demonstrated by our actions on the ground and by the president’s choice of top officials for his second term, is: remove America from the battlefield, encourage those who hate America, withhold support from those who would fight against our common enemies, and things will get better. – Ledeen
Bingo!
Also known as…Red-Green-Brown Alliance. The Anti-European Christian and especially Anti-American alliance. You can see it as well in the Anti-Israelism that is so prevalent and widespread as well.
Anti-WesternCivilization
So if I understand you correctly, on Syria. What you are essentially saying is that we should support and arm Sunni Muslim extremists (of the most vile variety), who in all likelihood will perpetrate something short of a Holocaust but more than a massacre against the remaining Christian population of the country. This, because Assad is allied with Teheran. Is that in our national interest?
Not unless we hate Christians and love Islam.
that’s what the Saudis are saying. I thought we had a decent option early on in Syria, with the FSA, but that opportunity is long gone. As you should know if you’ve been around here, I favor supporting the internal Iranian opposition to launch non-violent democratic revolution. But my president doesn’t agree, obviously…
“…I favor supporting the internal Iranian opposition to launch non-violent democratic revolution.”
Interesting! “non-violent democratic revolution.” Why not! Its been working out so well in recent times throughout the ME.
you might ask comrade Gorbachev about it…he’s quite impressed.
LOL!!! You had to dig deep into your old journals for that one, eh? But since you want to divert from the issue of non-violent democratic revolution in Iran and the ME, to your old professional era, hows all that working out today with the one called Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin? They’re still not our bed partner, they’re not broke, they still undercut all the U.S. global initiatives, they still support and aid our socalled enemies, many of the freedoms are being slowly reversed, they still have a sizable military and decent techonology, they’re our ‘ride’ into space today, they don’t have the economic burden of all the break-aways, they still have decent education systems, they still market arms to our unfriendlies around the globe, and their future is still too written. I’m betting they will be a democratic socialist (communism is so out of vogue these days) nation just like the Chinese, for a very long time and a constant indrect or direct threat to the U.S.
What are the overwhelming pluses I’m missing? We’ll both be pushing up daisies before its known if the U.S. strategies really worked.
we totally agree that Putin is very bad. his Russia, however, is less dangerous than the Soviet Union. you will probably agree with what I wrote shortly after the USSR came down in a little book called “Freedom Betrayed,” about how we walked away from a global democratic revolution Reagan/Thatcher/John Paul II/Havel/Walesa.et al had inspired. That was Bush the Elder…
Mostly we screw up.
I didn’t think Gorbachev was a muslim dealing with muslims.
his totalitarian regime was brought down by a democratic opposition. nobody had to invade.
Zeke,
Your “socalled enemies”? You mean you have both real enemies and socalled enemies, or do you have only socalled enemies? As in only in your head/racist projections on the Other/used as bogeymen by the gov’t to control the citizenry/serve your military industry/serve the Jewish lobby and the Zionist Entity/Bildenberg/Bush did 911/some other conspiracy theory?
And as for your previous comment in this thread, the difference between Iran and the rest of the pre-revolutionary Muslim ME is that it’ll be very very hard for an Iranian revolution to produce a regime worse than the current one. It’s almost certain to produce a regime that is just as bad or better, so the chance of improvement is relatively high. What’s happening in Egypt now already happened in Iran in 1979, and by now many Iranians seem to be fed up with it, so this would be a counter-revolution and there is some chance we could see what can come after Islamism. Or else it’ll just bring about an equally bad regime.
I am aware of your position on instigating internal turmoil to bring about favorable regime change Dr, whether the outcome is “democratic” or not, well that’s another story. IMHO a policy of Balkanization of the Islamic world is a more stable, stable for us that is, option in the long term.
Difficult undertaking, but not impossible..
Thks for the response in any case.
I believe that YOUR president, NOT mine!, is a sadist who enjoys death, torture, suffering, destruction and chaos. In other words he is a devil worshipper and expects to be eternally rewarded for his crimes against humanity.Please click on the diagnostic criteria for antisocial personality and see that he meets ALL the criteria. He is evil, through and through. It is the very height of naivete to suppose him to be mistaken, ignorant, misguided, well-intentioned,but; or anything but a conscious, committed satanist, sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations from the Harold Pratt House in Manhattan. He is but a blob of snot, spat into our faces to show the contempt the “elite” of the CFR have for mankind.And more than 60 million of us actually love the taste of that filthy snot, and just can’t get enough of it. Enjoy, bozos!
“Is the president an imperialist with a little foot, or just an old-fashioned appeaser?”
allow me to respond.
The president is a marxist, a thug, a muslim apologist, a party-boy and an affirmative action bozo with a grudge. If he had no impact on foreign policy whatsoever, he would still be the most dangerous person on the planet in decades. Control of foreign policy expands the danger beyond US citizens to Israeli citizens and the entire world.
Not sure the guy is really as smart as everyone says. In history the ability to game the voters is indicative of a “smart” political operative–has not meant that you were an “according-to-Hoyle” genius. Leadership is a very different ballgame than endlessly running for something.
I’d say a pretty good case can be made for Presdient Obama being the fullest expression of the Peter Principle. Good enough to win–aided by mainly supine or outright partisen media, low information voters, a cynical but highly effective divide and conquor plan and less than optimal opponents–but not nearly skilled and smart enough to run a nation well.
Oh, si.
Shadrack Obama is a picayune preacher with a little foot in his mouth; His own.
“The Bush Doctrine was enunciated early after 9/11: to wage war against the terrorist organizations that were targeting us, and against the states that supported them.”
Well if that was Bush’s doctrine he sure didn’t follow it for long, but instead soon went off with his new doctrine of COIN/”Winning Muslim Hearts and Minds”/”Partners in Peace”/”Trillion Dollar Bridge To Nowhere”. And Obama doubled down on that insanity at least in Afcrapistan getting twice as many American troops killed as Bush had there and in half the time. Dumb and Dumber.
Bush abandoned his Freedom Agenda aka The Bush Doctrine after the election of Hamas in Palestine. Unfortunately, it snowballed, and Dumber or Traitor declined to back the Iranian Green Liberal Democracy but supported the tumbling of Mubarak, a pretty preferable ally….and of course Libya. Algeria and Tunisia. Now Syria.
Interestingly enough, I think that letting the Syrians decended in an extended civil war is overall the best policy. Assist Muslims and Arabs in occupying their time killing each other. This gives Israel the breathing space to deal with Iran’s nuclear program, militarily, which is in our interests.
Should have armed the Kurds and drawn Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia into a massive regional conflict, IMO.
The best policy is to keep Muslims occupied killing other Muslims. Sell weapons and ammo to all sides for oil.
“I think that letting the Syrians decended in an extended civil war is overall the best policy.”
Yes, when infidel hating throwbacks to the 7th century are fighting another sect of infidel hating throwbacks to the 7th century, why should we stick our necks between them?
Not to defend Obama’s policies, but you might want to take a good look at a map. We’re not in Afghanistan primarily for the Afghanis, although chasing the Taliban is deserving in and of itself. (BTW, we were winning in Afghanistan, but one must use the right tactics). We’re there because of Pakistan which, need I remind you, A) has an intelligence service that is lousy with the Taliban, and B) has nuclear weapons. Pakistan was hiding Osama bin Laden, is supporting Al Qaeda, and is dangerously close to becoming a radical Islamic state.
He said in the 2008 campaign who he was, he said he wanted to transform this country and that is exactly what he is doing. His Administration is full of Muslim Brotherhood friendlies, he makes friends with countries that hate us and snubs our allies. This is not rocket science, he is executing his plan and now he will utilize his flexibility now that he doesn’t have to face the voters. He was raised by marxists and schooled in Alinsky tactics but what was the message to voters “he’s a nice guy, just in over his head”
“To be sure, there is one big difference: where Bush seemed inclined to keep a meaningful number of fighting men and women on the ground in both Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama sounded the retreat.”
I don’t know where you get this “sounded the retreat”. Although Obama promised during his 2008 campaign to get all U.S. troops out of Iraq in 16 months, he only withdrew them on on the Bush/Maliki Status of Forces timetable and we still have a lot of “non-military” personnel there.
As to Afcrapistan, Obama more than doubled the number of troops there that he inherited from Bush and still has more there than he inherited from Bush. We are in our twelfth year there? Are we suppose to stay in Afcrapistan until time itself comes to an end?
“They keep asking why the United States doesn’t support the Syrian opposition (contrary to what you read in the popular press, we have done next to nothing to help Assad’s enemies).”
If this is true, then what were we doing in Benghazi on 9/11(?):
1) we were on a secret mission (thus no authorized security) with a manned CIA complex nearby;
2) the US Ambassador met with the Turkish Ambassador immediately prior to the terrorist attack against the undermanned ‘consulate’ in Benghazi on 9/11/2012. Ref: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/25/was-syrian-weapons-shipment-factor-in-ambassadors-benghazi-visit/.
“I don’t think the Saudis are great strategic thinkers,…”
They have a more stable country than any other major Islamic country in the middle east. Perhaps there was some successful strategy behind that accomplishment.
“We’re governed by a man who has taken sides in the global war, and he favors those who think America is the source of the world’s biggest problems.”
Agree completely!
did anyone ask Hillary why Amb Stevens was in Benghazi? if so, what did she say?
Picture a Michael Ramirez cartoon in Investors Business Daily on Jan 25 2013 with Hillary Clinton sitting on Sean Smith’s gravestone saying: “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?”.
“Is the president an imperialist…”
Any administration who carries forth the containment nation building strategy are imperialists.
The Obama Doctrine is, the Muslim Brotherhood Doctrine!!!
It’s all part of Obama’s philosophy of Zero-Sum Global Redistribution. He wants to take money, influence, armaments, and power away from the US and redistribute it to a part of the world (The Islamic Ummah) that he has a fondness for, one he thinks doesn’t have an equal shot to “win” dominion over the world.
The Communist calculation is correct if it is a merely contest between the Ummah and the Communists. The former would likely win a difficult contest. The point is that it is not that simple…we are armed!
Your last sentence
“The Obama Doctrine, demonstrated by our actions on the ground and by the president’s choice of top officials for his second term, is: remove America from the battlefield, encourage those who hate America, withhold support from those who would fight against our common enemies, and things will get better.”
might get closer what’s really going on in Obama’s head if it read
The Obama Doctrine, demonstrated by our actions on the ground and by the president’s choice of top officials for his second term, is: remove America from the battlefield, encourage those who hate America, withhold support from those who would fight against our common enemies, and then those enemies are less likely to assassinate me.
I can see where the Saudis are coming from, but as an Israeli, and more generally a non-Islamist non-jihadist, I see Assad as the second worst option in this war for power in Syria. Assad is not a Muslim fanatic, he’s not a Muslim at all, and he acts as a more or less rational player. While he supports Hamas and Hizballah, he’s not likely to give them chemical weapons to use against Israel because he knows he’d be crossing a red line and if the WMD is traced back to Syria Israel will attack Syria — an Israeli response to the use of WMD against its civilians could be devastating. But Muslim fanatics are far less deterred by such worldly risks. Therefore I think that as bad as Assad is, and as bad as his alliance with Iran is, the chemical weapons are still safer under his control than in the hands of the assorted rebels, which include many insane jihadis. If they fall in the hands of terrorists they could be used anywhere, not just against Israel. Of course, there’s the possibility that America will take out the chemical weapons after Assad falls, but that’s nothing more than a possibility. Thank goodness Israel destroyed the Syrian nuclear reactor.
the central issue is Iran. lots of problems become easier if the Iranian regime is replaced with something better, which I think is possible. and worthy of American support.
What if now, in the post-revolutionary ME, we’ll have several “Irans”? What if instead of an Iranian ally on our border we’ll have an actual “Iran” on our border?
If terror against Israel is upgraded to the use of chemical weapons it’ll be difficult for us to keep any kind of normalcy. The population will be more terrorized and demoralized, a lot of resources will have to be invested into defending a population of 8 million civilians from the chemical threat, a lot of people will prefer leaving the country, particularly the rich and educated, we’ll have to invade Syria to stop or reduce the attacks. It’ll be a disaster. Assad is far less likely to use WMD against Israel, and so from where I live in southern Israel, he is preferable.
Underminig Iran should be done in other ways, not by replacing Iranian allies with equally bad Sunni Islamists. Helping the Iranian opposition is both smart and good since they want their freedom too. Helping the Kurds is also a possibility since they want their independence and that will help destabilize Iran. Drilling and fracking may hurt the Iranian income a little.
Oh, I haven’t noticed you were talking about the Iranian regime. I thought we were still talking about Assad. Of course, I’m totally for supporting the Iranian opposition. An Iranian counter-revolution is likely to produce something better, both for the Iranian people and for most of the rest of the world. And if not better then just as bad. It’s unlikely to produce something worse.
Michael, have you bookmarked http://www.joelstrumpet.com ? For I consider the material there to augment what you are saying.
Freedom is not only desirable, but also practical.
Thanks.
So I guess there are two schools on Obama and the ME. Both assume that he is anti-Israel, which seems to be the case..There is your viewpoint, Michael, and there is that espoused by folks like Pam Geller. I think the bulk of the evidence actually supports Geller – what Obama has done in the ME is to, within the context of warming up to Islam in general, advance the cause of the MB. Perhaps his response to Egypt was only improvisation at the time, but he had plenty of time to reverse the direction and he continued to back Morsi.
Now it could be that he simply appeases Muslim dictators, no matter be they Sunni or Shiite, and that he further appeases dictators in general – as with Putin. So I think you’re right that he does things that help American enemies around the globe. And while I don’t agree with you that he is systematically pro-Iran, I do think the combination of ‘dictator’ and ‘Muslim’ is too much for him to resist – he basically ‘loves’ them all..
GoldSeek Radio’s Chris Waltzek talks to PETER SCHIFF – Jan 2, 2013
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLeHvmmMRNw&feature=g-user-f&list=FLIjuLiLHdFxYtFmWlbTGQRQ
Obama’s policies are those of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, whose church he attended for 20 years, anti-American, anti-white, anti-semitic, and of Bill Ayers, his close friend – Communist, terrorist. Appointing John Kerry, American traitor, John Brennan, appeaser, and Chuck Hagel – anti-semitic, anti-Israel, shows Obama’s foreign policy views.
Peter Schiff: Coming debt crisis will make 2008 look like a Sunday school picnic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZTlsDepd08&feature=g-user-f&list=FLIjuLiLHdFxYtFmWlbTGQRQ
Illinois’ credit rating downgraded; state drops to worst in the nation
http://wgntv.com/2013/01/26/illinois-credit-rating-downgraded-state-drops-to-worst-in-the-nation/
@ Pnina
I would just invite you to go back to a point in time — 1947 — and work your way forward to the present, learning of the involvment of the U.S. and UK in Iranian political affairs. Heck you might even see an overthrow or two.
Socaled enemies are those nations and governments for which are diametrically opposed to the U.S. but we financially support them and often times go to bed with them.
Question! Why would you support a non violent revolution against a government if you had no idea what would replace it? Revolutions cost lifes, peaceful or violent! Don’t for a moment let somebody convince you it doesn’t!
Since 1947 the U.S. and its containment nation builders have gone about the world trying to coinvert government to a U.S. style of democratic government and constitution. How has that worked out? Yep nearly every one has a constitution and a democratic electoral process written into it. How many trillions has it cost the U.S. and its allies in all these years? How many lives, military and otherwise has it cost us? Hows the world looking today? Peaceful and flourishing?
I most humbly disagree with you, I will try and do so politely…
Since the world did not start in 1947 in Iran or anywhere else, no I do not want to view the world or anything about the world as though it was created in 1947.
I do not agree with your assessment of US foreign policy since the end of Weapons Deal 2 (aka world war 2)…US foreign policy is better explained (in duck theory: what I am observing) by “nice long lasting wars” and sell lots of weapons and under no circumstances is winning a war legal, moral, or ethical… and in fact may be illegal: the only way to explain what we are observing is: American foreign policy is extended armed conflicts…with the express goal of no winner or loser.
@ Michael Ledeen
With your retirement hat on and you and conversing over a nice hot tea, I’m sure there are a few things we could agree on. You view the world from a particular ideology and political strategies to convert to world to a single form of political and social values and I, view the world more from human nature and economics.
Hey, if the boys are still serving — Semper Fi!
Zeke, you do the gratuitous! The real world awaits…
tks. still with espresso, and no retirement hat as yet.
I don’t think anyone can find much logical coherence when dealing with a sociopath. Their actions are designed to be contradictory (it keeps the lackeys forever in a state of panic — not able to predict who he will turn on next). I think the term “imperialist” fits the sociopath, so long as one understands the term as referring to being “a law unto one’s self” — that is, accountable to no one. Hence, Obama draws up his drone kill list — who is privvy to his rationale? Who will be subject to his hit? Can anyone stop him.? Of course not. Hence he adopts the imperial, kingly powers of a tyrant — deciding who lives, who dies. And which side is he on? Is he not consistently on the side of America’s enemies? Thus, I would say, he is an anti-American imperialist.
Congratulations to Mr. Ledeen on accommodating this discourse and congratulations to the people who comment here on their intentions for a fact based agreement/disagreement.
I believe that Syria has lost its sovereignty and is now under the Colonial rule of the dictators in Iran that parade as religious; and that Basher Assad is now a governor under the Iranian dictatorship. Iran is ethnically cleansing Syria; Iran intends to do the same thing in Egypt, that is why they are cozying up…only in Egypt, Iran plans the catastrophic failure of the Aswan Damn followed by repopulating the area with Shia. Iran is also acting as a colonial power in Eritria…et al
The Russians are easy to understand: they remain the same: the Commuless Moscow weapons Company: have wars will travel; but always always a careful eye that the Bosporus stays open to Russian ships…and screw America who they hate, which gives them a lot in common with the Iranian dictators that parade as religious.
Brennan and Hagel…like why would you go to all the trouble to fetch Bin Laden dead? Why not bring him in for questioning? Oh Yea, take no prisoners Obama does not want the US to have that type source of intelligence/data.
Obama! Does NOT favor: “a woman’s right to choose” even whether or not to have sex: in Gaza, or Egypt et al…Obama and the left demand that woman in Iran, Egypt, Gaza et al be on call for sex with their husbands on demand: under pain of death! Obama/the Left demand a state in Gaza where woman will know their place!
I read about a counter insurgency tactic that involves hitting an enemy everywhere but in a designated safe zone. The idea being to eventually herd the terrorists into a nice killing zone and finish them off. surprise!
‘Whack a mole’ could be be used for that. Kill people everywhere but where you want them to go. One supposes the where you want them to go would be someplace they want to be already. Iran comes to mind.
this post has nothing to do with the Fed, and until Ron Paul apologizes for libeling me, he’s banned here.
Cool non sequitur.