Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
Author Message
Redwingtom Offline
Progressive filth
*

Posts: 51,524
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 971
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #41
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-01-2015 04:16 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 03:02 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 02:44 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I wasn't referring to just the beginning invasion of the country. Any powerful military can swoop in and blow up and break a bunch of ****. I was referring to the entire invasion. Yes, you have to plan for the consequences of what happens after you blow up and break **** when you disband a whole army and just send them on their way.

We've discussed this before. The plan was to remain en force like the US military has done elsewhere. Support for staying Iraq for the next 50 year fell apart.

Yeah...not quite.

Quote:No thoughtful person would suggest that the coalition should govern Iraq for long. Although Iraqis have freedoms they have never had before, freedom is not sovereignty and occupation is unpopular with occupier and occupied alike. We believe Iraqis should be given responsibility for their own security, economic development and political system as soon as possible.
Iraq's Path to Sovereignty By L. Paul Bremer III

So all the other successful occupation are simply figments of my imagination?

No...I just don't think they're at all comparable to the situations we currently face in the ME. It's just a whole different time and animal. Also, I imagine that we have agreements in place with those countries. And in Iraq, they didn't want an agreement as they didn't want us there.
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 04:26 PM by Redwingtom.)
10-01-2015 04:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Brokeback Flamer Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,690
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Tight ends
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-01-2015 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  
(10-01-2015 10:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  1. Iraqbodycount? Seriously. The National Enquirer is more reliable

Yes seriously. The numbers are pretty accurate. But do you trust Brown University?
http://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/costs.../civilians

How about the University of Washington?
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ar...001533#ack

I could provide more...or do you just want to be obtuse and harangue me on sources? Bottom line, either provide factual evidence to the contrary or STFU. It's that simple.

(10-01-2015 10:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  2. The Iraq Invasion was executed very well, especially considering the Turkey betrayal

I wasn't referring to just the beginning invasion of the country. Any powerful military can swoop in and blow up and break a bunch of ****. I was referring to the entire invasion. Yes, you have to plan for the consequences of what happens after you blow up and break **** when you disband a whole army and just send them on their way.

(10-01-2015 10:42 AM)Brokeback Flamer Wrote:  4. Suggesting that the World and Region would be better with Sadaam in charge is stunningly idiotic.

You're on an island here. Saddam was a madman, but he was a deterrent to all the other bad forces in the area, especially Iran. Hell, even foreign policy lightweight Donald Trump has figured this out. There's no credible analysis to say otherwise...you're just plain wrong. Don't believe me, believe Dick!




Yes I have a problem with those numbers.
First is it 210,000 or 500,000? Because each report gave vastly different numbers. How can you really nail down 'Indirect Civilian Casualties'? UW's report at least tried to nail down a pre War mortality rate. But even that wasn't perfect. Their own conclusions state that there were anywhere between 48,000 to 781,000 deaths That's a really big margin of error
The interpretation of these studies seem to want to pin the death count on US soldiers when a Shia Arab goes into a Sunni mosque and kills everyone. The studies don't take into account how many lives were saved because Sadaam is gone. How fewer rapes. How fewer suicide bombers outside the country
Sadaam in 94 was different than when we invaded. Iran didn't start another war after Desert Storm, when Sadaam was weak. Ever stop to think why? He was a balance but he had started to go beyond that. Don't believe me? Do what you suggest: Ask Dick
(This post was last modified: 10-01-2015 09:00 PM by Brokeback Flamer.)
10-01-2015 08:56 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
vandiver49 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,589
Joined: Aug 2011
Reputation: 315
I Root For: USNA/UTK
Location: West GA
Post: #43
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-01-2015 04:25 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  No...I just don't think they're at all comparable to the situations we currently face in the ME. It's just a whole different time and animal. Also, I imagine that we have agreements in place with those countries. And in Iraq, they didn't want an agreement as they didn't want us there.

I agree that every scenario is different and that America is almost 50 years out from the last time this was tried. But looking back on previous successes is what lent credence to the idea that it might work again. While it didn't, I would contend that US efforts resulted in a Vietnam type destabilization. Since US forces didn't stay it's impossible to know if a Korea like structure could have been established.

Obviously, its passed and opening. The question is how does the nation go forward. Because despite election promises, Obama has the US slightly less engaged globally when compared to the previous administration. At this point I don't think there exists a halfway option for the US internationally. Either we are committed to global engagement (militarily) or we are not. I tend to think that the majority of Americas would prefer the latter, but there are associated costs to that strategy that aren't fully appreciated.
10-02-2015 09:19 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
We should be fully engaged in the protection of American lives, liberty, and property worldwide. We should extend the same protections to citizens of other countries who come within our jurisdiction. We should engage fully and peacefully with every government willing to engage on those terms. We should oppose every government not willing to engage on those terms, to the point of invading and killing that government if all other means fail. We should make our willingness and ability to kill them well known.

We should not engage in micromanaging the internal affairs of any other nation. We should not engage in building any other nation to suit our image. We should not engage in any "limited" war. If we have to fight, we fight with overwhelming force and wide open rules of engagement, and offer no apologies for doing so. If a situation does not justify all-out military engagement, it does not justify any military engagement. Armies exist for two purposes--killing people and breaking things--and they have an on-off switch, not a rheostat.

We tell them what the rules are, we embrace them if they live by those rules, we punish them if they don't. And if that punishment needs to include killing them, we kill them.
(This post was last modified: 10-02-2015 10:28 AM by Owl 69/70/75.)
10-02-2015 10:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Fo Shizzle Offline
Pragmatic Classical Liberal
*

Posts: 42,023
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 1206
I Root For: ECU PIRATES
Location: North Carolina

Balance of Power Contest
Post: #45
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(09-30-2015 09:01 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  
(09-30-2015 06:05 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/3...B920150930

Quote:In Syria, U.S.-trained rebels surrender supplies and ammunition to al Qaeda-linked insurgents. In Iraq, the battle by American-backed government forces against Islamic State is at a stalemate. In Afghanistan, the Taliban seize a provincial capital for the first time since their ouster in 2001.

Less than a year and a half after President Barack Obama used a West Point speech to lay out a strategy for relying on local partners instead of large-scale U.S. military deployments abroad, there is mounting evidence that the so-called “Obama Doctrine” may be failing.

Despite the U.S. investment of at least an estimated $90 billion in these counter-terrorism efforts, Obama has found few reliable allies to carry the load on the battlefield - and he seems to have few good options to fix the situation.

Obama also appears hemmed in by his deep aversion to seeing America drawn back into unpopular Middle East wars after pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq in 2011.

Russia’s sudden moves to seize the initiative in the Syria and Iraq crises in recent weeks have stunned U.S. officials and laid bare the erosion of Washington’s influence in the region.

Faced by the mounting setbacks, Obama will probably only make modest changes in strategy, according to current and former U.S. officials. That strongly suggests that Obama will leave some of the world’s most intractable conflicts to his successor when he leaves office in January 2017.

Quote:The Obama doctrine has floundered partly due to weak national governance in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the failure of moderate Syrian opposition groups to overcome their rivalries.

Still, many critics put the blame squarely on Obama for what they see as an overly cautious approach that has given the perception of a White House lurching from crisis to crisis.

The image of Obama as a sometimes passive world leader has been fed by perceptions that he has allowed the civil war in Syria to fester and has not acted forcefully enough to halt Islamic State’s onslaught there and in neighboring Iraq.

Fresh concerns about Obama’s Afghanistan policy have been ignited by the fall of the northern city of Kunduz to Taliban fighters this week.

U.S. officials say the Taliban's sudden gains against Afghan forces add a new dimension to discussions about whether to upend current plans and instead keep a sizeable force in Afghanistan beyond the end of 2016.

Thanks Bush

Reductio ad Bushum.
10-02-2015 12:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #46
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-02-2015 10:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  We should be fully engaged in the protection of American lives, liberty, and property worldwide. We should extend the same protections to citizens of other countries who come within our jurisdiction. We should engage fully and peacefully with every government willing to engage on those terms. We should oppose every government not willing to engage on those terms, to the point of invading and killing that government if all other means fail. We should make our willingness and ability to kill them well known.

We should not engage in micromanaging the internal affairs of any other nation. We should not engage in building any other nation to suit our image. We should not engage in any "limited" war. If we have to fight, we fight with overwhelming force and wide open rules of engagement, and offer no apologies for doing so. If a situation does not justify all-out military engagement, it does not justify any military engagement. Armies exist for two purposes--killing people and breaking things--and they have an on-off switch, not a rheostat.

We tell them what the rules are, we embrace them if they live by those rules, we punish them if they don't. And if that punishment needs to include killing them, we kill them.

While I agree with the sentiment for the most part I see a small issue.

What exactly are our interests? Where are the limits to our mandate to protect our citizen's property?

That's just a bit too wide and that's sort of where we have run into problems.

At what point do our interests end and other nation's national interests begin to take primacy? How far can they exert themselves and their interests?
10-02-2015 12:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #47
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-02-2015 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While I agree with the sentiment for the most part I see a small issue.
What exactly are our interests? Where are the limits to our mandate to protect our citizen's property?
That's just a bit too wide and that's sort of where we have run into problems. At what point do our interests end and other nation's national interests begin to take primacy? How far can they exert themselves and their interests?

Two comments:
1. Those are all legitimate questions and would have to be thought through further. My comments are intended as a framework, not a detailed fleshing out.
2. To at least some significant extent, I think those issues go away in practicality because once we made it clear that these were our policies, and that we were going to enforce them, a lot of borderline stuff would simply cease happening.
10-02-2015 01:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HeartOfDixie Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 24,689
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation: 945
I Root For: Alabama
Location: Huntsville AL
Post: #48
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-02-2015 01:06 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 12:18 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  While I agree with the sentiment for the most part I see a small issue.
What exactly are our interests? Where are the limits to our mandate to protect our citizen's property?
That's just a bit too wide and that's sort of where we have run into problems. At what point do our interests end and other nation's national interests begin to take primacy? How far can they exert themselves and their interests?

Two comments:
1. Those are all legitimate questions and would have to be thought through further. My comments are intended as a framework, not a detailed fleshing out.
2. To at least some significant extent, I think those issues go away in practicality because once we made it clear that these were our policies, and that we were going to enforce them, a lot of borderline stuff would simply cease happening.

1. I see. My comment is just that such a framework isn't workable if the the tail is what wags the dog here.

2. I would say the exact opposite. At what point do weigh Firestone's property and employees against Liberia's sovereign rights? What about Dole's needs, which are intimately connected with our economic success, and the sovereign rights of countries like Costa Rica, etc? Or, a bigger one would be, how do we weight our need to cut off drug shipments and the interests of Columbia and south American countries to protect their citizens?

Without a line, there is no framework. This has been the biggest problem we as a county have faced over the last 100 years. To us, everything is our business and our needs outweigh everybody else's. I could list country after country where we have had this analysis and we've yet to decide to the benefit of somebody else's interests.

I know you do quite a bit with international law, such that it is, and I would draw the parallel with the way our courts treat foreign laws, courts, and interests. That's a perfect place to see exceptions to our laws that protect our citizens from foreign governments, wether they deserve it or not.
10-02-2015 01:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,655
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #49
RE: Across arc of conflict, 'Obama Doctrine' shows signs of failure
(10-02-2015 01:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Without a line, there is no framework. This has been the biggest problem we as a county have faced over the last 100 years. To us, everything is our business and our needs outweigh everybody else's. I could list country after country where we have had this analysis and we've yet to decide to the benefit of somebody else's interests.

I agree totally about the lack of a line being a problem.

What I'm doing is drawing a line. You may prefer the line be drawn at a different place, and that's an appropriate topic for reasonable discussion.

Here's my line. We protect the interests of Americans worldwide. We do not intervene in regime change or nation building. How they run their country is their business until they impact Americans directly, then it becomes our business too. I really don't have a problem protecting the interests of Firestone or Dole. In most cases, their investments have been the most positive economic events in those countries' histories. Far more positive, particularly for ordinary citizens, than anything we have ever done with foreign aid.

Where we get into trouble is that where Americans have interests, we try to micromanage the countries. Our first option is to change their government, not work with their system.

At the same time, we do need some clearly stated non-negotiables. There need to be consequences for bad acts, those consequences need to be stated plainly, and those consequences need to be enforced.

Right now, we're going to micromanage your affairs, we're going to bluster a lot, we're going to draw false red lines in the sand, but if you confront us we are probably going to back down. That is certain to engender one response--confrontation.

An example from personal experience. When I first got to the Middle East in 1970, it was well known that the Arabs considered State Department to be in bed with Israel, and therefore they trusted the oil companies more than they trusted our diplomats. A lot of our diplomacy was essentially outsourced and run through Aramco (Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, Chevron) in Saudi and Gulf, Shell, and BP/Amoco in Iraq and Iran. Those were commercial arrangements, and they actually worked very well, far better than what we have in place today. We were not trying to micromanage veils off the women's faces.
10-02-2015 02:09 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.