The Pax Americana is Dead

[BigRedBuster]

So you agree that the premise in the OP is absurd, and that blaming anyone for the failure of this thing which never existed is equally absurd. Correct?

I believe that American power in various parts of the world has saved various groups of people from being attacked and possibly extinguished. If someone wants to call that Pax-America or not, I really don't care.

 

I also believe that the majority of the cause of problems around world right now are not anyone in the US government's fault.

[LukeinNE]

Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor. The Iraq war was supposed to cost a few billion dollars and last a few months. It ended up being one of the longest in our history. Obama gets the credit for ending it. Similarly, Afghanistan looks to me like a war with no victory scenario. Obama gets the credit for getting us out of it. Obama also gets the credit from turning our massive occupation force into a more judicious, flexible, and targeted counter-terrorism outfit. I've been pretty clear on this point. Conservatives might as well find another issue; their squawking about foreign policy and use of military force is swiping the card with nothing in the account.

 

 

I haven't been one to bash Obama's foreign policy, but this paragraph looks like it was written by the DNC's communications coordinator, and needs some fact-checking.

 

Obama gets the credit for ending the Iraq War

Well, he gets the credit, that doesn't mean he should. Bush signed the final status of forces agreement detailing the complete withdrawal of American forces by Dec 2011. Obama was the guy in office when that agreement took effect. Ironically, we were totally out, and now have boots on the ground there again, on exclusively Obama's orders. I think that's the right call on his part, but the idea that Obama was handed some huge mess in Iraq and got us out of it is an oversimplification, to be charitable.

 

Obama also gets the credit from turning our massive occupation force into a more judicious, flexible, and targeted counter-terrorism outfit.

 

 

 

Assuming you're talking about Afghanistan, uh, did you forget about this?

 

I don't care to get into a big fight over this. On foreign policy, I think Obama catches a lot more flak from the right than he deserves, but the left's narrative of St. Barack the Peacemaker isn't any more accurate.

[Husker_x]

 

Obama inherited two wars from his predecessor. The Iraq war was supposed to cost a few billion dollars and last a few months. It ended up being one of the longest in our history. Obama gets the credit for ending it. Similarly, Afghanistan looks to me like a war with no victory scenario. Obama gets the credit for getting us out of it. Obama also gets the credit from turning our massive occupation force into a more judicious, flexible, and targeted counter-terrorism outfit. I've been pretty clear on this point. Conservatives might as well find another issue; their squawking about foreign policy and use of military force is swiping the card with nothing in the account.

 

 

I haven't been one to bash Obama's foreign policy, but this paragraph looks like it was written by the DNC's communications coordinator, and needs some fact-checking.

 

Obama gets the credit for ending the Iraq War

Well, he gets the credit, that doesn't mean he should. Bush signed the final status of forces agreement detailing the complete withdrawal of American forces by Dec 2011. Obama was the guy in office when that agreement took effect. Ironically, we were totally out, and now have boots on the ground there again, on exclusively Obama's orders. I think that's the right call on his part, but the idea that Obama was handed some huge mess in Iraq and got us out of it is an oversimplification, to be charitable.

 

Obama also gets the credit from turning our massive occupation force into a more judicious, flexible, and targeted counter-terrorism outfit.

 

 

 

Assuming you're talking about Afghanistan, uh, did you forget about this?

 

I don't care to get into a big fight over this. On foreign policy, I think Obama catches a lot more flak from the right than he deserves, but the left's narrative of St. Barack the Peacemaker isn't any more accurate.

 

 

 

Obama's no hippie. But when you say that the president was handed a mess, who were you quoting, and what do you mean by it? Do you mean that Obama did not inherit the 2 trillion dollar debt/after-effects/impossible decisions of what is now almost universally seen as a pointless war? This is an equivocation on the word 'mess'. He inherited an untenable situation made that way by a combination of historical forces and the events of 2003. While we're on equivocation, if by "putting boots on the ground" you mean ~4 targeted airstrikes in a limited engagement, I do not understand the case being made or the similarity you perceive between these strikes and a full-scale invasion. I suppose there is a point about the US-Iraqi Status of Forces Agreement: the Iraqis basically kicked us out, burning effigies and chanting to make their point about our welcome clear. Maybe we shouldn't give Obama too much credit on that one.

 

No, not really. Obama increased troop levels in 2009 to complete the war and they're set to drop to 10-20k (mostly special forces, counter terrorism, and military training personnel) this year––which is what I wrote above. It's also noteworthy that after the troop increase, the key perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks was hunted down and killed. Once again, if you listen to conservative tub-thumping on Obama's foreign policy, you cannot escape a horrifying vision of endless occupation, bombings, strikes and incursions against almost every nation in the region, forever and ever, amen.

[carlfense]

On foreign policy, I think Obama catches a lot more flak from the right than he deserves, but the left's narrative of St. Barack the Peacemaker isn't any more accurate.

I don't know about St. Barack the Peacemaker . . . but it'd be awfully tough to argue that he has gotten us into more quagmires than his predecessor.

 

Come to think of it, I wonder how many wars we would be in if the GOP had won the presidency in 2008? I don't know if John McCain has seen a problem yet where he doesn't think that Obama needs to commit the US military.

 

 

Until the GOP comes to terms with the magnitude of their foreign policy blunders in the W. era they have no foreign policy credibility whatsoever.

[LukeinNE]

Obama's no hippie. But when you say that the president was handed a mess, who were you quoting, and what do you mean by it? Do you mean that Obama did not inherit the 2 trillion dollar debt/after-effects/impossible decisions of what is now almost universally seen as a pointless war?

 

You are going way, way outside of anything I've said, and worse, you're reverting to the lazy talking point that Bush being bad somehow exempts Obama from critical examination. I've been sharply critical of Bush and the Iraq adventure elsewhere on this board. You claimed Obama deserves credit for ending the Iraq War, I reference you to the US withdrawal agreement signed by Bush, and your response was some muddled mess on how bad Iraq was and.....never addressed that, again, the end of the Iraq War was legally set, in writing, before Obama ever got into office. I'll even give Obama some credit for executing Bush's deal, but its nonsensical to deny Bush all credit in the war's end, though crediting him with doing anything right apparently causes you guys physical pain.

 

While we're on equivocation, if by "putting boots on the ground" you mean ~4 targeted airstrikes in a limited engagement, I do not understand the case being made or the similarity you perceive between these strikes and a full-scale invasion.

Point out where I equivocated Obama's recent actions in Iraq with a full scale invasion. I said we were totally out, and no longer are, on Obama's orders. That is completely, 100% true, and I don't see the point in challenging it. Also, "boots on the ground" referenced the nearly 400 military advisers that Obama has sent to Iraq since the ISIS problem began. Again, I support Obama's decision here. It's not that I'm out to get the guy, but the idea that we're out of Iraq thanks to Obama just isn't true.

 

No, not really. Obama increased troop levels in 2009 to complete the war and they're set to drop to 10-20k (mostly special forces, counter terrorism, and military training personnel) this year––which is what I wrote above.

Actually...yes. Obama's surge in Afghanistan was explicitly modeled after what we did in Iraq. While we're on that, you've clearly said that Afghanistan was an unwinnable situation. So...did Obama with his surge send hundreds of young Americans to their deaths for no purpose? You said the surge was to "complete the war." How did that surge "complete" anything? It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways, and the only consistent logic is Bush = bad, Obama = good.

 

It's also noteworthy that after the troop increase, the key perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks was hunted down and killed.

Not really, unless you can provide a substantive link between more combat troops in Afghanistan and more CIA success in Pakistan...which I don't think you can.

 

I don't know about St. Barack the Peacemaker . . . but it'd be awfully tough to argue that he has gotten us into more quagmires than his predecessor.

 

Come to think of it, I wonder how many wars we would be in if the GOP had won the presidency in 2008? I don't know if John McCain has seen a problem yet where he doesn't think that Obama needs to commit the US military.

 

Until the GOP comes to terms with the magnitude of their foreign policy blunders in the W. era they have no foreign policy credibility whatsoever.

 

I sure am glad I didn't say that, then.

 

McCain would've been a disastrous president for the country and the GOP.

 

This does not mean that we can rewrite history or take the Democratic point of view as gospel truth. I have no love for the Graham/McCain wing of the GOP, and neither do many conservatives. Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

[carlfense]

This does not mean that we can rewrite history or take the Democratic point of view as gospel truth.

I don't take much of anything as gospel truth. (Unless we're talking about the gospel of Tom Osborne's 1995 Huskers.)

 

Rand Paul has gained popularity within the party pretty much completely because of his more isolationist leanings.

Which is why it will be particularly depressing to watch him walk those back over the next two years.

[LukeinNE]

Which is why it will be particularly depressing to watch him walk those back over the next two years.

 

Aside from the influence of the religious right, the over the top hawkishness of the establishment Republican Party is probably my least favorite thing about the GOP. I'm hardly a dove, but I have a feeling Obama and I would philosophically agree on quite a lot in this area. Hopefully the last decade has taught us a lesson or two about nation-building...or really doing much of anything except preventing genocide in the Middle East.

[Husker_x]

 

Obama's no hippie. But when you say that the president was handed a mess, who were you quoting, and what do you mean by it? Do you mean that Obama did not inherit the 2 trillion dollar debt/after-effects/impossible decisions of what is now almost universally seen as a pointless war?

 

You are going way, way outside of anything I've said, and worse, you're reverting to the lazy talking point that Bush being bad somehow exempts Obama from critical examination. I've been sharply critical of Bush and the Iraq adventure elsewhere on this board. You claimed Obama deserves credit for ending the Iraq War, I reference you to the US withdrawal agreement signed by Bush, and your response was some muddled mess on how bad Iraq was and.....never addressed that, again, the end of the Iraq War was legally set, in writing, before Obama ever got into office. I'll even give Obama some credit for executing Bush's deal, but its nonsensical to deny Bush all credit in the war's end, though crediting him with doing anything right apparently causes you guys physical pain.

 

While we're on equivocation, if by "putting boots on the ground" you mean ~4 targeted airstrikes in a limited engagement, I do not understand the case being made or the similarity you perceive between these strikes and a full-scale invasion.

Point out where I equivocated Obama's recent actions in Iraq with a full scale invasion. I said we were totally out, and no longer are, on Obama's orders. That is completely, 100% true, and I don't see the point in challenging it. Also, "boots on the ground" referenced the nearly 400 military advisers that Obama has sent to Iraq since the ISIS problem began. Again, I support Obama's decision here. It's not that I'm out to get the guy, but the idea that we're out of Iraq thanks to Obama just isn't true.

 

No, not really. Obama increased troop levels in 2009 to complete the war and they're set to drop to 10-20k (mostly special forces, counter terrorism, and military training personnel) this year––which is what I wrote above.

Actually...yes. Obama's surge in Afghanistan was explicitly modeled after what we did in Iraq. While we're on that, you've clearly said that Afghanistan was an unwinnable situation. So...did Obama with his surge send hundreds of young Americans to their deaths for no purpose? You said the surge was to "complete the war." How did that surge "complete" anything? It seems to me that you're trying to have it both ways, and the only consistent logic is Bush = bad, Obama = good.

 

It's also noteworthy that after the troop increase, the key perpetrator of the 9/11 attacks was hunted down and killed.

Not really, unless you can provide a substantive link between more combat troops in Afghanistan and more CIA success in Pakistan...which I don't think you can.

 

The first thing I want to make clear is that I don't think we're ultimately in that much disagreement. Obama is not exempted from critical examination in any sense. The usefulness of the surge in Afghanistan has yet to be seen and will only begin to be seen next year, and I do not have too many reasons for optimism except the end of us Americans having to deal with it. The morality of the drone war and the activities of the NSA are very troubling.

 

Here are a few points to consider:

 

1. I don't think I am going outside of your text. You characterized my position on Iraq as Bush handing Obama a mess without considering the broader implications of the statement (though I believe you when you say you've dealt with it elsewhere––I would assume so). Your quickly-made point at the end of the first paragraph is the credit part: Bush signed (or was made to sign) a piece of paper that Obama is ultimately responsible for enacting (and getting skewered for the after-effects, regardless of what they are, by the party that trumpeted the war from the beginning). I suppose we have to tip our hat, but you'll forgive me for not loitering around to bask in the moment. Giving credit to Bush for ending the Iraq War is kind of like giving credit to a guy who sets his neighbor's house on fire and has the good sense to call the fire department. The issue is context, not talking points.

 

2. Your use of the phrase "boots on the ground" to mean both targeted airstrikes/training/advisory troops and an invasion/occupation force comprised of hundreds of thousands is the equivocation. It may literally be true, but the two scenarios are apples and sky scrapers. I do not understand where the contention is here, because you have said twice you support Obama's recent action. So do I, though it does concern me because the use of force in any circumstance carries with it the threat of unintended consequences. If you did not mean to compare the two literally, consider yourself understood.

 

3. Not exactly the case, but I can understand why it would seem that way. What I said was I didn't see a victory scenario, i.e. we do not appear to have a clear set of objectives and thus there is no "winning the war" except troop withdrawal. The problem is there are still consequences, and we will not know full consequences of Obama's strategy until the war/drawdown is 'complete.' I see now I should have chosen a different word. The words 'drawdown' and 'complete' are mutually exclusive (though we still have troops in Germany and Japan, I suppose). The reality is we do not now and have never had a clear end in sight for this conflict, and probably won't for decades This is a feature of the War on Terror that makes comparisons to other wars problematic. At least we are now headed in the direction of less troops with a more specific set of tasks than nation building. The current administration has played a role here.

 

4. Nope, I can't form a causal link (security clearance not near high enough, for one thing). Hence the word noteworthy–– as in interesting. I'm curious if this change in attention from Iraq to Afghanistan possibly played a role, that's all. You linked Obama to the surge in Afghanistan yet said nothing about the drawdown which is at the very least a stepping stone along the path to the conclusion of the war––my original (and really only) point here. A point you were silent on but which I again don't see much basis for disagreement in what I've read thus far.

 

If my logic seems inconsistent, I would offer to the messiness of the issue as a partial explanation. I see the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures in rippling shades of gray. The conservative platform (which you do not hold to, I take it) seems fairly black and white on the other hand: bomb them. Whoever they are.

[carlfense]

Hopefully the last decade has taught us a lesson or two about nation-building...or really doing much of anything except preventing genocide in the Middle East.

The problem is that it hasn't taught us a less or or two because one of the two major political parties refuses to engage in that kind of introspection. Admitting error would be weakness.

[Junior]

 

Hopefully the last decade has taught us a lesson or two about nation-building...or really doing much of anything except preventing genocide in the Middle East.

The problem is that it hasn't taught us a less or or two because one of the two major political parties refuses to engage in that kind of introspection. Admitting error would be weakness.

 

 

Indeed. Case-in-point:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/transcript/2014/05/29/exclusive-dick-cheney-says-obama-very-weak-president

 

HANNITY: Let's start with the president. He's given three speeches in three days about the military. He's got -- let's see, we've outed a CIA operative in Afghanistan. We have a VA scandal that is breathtaking in terms of how inappropriate it is for our vets. And we also have America -- is it in decline in terms of its perception around the world?

CHENEY: I think the perception around the world is increasingly negative, Sean, but I think the main focus is on the president. He's a very, very weak president, maybe the weakest certainly in my lifetime. And I know from my own experience on a recent trip to the Middle East, spending several days talking with folks I've dealt with all the way back to Desert Storm, they all are absolutely convinced that the American capacity to lead and to influence events in that part of the world has been dramatically reduced by this president.

We've got a problem of weakness. It's centered right in the White House.

[BigRedBuster]

I tend to not give a rip what the rest of the world thinks in general.

 

I found the start of this article disturbing.

 

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/5991047/how-america-lost-the-middle-east

Every Friday, the people of Kafranbel, Syria, send a message to the world. The notes and artwork are hand-drawn onto posters, but savvy Kafranbel residents have, through media outreach and social media, made the signs famous around the globe. The messages have inspired long pieces in the New York Times and Foreign Policy. Today, the Kafranbel signs are some of the most recognizably human symbols of Syria's brutal, inhumane civil war.

The messages demand the world do something about the war. And because he won't listen to them, Kafranbel's protestors deeply, truly despise President Barack Obama. "Happy July 4, America!," one sign reads. "Who wants to protect the war criminal Assad and ignore his crimes against humanity? Do you, President Obama?" Another sign compares him unfavorably to Bush: "Obama's procrastination kills us: we miss Bush's audacity," it reads. "The world is better with America's Republicans." A third is simply a drawing of the White House covered in Syrian blood.

 

 

 

What various political people don't recognize is that groups outside the US have various ulterior motives when they express their opinions of our President and government. That can happen with Republican or Democrat.

 

They will express their opinion in a manner that is going to be best for THEM. That isn't necessarily the best thing for US.

 

These attitudes expressed on the international stage is simply trying to bait us back into getting more and more involved with pumping money and lives back into these hell holes. Some people in politics will take this and make hay with it. We will then pump more money and lives in and they will then turn around and express how much they hate us.

[LukeinNE]

The first thing I want to make clear is that I don't think we're ultimately in that much disagreement. Obama is not exempted from critical examination in any sense. The usefulness of the surge in Afghanistan has yet to be seen and will only begin to be seen next year, and I do not have too many reasons for optimism except the end of us Americans having to deal with it. The morality of the drone war and the activities of the NSA are very troubling.

 

I think that's a fair statement, upon reading your most recent response.

1. I don't think I am going outside of your text. You characterized my position on Iraq as Bush handing Obama a mess without considering the broader implications of the statement (though I believe you when you say you've dealt with it elsewhere––I would assume so). Your quickly-made point at the end of the first paragraph is the credit part: Bush signed (or was made to sign) a piece of paper that Obama is ultimately responsible for enacting (and getting skewered for the after-effects, regardless of what they are, by the party that trumpeted the war from the beginning). I suppose we have to tip our hat, but you'll forgive me for not loitering around to bask in the moment. Giving credit to Bush for ending the Iraq War is kind of like giving credit to a guy who sets his neighbor's house on fire and has the good sense to call the fire department. The issue is context, not talking points.

 

Upon re-reading my original characterization of your opinion, I regret inserting the word "mess" into this as it broadened the scope of the conversation beyond what I was intending. What I meant to say was basically that when Obama came into office, Iraq was well on its way to conclusion. The withdrawal agreement was in place, sectarian violence was down, casualties were down, the draw down had begun. To amend your analogy, I wouldn't say it was Bush calling the fire department right before leaving the house, rather the fire department was on scene and had things reasonably under control. I certainly agree that it seems odd to praise Bush for effectively putting out a fire he started, but I try to view these things as discrete events. The success of the "surge" in Iraq doesn't cancel out the disastrous years that preceded it, nor does the fact that the Iraq War was a fiasco cancel out that Bush and co. managed to get the situation under control when everyone thought that was impossible.

 

2.

I don't think there's really any contention here. I was just remarking on the apparent disconnect between Obama ending the Iraq war and Obama ordering US forces to kill people in Iraq this very week. I don't hold what he's doing against him, I think it's the right and moral thing to do, if not necessary.

 

4. Nope, I can't form a causal link (security clearance not near high enough, for one thing). Hence the word noteworthy–– as in interesting. I'm curious if this change in attention from Iraq to Afghanistan possibly played a role, that's all. You linked Obama to the surge in Afghanistan yet said nothing about the drawdown which is at the very least a stepping stone along the path to the conclusion of the war––my original (and really only) point here. A point you were silent on but which I again don't see much basis for disagreement in what I've read thus far.

 

I'd go as far as to speculate that the Afghan surge had little, if anything to do with the killing of OBL. That doesn't mean Obama doesn't get the bulk of the credit for it; he prioritized finding the guy, the CIA found him, and Obama made a fairly risky call in sending in the SEALs rather than leveling the whole block with a drone. I just doubt the surge in Afghanistan had much of anything to do with it.

 

I didn't mention the Afghan drawdown because it's kind of a given, I probably should've acknowledged it though. I pointed out the surge because...well I think it's a pretty important subplot in judging Obama's record in Afghanistan.

 

 

"If my logic seems inconsistent, I would offer to the messiness of the issue as a partial explanation. I see the Iraq and Afghanistan adventures in rippling shades of gray. The conservative platform (which you do not hold to, I take it) seems fairly black and white on the other hand: bomb them. Whoever they are."

 

 

 

Messy and inconsistent is a good way of describing our foreign policy the last 15 years. I will ding you on a terminology thing: Bush/Cheney/McCain are neoconservatives, essentially FDR Democrats that thought the Democrats had gone soft on anti-communism. These are distinct from the classical liberal roots of the GOP, which historically has been the more non-interventionist party.

 

 

The problem is that it hasn't taught us a less or or two because one of the two major political parties refuses to engage in that kind of introspection. Admitting error would be weakness.

I got this article from my pastor's mailing list a few weeks ago. It's about churches, but I think it speaks to our political culture as well.

[krill]

 

4. If Pax Americana is over, what should replace it?

 

I have to agree with the other post questioning the very premise of Pax Americana, but to answer the question very succinctly, how about going after "the bad guys" with clear objectives and in a practical manor so we don't get sucked into more multi-trillion dollar quagmires? That seems to be the heart of the Obama doctrine. If the hawks had their way with everything, we'd have two million American soldiers occupying a swath of the world stretching from Tunisia to Afghanistan with a dysfunctional "democracy" in each nation.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

4. If Pax Americana is over, what should replace it?

 

I have to agree with the other post questioning the very premise of Pax Americana, but to answer the question very succinctly, how about going after "the bad guys" with clear objectives and in a practical manor so we don't get sucked into more multi-trillion dollar quagmires? That seems to be the heart of the Obama doctrine. If the hawks had their way with everything, we'd have two million American soldiers occupying a swath of the world stretching from Tunisia to Afghanistan with a dysfunctional "democracy" in each nation.

 

Who exactly are the bad guys and where are they?

[krill]

 

Who exactly are the bad guys and where are they?

 

 

 

 

 

Did you know that at any given time, we have something like 11,000 special forces deployed on missions in 80 different countries now? The use of drone strikes has also increased exponentially during the Obama Presidency.