[0]http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/
Edit: I get several downvotes for stating a fact? Please.
If you look at the list and you see the top places Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan are all areas Obama inherited. If you remember Bush II our previous president got us into Afghanistan and Iraq. Syria and Iraq bombs are primarily us fighting ISIS which again is because Bush fucked up Iraq nation building.
There lots of good books / documentaries about the rise of ISIS, long. The long and short is we invaded iraq -> we fired everybody in government -> we occupied the country -> lead to resentment and extorts insurgency (pre ISIS) -> we left to early -> ISIS was allowed to form.
Then Lybia was a NATO operation to create a no fly zone (and destroy air defences) to prevent Kadafi from bombing his own people. If we remember correctly the Obama administration mostly stayed out the conflict. We didn't even arm the rebels that was Quatar. We we mostly ignored that or even secretly agreed, but we mostly stayed out of it.
So again, it's easy to throw out numbers. But without context your statements runup against false attribution fallacy.
No one is denying that Bush set the stage for (most) of the conflicts, but quite frankly it was Clinton's bombing campaigns in Sudan and Saudi Arabia that stoked the fires of radicalism that led to 9/11. And then of course the entire region has never been given a chance to recover from the CIA's initial 1952 coup that overthrew Iran's first Democratically elected PM (who wanted to nationalize oil) so they could re-instate the Shah, a dictator: http://www.globalresearch.ca/a-timeline-of-cia-atrocities/53...
Most of the blame goes to the US and our allied coalitions (read: US), although some certainly falls on the Soviets and China a few decades ago. The current state of the region is mostly the fault of US Presidents, though.
It's perfectly sound to criticize Obama for not doing anything to improve the situation and to actually add new conflicts, instead of trying to wrap up our initial two as cleanly and quickly as possible (Afghanistan and Iraq). Campaign promises broken, lies, and millions of people have paid the price. And what are we left with? More radicalism than we ever had before (including a savage radical 'country' with non-negligible amounts of land). Obama is a failure at best -- a war criminal, at worst.
I have no problem with you or the OP criticizing Obama. And if we judge my the standard of the campaign progress, clearly it didn't happen.
Personally I wish we could put the whole regional issue to bad. Sadly we went a destabilized the country and the region beyond what was going on already. There's no "trying to wrap up our initial two as cleanly and quickly as possible". When we tried that, that's where the insurgency turned into what we know as ISIS.
How do you suppose "trying to wrap up our initial two as cleanly and quickly as possible" should have happened?
Now that we have ISIS, how do you suppose we deal with it? Clearly we can't just withdraw since last time when we did under "Iraq Status of Forces Agreement" that also extended we ended up with a vacuum that lead to ISIS. We can't just Carpet Bomb / Nuke them because there's a lot of innocent civilians there.
We're stuck between a rock and a hard place of our own doing. I'm most certainly don't know what how to solve it and neither does the Pentagon and I'm sure they had lots of people working on it. So given magnitude of the quagmire I think it's both unfair and simplifying the situation to lay the blame squarely at Obama's feet.
> Obama is a failure at best -- a war criminal, at worst.
On top of the above, platitudes such as this without really much concrete supporting points force to me to disregard your whole point.
We did not try that; we never had fewer than 40,000 troops in "the region." We shifted a large number from Iraq to Afghanistan but we were still very active in counter-terrorism within Iraqi borders the whole time. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40682.pdf
If we had kept more troops in Iraq at constant levels, would ISIS exist? Perhaps not as a 'country' with semi-permanent settlements, but certainly as another terrorist organization, which is not much different from the perspective of our national security interests. And of course we can't afford it, not that it matters to anyone.
> How do you suppose "trying to wrap up our initial two as cleanly and quickly as possible" should have happened?
It's a difficult question, no doubt. I'm not disappointed that Obama didn't make everything perfect -- it's the fact that he didn't try anything at all. He just stuck to the playbook and expanded things we know are bad, like providing weapons and training to everyone and their mother in war-zones: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2016/08/2-us-backed-g...
Decades of intervention and breeding dependence and hatred cannot be so easily solved -- so please do not dismiss this answer because it does not result in a perfect scenario. President lend0 would cut off all drone strikes. Get the US troops out. Lift all economic sanctions. Recognize one government per country, and return ownership of resources such as oil rights to said government. Then, let organic self-government/revolution arise. Do not try to prop up any government, even the one we originally recognized. It will not be easy, and probably not fast, but we already know that occupations do not work, and it is absolutely not a long-term option financially regardless.
But the most obvious thing is: do not get into any NEW conflicts. We did not need to get into Syria. We could have let Russia deal with propping up the dictator we originally supported.
> On top of the above, platitudes such as this without really much concrete supporting points force to me to disregard your whole point.
Were you expecting Wikipedia-style citations for every point? Which part are you having trouble with -- I will elaborate with evidence. Anyway, this could be said about your entire comment, which provided much less evidence/counter-evidence than mine. I dislike these comments that are purely arguments for the sake of argument, and I have a bad habit of responding to them.
No such thing was done in any kind of fashion by OP. Critizing means articulating points. All OP did was throw out numbers without context or meaning.
That is 100% bullshit. USA bombed Gaddafi out of Tripoli (don't believe me, just read NATO press releases), and then supplied the arms to those who hunted him down (and incidentally, the bayonet that was located in his rectum when he died). And if you ever believed the "bombing his own people" pap peddled by political rivals hiding out in Switzerland, I got a bridge to sell you.
From all i can glean https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Joint_Task_Force_–_Op... is aimed against terrorist and rebel organizations, in cooperation with 58 other countries, while the entire world is screaming at the USA to finally destroy those terrorist organizations. Particularly in Iraq this is being done in cooperation with the iraq government as well. And from what i hear from friends who read more about this the usa is actively by the countries in question to help their efforts by doing these things.
So where exactly does the belligerence come in?
I would classify the belligerence into four categories: arms shipments, drone strikes, 'war', and other destabilization http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/07/tomdispatch-dc-c... https://theintercept.com/2016/08/25/the-death-toll-in-yemen-... http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/12/amnesty-internat... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Pakis... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_strikes_in_Yemen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American-led_intervention_in_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afghanistan_(2015%E2%80... http://www.mintpressnews.com/barack-obama-the-nobel-peace-pr...
It's ironic that the same administration spoke often about restricting rights to bear arms at home and regulating commercial drones.
You could probably consider his renewals of the Patriot Act/ NDAA and other blatantly illegal surveillance that falls outside the scope of even NDAA to be considered a form of botched foreign policy, which unfortunately is mostly domestic policy now.
By the way, the UN isn't some wise, omnipotent, objective organization. It mostly does what the US wants militarily, since the US provides most of the weapons to our allies (by allowing our contractors like Boeing to sell them last-generation weapons)
We were talking about the bombings in the post a few further up though. Let's stick with one topic for now.
E: And if you want to bring in further topics, at least do more than "here's a link to an list of attacks" without at least exploring why they were made and how they're a sign of belligerence (i.e. what better options existed).
E2: I've seen your response below and it is not worth adding another post to this. Sad to see someone drop any pretense of good faith and jump straight into rethorical warfare.
Ugh. You responded to my comment which stated "There's a lot of denial on HN about the magnitude of Obama's foreign policy belligerence." Trolling/nitpicking is not welcome here, please.
> And if you want to bring in further topics, at least do more than "here's a link to an list of attacks" without at least exploring why they were made and how they're a sign of belligerence (i.e. what better options existed).
Would you like me to write you a thesis? I don't think you would appreciate it enough to justify the effort. The facts are there -- there are an overwhelming number of topics to explore related to Obama's use of aggressive foreign policy (aggressive defined as leading to people dying). If you truly do not believe Obama was a belligerent, you really should read through some of that. Sorry to burn down your idol.
A lot of what Obama had to do to get other policies enacted is not optimal, but that _is_ what politics requires for slow, steady progress. And Obama has always been a very vocal proponent of that gradual process.
I'm not convinced we have made any progress on either surveillance or foreign policy between Jan 2009 and Jan 2017.
Even of Obama failed on these two fronts, I'd argue that his work on domestic policy and economic recovery makes him a notable president, especially given the absolutely astounding difficulty he faced from the constant racist catcalling and obstructionism of the RNC and conservative media.
How so? Obama essentially renewed the Cold War Lite (Russian Syria vs US Syria -- it's 70's Afghanistan all over again). In fact, I could not disagree more, and I think this is a great example of "denialism." I will give Obama props for Cuba, but I don't know of another notable improvement made by the US, and it certainly does not cancel out the Russia fiasco, nor the military engagements that this thread is about.
> Even of Obama failed on these two fronts, I'd argue that his work on domestic policy and economic recovery makes him a notable president,
This is sort of off topic anyway (did not initially intend to get into a full review of Obama's successfulness), BUT I think it needs to be addressed. First of all, what are you specifically talking about? Make sure to link what has been done by Obama (executive policy). I hope this doesn't turn into something like "gas prices fell under Obama," which had absolutely nothing to do with him, and yet I hear it all the time from folks who recently learned how to put the square in the square hole.
> especially given the absolutely astounding difficulty he faced from the constant racist catcalling and obstructionism of the RNC and conservative media.
Alright, this is clearly just being an Obamapologist...
I mean, the LGBT+ community can very clearly point to a huge amount of support, funding and policy execution to improve our role and protections in the US.
And if pointing out that the conservative media executed a racist and outlandish hate campaign with such accusations as "you are not a citizen" and "you are a secret Muslim" and "Obama death panels" (all FOX news headlines, researchable) is "Obamapology" then I say: you are normalizating racism.
He has provided vocal support, but the sole thing he did policy-wise was end DADT. He was actually anti-gay marriage during his '08 run, but as the tide shifted, he updated his stance. It was state legislatures and judges and people that helped the LGBT community make the gains it did. So good for him for going with the flow, but he certainly wasn't the reason progress was made. If that is the best thing going for Obama (which it may be), that's pretty bad.
> you are normalizating racism
Number of logical fallacies here. Wasn't Bush Jr. an ape, a retard? Clinton a rapist? All presidents face tremendous scrutiny, both reasonable and unreasonable hatred, and it's ridiculous to adjust your ranking of a president's success based on ANYTHING, let alone something that is basically part of the job. Was FDR a better president when he was in a wheelchair? Unlikely. Was Reagan better because he had dementia late in his second term? Nope. So the point is that it's completely irrelevant to an assessment of Obama's policies, and it likely is used as filler because there's way more bad than good to Obama's reign.
I'm not sure if you get this, but this is the vast majority of America and many parts of the world that had this. People trot out, "Such and such was anti-gay marriage or anti-trans." Yes. Bruh. There are trans people who tell me I'm insufficiently trans in 2017 because I don't elect surgery or share much about the femme side of my lfie.
Literally everyone has had to come around to this. The sooner, the better. Trying to discredit someone by saying at one point they were part of a majority that still dislikes the idea is like saying water is wet.
The Obama administration has provided a lot of funding for pro-LGBT+ initiatives. You seem ill-informed here. It's more than DADT (although that is huge). But even just being a vocal supporter and vocally blocking things like Pence's FADA are net good for the community.
> So the point is that it's completely irrelevant to an assessment of Obama's policies, and it likely is used as filler because there's way more bad than good to Obama's reign.
I'm confused. So this is your justification for one of the most intractable congresses in the history of America? Do you actually believe what you're writing?
But yeah, ableism and sexism and uh... yeah Clinton's stance on women was bad there's no ism he took advantage of women. They exist. They have hurt other people. They hurt HRC's campaign enormously. Worth noting that being a proud supporter of rape doesn't really seem to be a black mark on any president.
I'm not trying to downplay Obama's failings. But I refuse to be the kind of fake progressive that refuses any president any nod of progress simply because they didn't completely finish the job. Same as how I refuse to forgive Sanders for his poor handling of BLM (and voting yes on the Trump cabinet) but also give him unceasing credit for his consistent foreign policy points.
I think I give sufficient credit where it's due here, but it wasn't like he was an LGBT hero like many make him out to be. But I'll throw out all of the other good things I know about Obama, too: eased US-Cuba relations, commuted over a thousand sentences of nonviolent drug offenders + Chelsea Manning, shifted some land from the poorly managed BLM to the Forests Service, made it easier to get insurance with pre-existing conditions.. These are good things, but even in the case of the last three, there are huge strings attached. Like the fact that the commutations were only symbolic, because his administration prosecuted hundreds of thousands for the same 'crimes' and did nothing to fix the system. And the fact that the BLM still owns a third of the country west of the Mississippi. And the fact that ACA was terribly implemented and is an administrative nightmare.
And then there are the more 'pure' bad things. Foreign policy + surveillance (as discussed), executive overreach, killing US citizens without warrants, 0% interest rates + QE, trillion dollar deficits and no plan to address entitlements.
I was optimistic about some of Obama's rhetoric at one point, but quite frankly he is just arrogant and I don't fall for the self-righteous "great dad" persona. His pros come with strings attached and his cons are historically terrible, placing him amongst the worst Presidents of the last century history alongside Bush Jr., Bush Sr., Woodrow Wilson, Hoover, and FDR. Trying to restrain myself from putting half the presidents on this list. The point is that the average president is bad, and Obama was below average.
This debate probably won't get anywhere because we clearly place different emphases on the various points listed above, but I think it's fair to say this is a pretty comprehensive list of his main pros and cons.
I don't fully understand why Obama was such a proponent of a surveillance state, as well. It is disappointing, but to me it's only somewhat of a problem. I think a surveillance society is 100% inevitable. It is not possible to prevent it, nor is it necessarily the end of all freedom so long as we take care as we're shaping it to make it so that surveillance is uniform and everyone has access to a reasonable portion of the data. That's the best we can do to create a reasonable series of norms around it.
Perhaps not through legislation, but all of the 'pure bad' things I mentioned -- with the exception of the deficit and lack of entitlement reform -- can be blamed primarily on Obama. Even interest rates/QE, as he appointed a Fed chairwoman who maintained the same policies and met with Obama quite frequently.
> I think a surveillance society is 100% inevitable.
I agree, but I don't think it's a good thing or that it makes the politicians who enable it any less bad -- it's just inevitable that the kind of people who run governments will like it.
Right now he has just made the life terrible for a lot of people's coworkers, friends and family; so that fact that Obama bombed some other people doesn't really help.
(You still shouldn't be down voted though)
I downvoted you for talking about your downvotes.
Don't interrupt the discussion to meta-discuss the scoring system.
Mine should be, too, if I subscribed to your espoused scoring logic.