[Washington Post] President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy

I'm not going to get into the argument, but wikipedia is a legitimate source that is every bit as accurate as Encyclopedia Britannica.

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html

So trying to argue that points backed by Wikipedia aren't valid because of their editing procedure isn't accurate or fair.

 

Let's see, do I care what the Washington Post's editorial board thinks of Obama's foreign policy? Hmmm, no, no I don't. They might be very smart people, they might be very left-leaning (for whatever that's worth), and they might even be completely right, but you'd still have to add two dollars to their opinion to buy a cup of coffee. We chose him to run our foreign policy. We'll choose some other guy to do it in 2016. I pray for Obama to act with wisdom whether I or the Washington Post agree with him or not, and I pray for more wisdom for the next guy too.

 

I read the editorial and while I agree that Obama has had many foreign policy problems his record compared to many of his predecessors isn't bad. What many perceive as failures are actually foreign policy successes that have been negatively spun by those who refuse to give Obama any credit.

Consider Libya, Qadafi was removed with no loss of US life and wider support. Many including the Wash Post continue to argue that Syria was a failure yet again without the loss of US lives or even the commitment of US resources Assad's chemical weapons program was stopped and his weapons even dismantled by Russia. If anything Obama outsmarted Putin rather than the other way around by getting him to do the international community's work.

Besides the negative spin though what I find the most troubling about the editorial is that it is calling for a continuation of US hegemony and a Pax Americana. To me this is the most important.
[rquoter]The urge to pull back — to concentrate on what Mr. Obama calls “nation-building at home” — is nothing new, as former ambassador Stephen Sestanovich recounts in his illuminating history of U.S. foreign policy, “Maximalist.” There were similar retrenchments after the Korea and Vietnam wars and when the Soviet Union crumbled. But the United States discovered each time that the world became a more dangerous place without its leadership and that disorder in the world could threaten U.S. prosperity. Each period of retrenchment was followed by more active (though not always wiser) policy. Today Mr. Obama has plenty of company in his impulse, within both parties and as reflected by public opinion. But he’s also in part responsible for the national mood: If a president doesn’t make the case for global engagement, no one else effectively can.

The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.[/rquoter]

This is the key troubling point. Yes the US is really the only superpower with global reach but after more than a decade of war with thousands of American lives lost and thousands more maimed do we really want to see American's fighting in Syria, the Ukraine, the South China Sea?

The Washington Post seems to think that we should.

Sadly they aren't alone in this attitude and what is worse those who criticize Obama for anything have in the recent crisis latched onto this idea that the US isn't forcefully confronting our enemies so Putin and Xi Jiping are now running rampant. Let's not forget that these are the same people who complain loudly about how big government is and how massive government spending is while forgetting that maintaining a global hegemony also requires massive government spending. These are the same people who complain that we shouldn't be spending money on feeding people here but apparently are fine with billions to maintain far flung bases and carrier battle groups.

I understand that the World is precarious and don't want to say that we should isolate ourselves like we did in the 1920's but we need to be aware of the costs in money and lives that continuing Pax Americana entails. Obama isn't so much living in a fantasy as he is recognizing the costs of where the national mood is regarding a forceful foreign policy.

 

This is great news for the Romney camp, interested to see how the polls shape out tomorrow.

 

The Washington Post is not that liberal any more. They have had a fair amount of war cheering neo-cons writing in the past 10 years or so.

 

Sooo . .. a strong president should be able to TELL other coutries what to do . . .and they do it? or what exactly?

Rocket River

 

What foreign policy? We have one? The Republicans get us into expensive and extended (unnecessary) wars, and the Democrats are unrealistic utopians. We are screwed either way. I will vote for any and all Libertarian candidates. They have a "mind our own business" foreign policy backed up by military strength.