By Ted Belman
Under Obama, America has been in retreat all over the world. Under his watch Russia, Iran and ISIS have gained strength and territory. As a result he has come under intense criticism. But there is no consensus as to what the foreign policy should be.
America is tired of being the world’s policeman and tired of promoting her values around the world and confused as to what her values should be in the future. At the same time it doesn’t like the instability that’s its withdrawal has engendered. It doesn’t like the expansionism of Russia nor the expansionism of Iran as it extends its influence over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and Yemen. It also doesn’t like the brutality of ISIS.
What to do?
According to LA Times, Republicans haven’t quite worked out a foreign policy beyond ‘not Obama’.
Divisions have emerged over many issues (sanctions in Iran, arms for Ukraine, trade with Cuba) but the crucial question in the campaign will probably be military intervention in the Middle East, the terrain on which the last Republican administration came to grief. If airstrikes alone aren’t enough to defeat Islamic State, should ground troops be deployed? And should the United States do more to dislodge the government of President Bashar Assad in Syria, including aid to Syrian rebels, airstrikes and ground troops?
Three rough camps among potential Republican candidates can be discerned. There are interventionists, who want the United States to do more. There’s the lone anti-interventionist, Paul. And, in between, there’s a big group of straddlers who say they would be tougher than Obama but, when pressed, don’t offer much in the way of specifics.
According to the Washington Post:
Although Obama’s goals are consistent with mainstream U.S. foreign policy since the onset of the Cold War, his dismissive approach to military force represents a clear departure from that consensus.
They don’t support the assertion that “his goals are consistent” but they do challenge the idea that there is no military solution that Obama espouses:
But military action can reinforce political objectives in multiple ways. Its mere threat has political effects on friends and foes, and the impact of combat operations — inflicting pain, seizing territory, threatening to disarm an opponent — also generates political outcomes. This has been made clear recently with Iran on nuclear proliferation and with the Islamic State in Iraq, but the president glosses over the effective use of U.S. military strength even under his own leadership. In this world, the military does solve problems.
Which brings us back to the quandary of the Republicans, when to use force and when not to.
Anyone who has this opinion is tired of life, for as certain as night follows day, extinction follows Isolationism in today’s world.
..
We are at war and it is not over til it’s over.
If we are not at war , then we have lost because they are at war and they know it.
@ David Chase:
Three points worth noting:
A-None of the Western Intelligence services knew about the program (including Israel)until Gaddafi admitted to having it. In the end after Gaddafi was offed it was discovered that he didn’t give up everything he had but had withheld important components of his program much as Syria has retained much of their purported chemical weapons program.
B- Gadaffi gave up his program and was soon deposed and beheaded by American and British/French surrogates (AL-Quaeda), while NATO planes were bombing the heck out of his forces and tribal supporters.
This lesson has not been lost on the Mullahs of Iran and the other autocratic regimes in the Arab and Muslim world and it should be a Lesson Israel should take very much to heart.
Having Nukes is any regimes security blanket from being attacked.
C- There are reports that Assad even in his reduced and weakened condition and position today is reconstituting his Nuke program with construction of new reactor and facility.
In 10-15 years we can see maybe 3-5 more regimes in our area with nuke weapons capabilities… Iran was the test case not Gaddafi. If America had or would put an ultimatum to the Mullahs that in 2 weeks the Iranians do not deconstruct their entire program under proper inspection regimes America would commence forthwith to bomb the hell out them until it was satisfied the job is done. Implicit in the threat would be that the regime and all it’s constituent organs would also be targeted for attack and destruction. That kind of threat if serious might have worked and still work today.
But what American president and admin. would go that far???
Since we are not in the USA, my concern is only predicated upon the situation as it is and is forecast to be in relation to Eretz Israel and the Jews here.
Israel cannot possibly relay on any foreign state or aggregate. Then clearly the US administration is not just unreliable but close resembling an enemy.
In the WH is an individual allied with Islam or an Islamic himself. The state department is a cesspool of antisemitism. The WWII actions, including but not limited to the “Saint Louis” abandonment to the Nazis, cannot be confused as being positive for us. The previous to and during the Independence UN decision the SD could not have been more inimical.
It is a vast majority hope that Mr. Netanyahu proceeds on what appears to be a new tack.
What must the administration do in general? It is up to the US voters to decide.
We must not ever lock ourselves with that process.
I remember Khaddafi giving up on his nuclear ambitions simply because he “feared” being overthrown. If I recall correctly that didn’t require any American or an other country putting boots on the ground- but the threat was there- and he knew it.