I always thought that Obama ignoring that was basically a non-event outside of punditry. Like a lot of foreign policy stuff. Like a lot of political stuff, period. The major lesson there is maybe do not set red lines? Especially if you can't really enforce them?
I am trying to think of an intervention that actually paid off for us. Kind of drawing a blank. A mixed bag of results at best. Some short term victories that often turn into long-term shitshows.
About the best was maybe Desert Shield/Storm, but even that turned sour after the initial victory.
That is not to say that intervention COULDN'T pay off. It just isn't going to do so the way that we tend to do it--at least based upon historical experience.
And it will cost a big chunk of money that we do not actually have... and lives that would likely be better saved.
Good question about an intervention that actually paid off for us, especially if you restrict them to the Middle East. Think of the CIA's involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. That led to the oppressive Shah which led to the 1979 Revolution and Iran's continuing hatred for the US.
This. All of this. I am dumbfounded how bill cannot see that after Iraq the American people want nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Middle East. You can want something but know itтАЩs (1) politically toxic and (2) likely going to fail.
One of the problems is that, politically, it is very hard to do nothing. People get elected to Do Something... and it is usually "better" to do something bad and stupid (especially if the bill won't come due for a while) than it is to seemingly do nothing.
When I say better, I am talking largely about domestic political response, rather than actual results... because the reality is that foreign policy is mostly driven by domestic politics, barring extreme circumstances.
Even then extreme circumstances often dictate the necessity of action, despite action potenially being a bad idea. It was literally impossible, after 9/11, for the US to NOT invade Afghanistan. Not because invading Afghanistan was a good idea, but because vengeance was necessary.
It WAS entirely stupid to invade Iraq at the same time. It was entirely stupid to stay in Afghanistan as long as we did--because apparently the Soviet experience there taught us nothing.
I am all for doing things like protecting SLOCs (like the actions against the Houthi attacking ships or Somali pirates). I am all for helping allies that have been invaded contrary to international law (like Kuwait for Desert Shield/Storm or Ukraine).
I am definately not in favor of getting involved in civil wars, especially in the Middle East.
More specifically, it was to keep the price of oil (and thus gasoline) down. Both to keep the consumer price down and to keep overall energy costs down.
Except once OPEC decided to use their leverage(and with all the other various disruptions, mostly caused by us or related to Israe)l, to control the price, that kind of went out the window.
That's not really an analysis, it's someone's spin. Using chlorine as a weapon is a violation of the Chemical Weapon Convention. And, no, Syria didn't remove everything. That was an attempt at facesaving. One of the places Israel bombed yesterday was a storage facility for nastier stuff than chlorine because the Israelis don't want anyone to get their hands on it.
I agree but at least, after Iraq, Obama had reason to be skeptical. Now we know that some level of intervention might be best. Trump on the other hand has reverted to an old style isolationism (hence tariffs too).
I always thought ignoring Assad's breach of the red line was Obama's biggest failure.
It's only a failure if a Democratic president allows it. When Trump does it it will be a triumphal example of realpolitik in action.
I always thought that Obama ignoring that was basically a non-event outside of punditry. Like a lot of foreign policy stuff. Like a lot of political stuff, period. The major lesson there is maybe do not set red lines? Especially if you can't really enforce them?
I am trying to think of an intervention that actually paid off for us. Kind of drawing a blank. A mixed bag of results at best. Some short term victories that often turn into long-term shitshows.
About the best was maybe Desert Shield/Storm, but even that turned sour after the initial victory.
That is not to say that intervention COULDN'T pay off. It just isn't going to do so the way that we tend to do it--at least based upon historical experience.
And it will cost a big chunk of money that we do not actually have... and lives that would likely be better saved.
Good question about an intervention that actually paid off for us, especially if you restrict them to the Middle East. Think of the CIA's involvement in the 1953 coup in Iran. That led to the oppressive Shah which led to the 1979 Revolution and Iran's continuing hatred for the US.
This. All of this. I am dumbfounded how bill cannot see that after Iraq the American people want nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Middle East. You can want something but know itтАЩs (1) politically toxic and (2) likely going to fail.
One of the problems is that, politically, it is very hard to do nothing. People get elected to Do Something... and it is usually "better" to do something bad and stupid (especially if the bill won't come due for a while) than it is to seemingly do nothing.
When I say better, I am talking largely about domestic political response, rather than actual results... because the reality is that foreign policy is mostly driven by domestic politics, barring extreme circumstances.
Even then extreme circumstances often dictate the necessity of action, despite action potenially being a bad idea. It was literally impossible, after 9/11, for the US to NOT invade Afghanistan. Not because invading Afghanistan was a good idea, but because vengeance was necessary.
It WAS entirely stupid to invade Iraq at the same time. It was entirely stupid to stay in Afghanistan as long as we did--because apparently the Soviet experience there taught us nothing.
I am all for doing things like protecting SLOCs (like the actions against the Houthi attacking ships or Somali pirates). I am all for helping allies that have been invaded contrary to international law (like Kuwait for Desert Shield/Storm or Ukraine).
I am definately not in favor of getting involved in civil wars, especially in the Middle East.
CanтАЩt disagree at all. I just find it annoying that bill keeps trying to get Dems to absolutely popular shit all the time.
Why did we get involved in civil wars in the Middle East? To preserve our access to their oil and fighting communists like Mosaddegh in Iran.
More specifically, it was to keep the price of oil (and thus gasoline) down. Both to keep the consumer price down and to keep overall energy costs down.
Except once OPEC decided to use their leverage(and with all the other various disruptions, mostly caused by us or related to Israe)l, to control the price, that kind of went out the window.
Obama did not ignore it. Congressional Republicans said they would never support him in doing so and polls of the American people were also opposed..
However his "red line" motivated Russia to get the chemical weapons removed and stop Assad's chemical weapons program.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/obama-syria-foreign-policy-red-line-revisited-214059/
That's not really an analysis, it's someone's spin. Using chlorine as a weapon is a violation of the Chemical Weapon Convention. And, no, Syria didn't remove everything. That was an attempt at facesaving. One of the places Israel bombed yesterday was a storage facility for nastier stuff than chlorine because the Israelis don't want anyone to get their hands on it.
I agree but at least, after Iraq, Obama had reason to be skeptical. Now we know that some level of intervention might be best. Trump on the other hand has reverted to an old style isolationism (hence tariffs too).