|
Marini -> RE: An honest liberal (2/18/2015 7:18:24 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think Obama (or any political leader) deserves any kind of pass on anything, although when it comes to foreign policy, I would consider that to be a shared responsibility where both parties are equally guilty. Gaddafi's reign lasted more than 40 years and 8 US presidents. Just because Obama was president at the time the regime came crashing down was merely coincidence, and his actions were no different than any other president's actions have been in similar situations - largely because our political leaders get their advice from the same "experts" who all believe the same thing and all supported the same basic foreign policy all along.
Obama's primary fault was in going along with the same basic foreign policy precedents set during the Cold War and carried through by his predecessors. The primary theme of the Cold War (and ever since) has been to publicly support the sovereignty and self-determination of independent nations and to eschew aggressive invasions, occupations, and colonialism. So, in order to make ourselves look "clean," we embarked on a policy of supporting "indigenous" proxies to make any insurrection, coup, or revolt look like they're purely "internal matters" which we have no official part of.
Of course, there are a couple of problems with that, the most obvious of which is that our "experts" often show remarkably poor judgment as to which "indigenous" faction they wish to support to be our "ally" and who would be expected to support US interests. In this case, Obama is being castigated for backing the "wrong" faction, although that's hardly the first time something like that has happened. Much of our current trouble in the world can be traced back to previous Administrations making the same mistake. I don't think Obama deserves any kind of pass, but I believe it would be inaccurate to single him out or to suggest that he's any "worse" than his predecessors.
The other problem with supporting the proxy/puppet method of carrying out foreign policy is that maintaining the illusion of "independence" and "sovereignty" for all these nations becomes of paramount importance - even more important than whatever alleged "principles" or practical US "interests" motivated our involvement in the first place. We've backed dictatorships in the name of "freedom," while covering our tracks just barely enough so that we can technically say that "we had nothing to do with it."
Some apologists might argue that the policy was an overall success, since we were able to protect ourselves, maintain our global interests, and keep us away from the brink of nuclear war. We took the path we saw as the "lesser of two evils."
But there has also been a lot of wreckage and some notable failures along the way. Many nations have been destroyed in the process, and Libya appears to be among the more recent casualties. I think any "honest liberal" would agree with that. But I don't think it would be honest to try to pin it all on a single president or only one of the major political parties, especially when it comes to foreign policy and how it affects the long-term internal political evolution and development in nations and regions where we choose to involve ourselves.
[sm=goodpost.gif]
Great post as usual from Zonie.
I will add, that I did not see anyone in this post saying President Obama was "worse' than his predecessors.
I agree with you, that he fell in line with his predecessors, meaning not worse, but more of the same.
|
|
|
|
