|
Juffo-Wup posted:So I guess my question is: why is it that a non-interventionist consensus has coalesced around the Obama administration, seemingly with the Iraq War experience as a rationale? Why has it become the conventional wisdom that the US must not get involved in other nations' affairs at all, rather than that it has to be done right, with the right incentive structure in place? Was Klein's analysis totally wrong, or are the lessons of Iraq being distorted? Because it is a very significant and recent. And after wrapping up two decade long and largely ineffective operations there just wasn't that much political will for much else. Though whereas in Iraq the US basically caused a sectarian conflict that it couldn't well control, Syria was already in progress by the time it came to their attention. There are a few lessons from Iraq that could be relevant rather than reducing it to one of non-interventionalism. Griffen posted:A lot of my criticism of Obama's foreign policy (or really either party's foreign policy as of late) is that it has no semblance of a plan. I think Hillary hit the nail on the head when she said that "don't do stupid poo poo" does not constitute a plan, and the fact that Obama got mad at her for saying that reveals how limited his view or thinking on foreign policy is. To me, foreign policy (FP) is not a play book, it is not a list of actions you take for a given set of circumstances. Our nation's FP should be more like a chess game, where we plan our moves out in advance, yet alter what we do in response to the actions of others to meet the needs of the situation. Not sticking our junk into the hornet's nest that is Syria: smart move, and it constitutes "not doing stupid poo poo." However, Obama had no follow up after that, he simply watched passively from the sidelines as things spiraled out of control with no contingency plans. Our reliance on Turkey (a rather unsavory and unreliable "ally" at best) and a reluctance to actually make use of some of the few capable players on the ground (the KRG and YPG) is laughable. In short, Obama has no end-game, no exit strategy for Syria - he simply is hoping the pot doesn't boil over all over himself. Now, if this is something where you never plan on getting involved with in any form, whatsoever (e.g. if the Syrian war was, say, an Uzbek civil war) then fine. However, US FP history clearly shows that we can practically never walk away from a war in the Middle East for some reason. Therefore, letting the Syrian mess spill over was incredibly short-sighted, as eventually we'd have to wade in even if we didn't want to. It's more a guideline than a plan. Even when you had US administrations heavily involved in ME affairs Kissinger himself summed it up along the lines of "Do what works until it no longer works, then do something else".
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 11:11 |
|
|
Juffo-Wup posted:Well, yes, I more or less agree, which is why I think it's wrongheaded to take the result as instructive for any attempt at foreign intervention whatsoever. Like, that's my whole argument. It'd be fairer to split thee Iraq example in half wherein you have the intervention which really defies conventional wisdom and the ensuing sectarian conflict. Iraq isn't quite a failed state yet but given the amount of resources and political will would doing it again in Syria from scratch been really feasible?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:53
|
|