|
Juffo-Wup posted:I get that, but to say 'wealthy interests will always corrupt even good intentions so it's better to not even try' seems more like it's giving up on trying to have a foreign policy at all, rather than recommending any particular such policy. And if it is the case that well-intentioned interventionism will always be corrupted, how do we explain the success of the actual Marshall plan? (Unless you think it wasn't successful, in which case, fair enough). The Iraq war wasn't well-intentioned interventionism; the chance of corruption was pretty much 100% to begin with. The war was nothing more than neo-conservative antics with no real plan afterward. I think Obama entered into a rock and a hard place with it came to foreign policy. The aftermath of the Bush administration had left a US exhausted by war and questioning whether or not it really needed to be a world police. Meanwhile though the repercussions of the Iraq war caused a ripple in the Middle East that we're now seeing the fruition of today. I think he wanted to put an end to the world view of the United States being cowboys, but I think in doing so he made America and himself look weak. I also don't think he's a particularly clever tactician on the world stage. To put it bluntly, his administrations inability to think three steps forward has played a part in what we're seeing today in regard to the Arab Spring, the situation in Syria and the tensions between Russia and the West. His unwillingness to take a forward approach has probably put the world at greater risk than the Bush administration. Is it solely his fault? I'm not sure really. His foreign policy choices haven't exactly been stellar. As for a foreign policy philosophy - I don't think such a thing can be created. Foreign policy changes dynamically depending on the situation currently going on in the world. Today's enemy is tomorrows ally.
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2016 17:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 19:49 |
|