|
I thought Obama's stance on Syria as stated in the article was fairly clear. He did expect Assad to be overthrown, and he seems to admit that the first declaration of the 'red line' was a mistake. Assad wasn't overthrown, and he while he thought he wasn't bluffing on the chemical weapons, he couldn't follow through, although he did end the Syrian chemical weapon program through diplomatic means instead of military force. But his position as to America's place in the Middle East in the article seems to be 'as soon as we don't need oil anymore, and therefore the Middle East isn't an American interest, America has no place in the Middle East'. We can argue whether that is a good or bad stance, realistic or not, but from that perspective his actions there haven't been inconsistent. I personally like his stance of pivoting to places where growth is already apparent, like Vietnam, and pulling out of quagmire situations, winding down America's role as world police. In that vein, I like his 'no free riders' policy, although I am skeptical on whether it would allow the rest of the Western world to act as a check to America's unilateral influence as he says it would.
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 16:50 |
|
|
Well, according to the article, the pivot to Asia achieved stronger relations with several countries in Southeast Asia which are doing well economically, as well as bolstering their opinion of America. This arguably moves them into America's sphere of influence, where he sees greater technological innovation capability and greater economic potential, both of which are better benefits than the quagmire of the Middle East. It also mentions that as the explicit reason why he is trying to normalize relations with Central America and Cuba.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2016 06:09
|
|