Saving the Undefinable

I learned a number of things reading this article by David Rothkopf at Foreign Policy, subtitled “Can Obama’s foreign policy be saved?”. For example, I learned that the Obama Administration has aggravated our allies, enemies, and the State Department (into which category the latter belongs I will leave to the reader to decide). I learned that Susan Rice is for reasons of temperament unsuited to be a diplomat. And I had confirmed something I have been claiming for a long time, that the administration’s foreign policy objectives are largely defined by domestic electoral politics.

Is it possible to save something that cannot be defined? Can the Obama foreign policy be defined (other than in terms of domestic electoral politics, in which case it has already accomplished its objectives)?

I don’t believe the Obama foreign policy is in need of saving. I think it’s in need of definition.

15 comments… add one
  • CStanley Link

    That is an interesting (and frightening) article.

    I’m curious what you think, Dave, about the author’s premise of the redemption of GWB’s late second term. I know you’ve been drawing this distinction between first and second terms and wonder if you think this author portrayed it accurately or is it a bit overboard, with respect to the things W got right in the end.

  • I think that the second term Bush foreign policy and the first term Obama foreign policy which closely resembled it were largely correct, at least under the circumstances. The one area in which I fault the first term Obama foreign policy is that I think that expanding the war in Afghanistan was an error.

  • steve Link

    Yet another person who defines our foreign policy as a failure since we didn’t invade Syria. Meh.

    Steve

  • jan Link

    First, in order to learn from one’s errors, you have to admit them. Once you admit them, then you have to want to change. I’m not sure if such a process could be digestible in the Obama administration, considering the kind of personalities he has cohabiting with him in the WH bubble. The comment, though, that “It is hard to think of a recent president who has grown so little in office,”is far from reassuring, and only reinforces others’ observations of this administration being the least transparent and the most isolated, even from congressional members of it’s own party. Furthermore, the following assessment only lends greater credence to expecting little more than the “same old, same old” in the near future:

    Concentrating power in the White House increases the likelihood of groupthink, especially in second terms like this one, when many of the stronger and diverse voices in the administration have left and have not been replaced by equally strong and diverse successors. Groupthink in an environment in which the leader is a cautious lawyer and his closest aides have campaign histories can lead to an overly tactical approach to problems. And if there is one great void that has dogged this administration, particularly in its second term, it is in the area of strategy.

  • PD Shaw Link

    I don’t believe Steve read the article.

  • steve Link

    Read the article and even between the lines.

    Steve

  • PD Shaw Link

    @steve, you motherfucker.

  • PD Shaw Link

    For those of you who have not read or absorbed the linked article, “mf’er” is a diplomatic term of art for “I respectfully disagree with your position, but I trust that we can work things out, you mf’er.” It is quite modern, and I’m sure that steve did not take any offense, the mf’er.

  • Janis Gore Link

    Is it considered more diplomatic than “jackass”, sir?

  • ... Link

    After tonight’s speech, I still don’t know what our interests are regarding ISIS, though it seems to have something to do with making certain Muslims aren’t discriminated against, and ebola. And referencing Bartles & James and cable TV shows. I got the distinct impression that the speech had been written by a Junkion.

  • Really? Seemed like it had been written by someone with ADD to me.

  • ... Link

    Janis, junkions were characters in the old Transformers shows. Lived on a planet of junk, and they were junk. Practically indestructible on their homeworld, they were something like insane warrior robots.

    And there culture consisted entirely of earth radio and tv broadcasts. Their speech frequently consisted of quotes from old tv and radio shows, and the commercials therein. A junkion would have no concept of ADD, as they have no attention span whatsoever. That’s what the speech seemed like to me.

    On a related note, the DBZ universe is completely devoid of dietary fiber. The Japanese come up with some weird ideas for their fictional universes.

  • ... Link

    It just hit me: it was a recycled and trimmed down SOTU address. Thus the laundry list.

    The President’s speeches increasingly resemble Col. Cathcart’s condolence letters from _Catch 22_.

  • jan Link

    “It just hit me: it was a recycled and trimmed down SOTU address. Thus the laundry list.”

    ice,

    IMO, the speech was gauged to impress not inform people. His purpose was to transform his sinking image from an aimless, weak POTUS to one that was capable of flexing his deltoids if he wanted to.

Leave a Comment