Slouching Towards Bedlam

There’s also been quite a bit of speculation lately over what if any is the president’s strategic vision. For example, the editors of the Wall Street Journal wonder:

Is the administration’s foreign-policy apparatus as rudderless, ad hoc and faux-sophisticated as it looks?

Is the president starting to fear, deep down, that maybe he is the junior varsity?

Who at this key moment is the president talking to? The world of American foreign-policy professionals is populated by some brilliant and accomplished men and women who’ve been through the wars. Is he seeking their counsel?

The problem is really not that the president, as he said, does not yet have a strategy. It is that the world doesn’t know and the country doesn’t know how, deep down, he thinks about the Islamic State. What is its historical meaning and import? Is it something new that requires new thinking? Is it a game-changer in the region? Does it, alone or in league with others, actually threaten the United States? Or are the threats more like bluster as it attracts new members from throughout the world and work to hold the ground it’s seized?

What is the president internally committed to doing? Is he dodging a decision or has he made one?

What has more than five years of White House experience taught him? All presidents learn on the job, but because he tends to blame others for his woes and, like many of his predecessors, avoids public reflection on his mistakes, we don’t know how events have shaped his thinking. For instance: Deciding against his political nature to be militarily proactive and topple Moammar Gadhafi of Libya in 2011 was, pretty clearly, a mistake. Does he think so? A monstrous little dictator was removed, which left an opening for people who were more monstrous still, who murdered our ambassador, burnt our consulate in Benghazi and have now run us out of Tripoli. What did the president absorb from this that now affects his thinking?

Mr. Obama loudly insisted Bashar Assad of Syria must go, then did nothing to help his opponents. Assad was thus turned from an often dangerous and duplicitous adversary to an embittered and enraged formal foe. Was that progress? How does it fit into the current drama? Does Mr. Obama fear that if the U.S. goes after the Islamic State in northern Syria it will strengthen Assad’s position? If so, should it be the most crucial and immediate fear? Isn’t the Islamic State a more dangerous and pressing threat? If it is, can a deal be made with Syria for the U.S. to move militarily for a limited time within the relevant part of that nation?

Does Mr. Obama conflate “go back to Iraq” with “move decisively against ISIS through bombing, with limited troops on the ground guiding and gathering intelligence”? Does he believe these are the same thing? If so, why?

An overriding question: To what extent will the passage of time erode the U.S.’s ability to move effectively and decisively? Does the chance of effectiveness recede as the days pass? Is the administration working with its eye on the clock?

As I have said before I think the president has a political strategy rather than a policy strategy. Where does “don’t bluster” fit into “don’t do stupid sh*t”?

75 comments… add one
  • ... Link

    This and the previous post reinforces my desire to largely stay out of the ISIS situation. To paraphrase a ‘thinker’ from the previous decade, you go to war with the President and the foreign policy establishment you have, not the ones you wish you had. I don’t think going to war with or at the behest of these folks is likely to result in too many positive outcomes.

  • TastyBits Link

    Well, isn’t that an interesting turn of events. The WSJ has now come around to my position. It would be nice if they acknowledged their guilt in these debacles.

  • TastyBits Link

    The reason you do not give in to ransom demands is because they will encourage more kidnappings. The reason that a country does not react to a terrorist beheading is because it encourages more beheadings.

    ISIS has decided that the US should jump, and the delusional hawks have begun jumping.

    For 50 years, the Soviet Union could not destroy the US, and they had a world class espionage apparatus. They could employ any number of 3rd parties to infiltrate the US, and during the 1930’s, the US government was infested with communists.

    During that time, the US had a world class counter espionage apparatus, but much of this was dismantled when the USSR collapsed. Many of today’s delusional hawks were quite happy to save a few dollars dismantling this apparatus.

    Those of us who warned against dismantling it were dismissed. It was a new era, and history had come to an end. The free market trumped everything including basic human nature. Now these delusional free marketeers have become delusional hawks, and they still think they know everything.

    Maybe, the crazy old man ain’t so crazy after all.

  • Fourth generation warfare. The enemy is getting into our OODA cycle pretty well, I would say.

  • jan Link

    “What has more than five years of White House experience taught him? All presidents learn on the job, but because he tends to blame others for his woes and, like many of his predecessors, avoids public reflection on his mistakes, we don’t know how events have shaped his thinking. “

    This commentary nailed the uneasiness felt towards our government today. In a recent poll 70% stated they felt the U.S. was going in the wrong direction. And, perhaps the reason that number is so high is because the respondents to this poll have similar questions and doubts on their mind.

    Being told, for instance, we have the greatest military in the world doesn’t deflect feelings of vulnerability when such a military is being unceremoniously decreased, demoralized, and overly restricted/regulated by rules of engagement making it more difficult for a military person to effectively engage. Yesterday Bret Baier shared a serviceman’s frustration with Joe Biden’s recent thundering rant by questioning how we can take the enemy to “the gates of Hell,” if soldiers aren’t even allowed to leave the base! How indeed?

    This is the conundrum that has beset this country — talking strongly, lying vociferously and then enacting very few corrective measures that truly address our problems, either domestically or overseas.

  • I think I would take complaints about a weak, demoralized U. S. military with a grain of salt. There’s quite a gap between how much capability we need and how much capability military planners in the Pentagon and their Congressional pom-pom girls want.

    We still have capabilities beyond that of any other military on the planet.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    The delusional hawks envision a unipolar world with the US as the sole power, and they want the US to be proactive in world events. For this vision, the US would need a military several times larger than the largest size during Cold War.

    The Soviet Union, and China somewhat, provided a counterbalancing power to the US, and while the anti-US forces could rally to the Soviet Union, they were required to abide by the Soviet’s rules. This was not a strict command and control arrangement, but there are certain limits which a client state must abide.

    Now, all these countries must be dealt with individually, and therefore, the military must be increased.

    Furthermore, they intend to limit the influence Russia and China are allowed, and this will require additional military resources. These countries will not be swayed by delusional bluffs. Serious threats require the will and means to carry out those threats.

    It is also becoming more apparent that sanctions (siege warfare) is rarely effective, and while our 21st century man can be shamed into anything, force tends to work best against the non-enlightened.

    It is all meaningless nonsense anyway. Not a single delusional hawk will spend any money to acquire the military needed for their vision. It would require massive tax hikes and/or massive debt. There is not enough waste, abuse, and fraud to cut.

  • jan Link

    “Who at this key moment is the president talking to? The world of American foreign-policy professionals is populated by some brilliant and accomplished men and women who’ve been through the wars. Is he seeking their counsel?”

    I’ve often wondered the same thing. Other than circling his own head, who does the president use as his consultants? Valerie Jarrett is frequently brought up, and seems to hover like a shadow wherever he goes, enjoying almost the same security detail as he does. However, she’s an unelected official having what kind of experience in world affairs?

    Also, how can you trust a man who either doesn’t tell the truth, or shares mere smidgens of information with the public, giving them a less-than-accurate POV of world circumstances? Liberals didn’t trust Bush because of those “16 words” that erroneously took us into war with Iraq. However, what about all the faux pas and/or deliberate obfuscations from this president? Why don’t they raise similar hackles of anger and doubt in these same people?

    For instance, of the million plus documents retrieved from the OBL raid, only seventeen have been revealed. Why? Was it because they contained evidence that Al Qaeda wasn’t on the run, jeopardizing the veracity of a political slogan being effectively inserted into a 2012 reelection strategy stating they were?

    More disturbing, many of the analysts and military experts with access to the documents were struck by a glaring contradiction: As President Obama and his team campaigned on the coming demise of al Qaeda in the runup to the 2012 election, the documents told a very different story.

    Then there is Benghazi, derided by liberals as being fully explored, leading them to declare anything more was simply for political exploitation of the tragedy. But, why has it taken almost two long, tedious years to hear from those directly on the ground, who are now detailing troubling and conflicting details of that night — judgment errors that may have caused the deaths of an ambassador and others?

    “We still have capabilities beyond that of any other military on the planet.”

    Dave,

    I don’t take issue with acknowledging our enormous capabilites. However, the problem lies more in how and where they are implemented, as well as the perimeters of application given to the men/women and military “experts” in the field.

  • Maybe you appreciate the scope of that power but I think that few Americans do. Here’s a brief outline.

    Only a handful of militaries on the planet have the highest level of force readiness (as defined by the Pentagon): the UK, France, Russia, China, us. That’s it. Of those exactly one has the ability to exert power anywhere on the planet within hours without using ICBMs: us.

    We have ten operational supercarriers. Noone else has one.

    Of the forces at the highest level of readiness two have militaries more targeted towards projecting force within their borders than outside of them: Russia and China. What are we worried about? That we’ll be attacked by the French?

  • They can do more harm to us by not exporting Cognac than they can with their military for goodness sake.

  • jan Link

    Some cogent counter points, from a Romney piece, to references about the U.S. having the biggest military on the planet:

    Some insist that our military is already so much stronger than that of any other nation that we can safely cut it back, again and again. Their evidence: the relative size of our defense budget. But these comparisons are nearly meaningless: Russia and China don’t report their actual defense spending, they pay their servicemen a tiny fraction of what we pay ours and their cost to build military armament is also a fraction of ours. More relevant is the fact that Russia’s nuclear arsenal is significantly greater than our own and that, within six years, China will have more ships in its navy than we do. China already has more service members. Further, our military is tasked with many more missions than those of other nations: preserving the freedom of the seas, the air and space; combating radical jihadists; and preserving order and stability around the world as well as defending the United States.

    Romney goes on to compare and contrast the size of our military from earlier years — as opposed to the cumulative threats and instability that seems to be a geopolitical given, around the world. He also candidly gives reasons for calls to shrink the military, in lieu of other popular places in which to invest said savings:

    The arguments for shrinking our military fall aside to reveal the real reason for the cuts: Politicians, and many of the people who elect them, want to keep up spending here at home. Entitlements and programs are putting pressure on the federal budget: We either cut defense, or we cut spending on ourselves. That, or raise our taxes.

    To date, the politicians have predictably voted to slash defense. As Bret Stephens noted in Commentary magazine this month, the Army is on track to be the size it was in 1940, the Navy to be the size it was in 1917, the Air Force to be smaller than in 1947 and our nuclear arsenal to be no larger than it was under President Harry S. Truman.

    Nowhere, though, in his op-ed does he address our side-stepping investments in space — even the glaring one where we have no way to service the space station, except by hitching a ride with the Russians, who are not anywhere near our BFFs.

  • Note that he doesn’t address actual ability to project force. As I said in my previous comment, yes, China has a large standing army. They are mostly good for invading Tibet and being deployed within actual Han China.

    I’m pretty sure I could hear the protests from here if the People’s Army were to be ordered into serious combat. The One Child Policy has made combat pretty darned undesireable.

  • And, of course, he doesn’t address my pet tactic for reducing expense while improving capability: cut the number of general officers in half.

  • Hey, honeys!

    Been out of pocket for a couple weeks.

  • Way, way out of pocket. Like bipolar disorder out-of-pocket. Finally, a diagnosis after 40 years.

  • A stay at St Patrick’s rounded out by meeting one of the other patients’ husbands — a member of the Presidential Honor Guard during Gulf War I.

    Averaged 5 funerals a day.

  • Received 42 bodies at Dover one day during his stint.

  • This is what you’re talking about, you know.

  • Pretty damned good drugs they’re serving up these days.

  • jan Link

    “And, of course, he doesn’t address my pet tactic for reducing expense while improving capability: cut the number of general officers in half.”

    Dave,

    I can’t address your comment about cutting the number of general officers in order to reduce expenses. However, like most aspects of anything connected to government and spending “other” people’s money, there is usually lots of duplicity, overlap, an overgrowth of bureaucracy and administrative positions, obsolescence coupled with little oversight and review to weed out what is not needed. Consequently, I would include all of the above in critiquing the need for more responsibility and accountability in military expenditures.

  • steve Link

    1) You seem to be constantly pushing towards our sending our troops back into Iraq. In essence, Obama is such a pussy because he wont send troops in. Why do you want him to do so? I think it would be a huge mistake. There are no good guys there. Sadr’s guys are just as likely to attack us from behind as help us. IS will likely run back to Syria. Do we invade Syria? Do we really want to help Iran? Assume a best case scenario and ISIS stands and fights. What happens when we leave? What will have changed to keep this from happening again?

    I think we are ok where we are. Keep the Kurds from being overrun. If the Muslim groups/countries in the area are worried enough about ISIS, let them fight.

    2) Romney made a cogent foreign policy statement? When? Yes, China has a lot more soldiers. No, they can’t go much of anywhere and fight. They have a lot more boats than the US Navy. So does the marina down in Ocean City, New Jersey. I am pretty sure that those sailboats wont match up well. The entire US Navy from 1917 would be hard pressed to sink even one modern destroyer.

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    Logistics are what matter in projecting power. The Chinese do not have it, and the Russians have limited abilities. The Soviets never had anywhere near the US ability.

    If you do not understand the importance of logististics, you cannot understand why you do not re-negotiate agreements every four years. You also cannot understand why you cannot project power where you do not have a presence.

  • PD Shaw Link

    Is there a word for American bloggers criticizing U.S. policy from foreign soil? If not, I suggest Greenwalding. Apparently the Urban Dictionary has alternative views, some or all of which might even be Greenwalding.

    Yes, Dave, Obama’s tan suit was not in the best interest of the American people. It drained his complexion of colour, to almost Nixonian levels. And while you’ve been gone, Obama jinxed the Milwaukee Brewers by appearing in Milwaukee on Labour Day to announce that “I am just telling the truth . . . the Milwaukee Brewers are in first place.” The Brewers were in the midst of a downward spiral, tied for first place after holding it alone for five months, and in the process of losing a game to the Cubbies. They will likely never recover, and Europeans will never understand that.

  • ... Link

    Good God, no cognac?! That WOULD mean war!

  • ... Link

    And we can exert power anywhere on the planet within hours … except Benghazi, Libya.

  • ... Link

    The foreign policy establishment has proven rather conclusively over the last 25 years or so that it doesn’t know what the fuck it’s doing in the Arab world. Is the idea that we’re just going to keep fucking around there until something good happens?

  • ... Link

    Great, and I’m out of Hennessey. Hellfire and damnation.

  • Off the menu for me anyway with these drugs. Thank goodness for O’Doul’s. Luck of the Irish and all that.

    I found some cute little gold-colored shamrock earrings at Fred’s for $1.99 this evening when I picked up my meds.

  • I have to say, the people in St. Patrick’s made a lot more sense than a lot of these jokers out here.

    Can I go back now, Mr. Dave, and play with my friends?

  • The tall, dark, handsome Presidential Honor Guard took his wife home today, though. That modest woman woman from Crossett, AR knows how to pick ’em.

  • Sheesh.

  • A man who could stroke a gun, a kitten, or a woman with equal aplomb. Umm, umm, umm. But she warned me off herself, and in no uncertain terms.

  • She seemed awfully quick on the uptake. If she doesn’t know how to handle a gun now, and I’m sure she’d learn right fast.

  • I know this is a little difficult for you, Mr. Dave. Me hijacking your threads, that is. But look at it this way — you’ve got the only bonafide, self-professed maniac on the Internet visiting your site, and she isn’t even a Republican.

    Kinda unique, wouldn’t you say?

  • TB, what’s the Tiger woman doing tonight? Sharpening her claws?

  • Guarneri Link

    Your comment is misdirected, steve. I think you need to speak with Biden. He was last seen chasing some guys towards the gates of hell……………

  • TastyBits Link

    Tiger woman?

  • Your wife, Luv.

  • TastyBits Link

    What she does not realize is that it is not her claws that scare people. It is the guy behind her that looks like he would just as soon rip their head off.

    If you work with your doctor, you can stay on the sane side of crazy without becoming a zombie. He/she can adjust the meds, but it is a one way ticket. There is no getting on and off.

  • So I understand. My doctor, a woman, is just great.

    I have a nephew who is schizophrenic, and has come by all his knowledge and discipline in the hardest ways. He can help to mentor me.

    Boy wants to take a degree in economics, and he’s starting off well.

  • I did find out at St. Pat’s that I am suited to become an occupational therapist. I got on gangbusters with the other therapists and most of the patients there.

  • The question might well become, “Will I put my trade on the horns of a dilemma?”

  • And that, Mr. Dave, is what I did over my summer vacation.

    Now, Sir, which font, size, leading and margins would you like on this report?

  • Composition jabber, jabber, justification, jabber jabber, page numbers, jabber, jabber, illustrations, jabber, jabber….

  • Andy Link

    As far as strategy goes, consider where we are in a post-Cold War context. What is our place and purpose in the world now that the Cold War is over? That’s a question we still have not come to grips with as a nation but maybe we’ll get there eventually (The Churchill quip “You can always count on Americans to do the right thing – after they’ve tried everything else” is appropriate here).

    Consider our policies since the Cold War ended – under Clinton we had the “good times” and little effort was spared to expand Western hegemony in Europe, mostly at Russia’s expense with little fear of consequences, at least in the short term. Under Bush we tried to extend that to the Middle East through the use of military power in order to free the locals from oppression, believing they would thank us and adopt our ideal model of governance: secular, liberal, capitalist democracy.

    Now we start to see the consequences of these policies and the faulty assumptions that underpin them. From Russia we have pushback on a strategic level and, despite our rhetoric to the contrary for the past 20 years, the realization of NATO as a de facto anti-Russian alliance. In the Middle East and North Africa we hit the limits of military power, though there are still many who maintain illusions about the utility and capability of American military force in the region. President Obama has, IMO, not really changed the goals, but the environment is different than what his predecessors had. Continuing the policies of the last 20 years is both more difficult politically and operationally.

    These are all things the editors of the WSJ still seem blind to. They mention “The world of American foreign-policy professionals is populated by some brilliant and accomplished men and women who’ve been through the wars” without any irony. Their supposed brilliance and accomplishments in foreign policy brought us to where we are now, so I wouldn’t brag about their accomplishments, nor would I look to them to provide advice about the way forward. They are still unable to define the strategic environment we find ourselves in, much less present a coherent vision for the future. It’s all a rehash and doubling-down on the last 20 years of policy. Also, these “professionals” have not “been through wars.” Such an idiotic statement says much about the WSJ and mainstream “elite” worldview….

    I suppose President Obama can be faulted for not having greater strategic vision than the coterie of foreign policy “experts” but no one should be surprised that he doesn’t. A fairer criticism is his choice of foreign policy officials which is populated with idealistic academics who clearly approach foreign policy from a standpoint of moral superiority.

    As for the debate about the size/expense of the US military, I’ll just repeat what I’ve said before. The US military has a lot of commitments around the world and it is and has been operating at a historically high operational tempo. There is little slack in the system which means it would be very unwise to reduce the size of the force without reducing its commitments. Our military is comparatively expensive for a few reasons that don’t apply to other countries:
    – We’re a big nation.
    – Our force has global commitments. The ability to operate globally is expensive.
    – Our force maintains a high standard and state of readiness – that is expensive.
    – Our force is full-spectrum – everything from basic infantry up through nukes. Most other military forces lack specific capabilities which is why US participation is/was necessary for almost anything Europe does militarily (Libya, Balkans, etc.). Full-spectrum is expensive.
    – Our force is not conscripted, offers good compensation and has a sizable civilian component. Just as one illustration, the US military spends about the same amount of money on Health Care (not including the VA) as the UK spends on its entire military.

  • And just so I know I’m not out here alone:

    http://youtu.be/PoiHAiDHgDs

  • steve Link

    Drew- Dave is being coy. I prefer people being more direct. He is criticizing Obama for not deploying troops, while not advocating or making a case for troop deployment. Which I guess is fine since he can write whatever he wants, but if I am wrong and he really does not think we should be deploying troops, then I really don’t understand his criticisms.

    Steve

  • I’m not sure how you could arrive at that conclusion based on the contents of this post or everything else I’ve written over the period of the last decade. I am a noninterventionist. I think we should only resort to force when we have a legitimate need to and subject to the requirements for a just war. I don’t think we should intervene in Iraq, I don’t think we should intervene in Syria, I don’t think we should intervene in Ukraine, and I think intervening in Libya was foolhardy.

    If you know what the strategic vision of the Obama Administration is, please enlighten us. There is a place for strategic ambiguity but I don’t see it as strengthening our hand under present circumstances. Please explain to me how I’m wrong about that.

    My sole criticism of the president in this post (and in many others) is don’t make threats. The strong do not need to make threats. Failure to follow through on a threat once made is a sign of weakness.

    How is one to interpret Vice President Biden’s remark to the effect tthat we would pursue the beheader(s) of Americans to the gates of Hell? That he speaks for the administration? That he’s an old windbag and nothing he says means anything?

  • steve Link

    “I’m not convinced they are but I also think that anybody who expects this president actually to go out and sell his policies and convince the American people to support something they oppose is thinking of some other president.”

    You certainly seem to imply that we should pursue troop involvement. Heaven knows it has been said many times that poll after poll shows Americans don’t want us invading anywhere again. Heaven also knows we love bombing people. We are doing what the American people would appear to support. The difficult part would be convincing us we need to invade again. Why do you want him to do that? Why would you criticize him for not being able to do something you say you don’t want to happen?

    Anyway, I hope his strategy is something like the following. We will bomb ISIS enough to keep them from overwhelming the Kurds. I do think we have a moral obligation to aid that group since we have made promises to them in the past. Otherwise, we don’t do much. The other actors in the area need to decide what they want to do. Turkey and Iran have the means. The Saudis have the money. Qatar, UAE and nearly everyone else has been involved in some aspect with this mess. We destabilized this area. However, the Shia dominated Iraqi govt has made it worse. The Sunnis who joined with us to eliminate the AQ influenced insurgency have decided that they would rather join with ISIS than be governed by the Shia.

    We clearly don’t know how to fix this. We spent trillions and thousands were killed trying to make the place function they way we thought it should. It is time for us to back off. Our intentions, no matter how good they may be, will most likely not lead to a better outcome.

    As to Biden, why does that necessarily imply an invasion? I would hope that just as a group dedicated themselves to finding bin Laden, we no whale a group tracking those guys. Once we find them, we capture or kill them.

    Steve

  • Oh, for Christ’s sake, steve!

    I might be an ex-McDonald’s employee and I might be mentally ill, but I have had three major humanities courses at two major colleges and I see Dave as trying to set up a Socratic dialogue to tease out SOME solid stance on the part of the administration.

    Might as well be infants on their backs sucking their toes in my POV.

  • Let’s try this again, steve. Never, and I mean never, think you’re going to get out of an argument with a smart Catholic-educated person alive.

    I learned that lesson over more than 18 years with my husband. Damned Jesuits.

  • TastyBits Link

    Before one can outline a strategy, one needs to understand what is and is not an ally. Allies are those countries you have treaties with. You trust these countries, and you are willing to enter into alliances. The countries in NATO are allies.

    Other countries are friends or client-states. These countries you do not trust, and you are not willing to enter into alliances. The closest ally the US has in the Middle East is Turkey. Israel is a nice country, but they are not an ally.

    The problem with formulating a strategy is that most people have become too far removed from actual power to understand how it works. From a comfortable sofa or a sophisticated salon, it is difficult to understand how power actually works.

    Sacrificing a pawn is unacceptable, and sacrificing a queen for the win is unthinkable. The idea that one would not surrender knowing that you are going to lose is unimaginable to most people today.

    Because of this, most of today’s strategy is that of second or third graders. It is silly or delusional.

    Authoritarian governments have a high tolerance for pain, and sanctions will rarely affect their actions. The sanctions would need to be impenetrable and crushing. Sanctions are siege warfare, and the imposing side must also endure deprivation to make them work.

    Authoritarian governments will sacrifice humans in order to determine if a threat is real. A military tactic is to send troops out into the open to draw fire. This allows you to determine the enemies position.

    A similar tactic is used to draw out bluffs. If you do not carry out your threat, you were bluffing. If you do carry it out, a person, some people, many people, or a whole lot of people are maimed or killed.

    An alternative tactic is espionage, but few countries have the resources to employ a robust intelligence apparatus.

    (Fanatics are fanatics first, and the cause is secondary. You recruit jihadis to infiltrate terrorist networks.)

    Hopefully, we are also learning why respecting borders is important.

    My personal strategy is “don’t f*ck with me or my allies, and if you do, I will make Attila look like a teddy bear.” If a country asked for help, I would consider helping. Otherwise, I would keep the air and sea routes open, and I would toss almost everything else to the UN. I consider them worthless, but they can be useful.

  • jan Link

    I’ve been reading some of the posts here, and it seems that a few people interpret POVs as either “to invade” or “not invade,” ignoring the number of possibilities that lie inbetween these two extremes.

    IMO, one of the major flaws in this president, over others, is the professorial way he handles foreign policy. It’s all on a theoretical level, adhering to his own ideological philosophy rather than to the kaleidoscope of changing events. His thinking seems to be set in concrete, rather than fluid and, for the sake of enemies, a little off the wall and more fearsome. For instance, what is the point of saying, “No boots on the ground?” While it may make political points with your base at home, it’s nothing but a flyer to your enemies telling them what you’re not going to do. In the minds of those who are threatening this country abroad, EVERYTHING should be on the table. Perhaps, this is in the flavor of “carrying a big stick,” however, it seems if all that one holds is a twig, where do you generate respect as well as caution from those who want to take you down?

    My response may be seen as hawkish by someone like Steve. However, I believe that posing a threat to others can actually prevent them from the bravado of doing stupid things that will ultimately cause grief for everyone. I also am a firm believer in “preventative action,” on most things in life, including military action. ISIS didn’t just puff up in a week. Intelligence had them on the radar for a long time, giving updates to the POTUS as to their growth. Had something been done much earlier to stem their aggression, they would not have had the stones to do as much damage as they’ve done — IMO. Almost everything this administration has been faced with, though, has been put on pause too long, and tentatively approached. And, like a disease left to fester and spread, it becomes much more difficult to contain and cure once it’s out of control. I’m starting to even look at ebola through this kind of lens, as well.

    Basically, there is vast yardage, though, between intervention and waiting-to-see what happens, in which a balance of objectives and actions can be achieved And, so far that balance is way out of kilter with this administration. Obama and his consultants just don’t seem to have an instinct for how to judge a situation, nor how to interact with it, and that’s why we are where we are today — in chaos!

    As far as comparing boats in the Marina to our military force….that’s a cute way to respond. However, back in the day there were fewer people, the technology was less destructive and so the naval requirements were far fewer. Currently, the world, it’s people, the problems faced are far different, and so, I would expect, would be the number of armaments etc. that would be required to maintain various fronts, especially should the world escalate into even greater, more dangerous confrontations.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    … Heaven also knows we love bombing people. We are doing what the American people would appear to support. …

    Again, total bullshit, and you are either stupid or f*cking stupid.

    There has been no public outcry for bombing anywhere. The calls for bombing are the minority. They may be loud, but they have not swayed public opinion. Actually, you can tell how much they are failing by how shrill they become and how much they disparage the public.

    The public wanted nothing to do with Libya, and they supported President Obama who wanted nothing to do with Libya. President Obama has no regard for US opinion, but he values the Europeans opinion. Therefore, he began bombing Libya when they started calling him names, and the US public supported HIS bombing.

    In Syria, there has been no public outcry for bombing. If President Obama decided to begin bombing, the US public would support their president and his bombing. Ditto for Iraq or anywhere else.

    The US public usually supports their president’s decisions. Until recently, President Obama had decent approval ratings. I realize that the US is filled with racists who hate a black president, and yet, the numbers somehow balance out.

    If you think that the first African-American president is a sack of shit for bombing Libya, you are not a racist. He will not be the first sack of shit president, and he will not be the last. Just say what you think, and do not blame the American public for your cowardice.

  • steve Link

    TB- Point out to me the outcries against the bombing. They largely don’t exist, except in the context of worrying about a slippery slope. We always bomb people. Not many people care.

    ” But a USA TODAY/Pew Poll earlier this month found Americans backing airstrikes in Iraq by 54%-31%.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/08/28/usa-today-pew-poll-us-role-in-the-world/14623319/

    So, I repeat. The American people support bombing and they support no troops on the ground.

    Steve

  • CStanley Link

    This is the most cravenly administration I have seen in my lifetime. It’s not a matter of what course, military or otherwise, interventional or not, one would like him to take. It’s whether or not the decision to act or not act is based on anything but a political calculus.

    And some would say that this is acceptable or even right, because democracy. I would strongly disagree because we have not signed on to a suicide pact. This is particularly important when dealing with matters where the public knows much less than we need to know to make informed decisions.

  • I’m still pissed about Missouri. That’s a place where the Obamas could have had some real effect, and they chose to stay away.

  • They’re dust under my feet as far as I’m concerned.

  • They didn’t look after their constituency. That sucks.

  • CStanley, they’re so oblique they don’t even act in their own best political interests. I don’t get it. Unless it’s Ivy League fatigue, I just don’t get it.

    I’m from the western world.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    Sorry, it does not work that way. Looking for negative outcries as proof that the public does not want bombing ain’t gonna cut it. If the public wants bombing, there should be polling that pulls the president towards bombing.

    The change from a year ago is that the president’s team has decided that ISIS is a major problem, and they are publicly, loudly, and frequently making their case. The public is following them. The administration is not following the public.

    You can claim that the administration is following the delusional hawks, but you need to blame the administration. In Libya, you should blame the Europeans.

    You live in a fantasy created by the Left. You could not find ten actual hawks, and I do not mean “kill ’em all” crap. I mean destroy N. Korean missile sites. I mean destroy any planes that buzz US planes or ships. I mean mobilization accompanies any military threats. I mean actions not slogans.

    I am one of the few hawks you will ever encounter, and I do not advocate intervention because the US public does not have the will or stomach to carry it out.

    What the US public is willing to accept is clandestine operations. Offshore covert operations are palatable to most Americans, including the Left, as long as they remain covert. For the Left especially, you can pretend that your hands are pristine. Frankly, I can live with that. We both win.

  • What the hell is wrong with these people? Shit, I was a house guest of the Dean of Public Health at Yale when I was just a teenager. Saw Queen Elizabeth in New Haven.

    Nice woman, even if she did think I was a belle. (Perspicacious, that woman.) A Bellis.

  • So, even?

    I admit, it is nice to know that some people in power in this country have some decency as well. She was a wonderfully gracious hostess.

  • They all have been, coast to coast.

  • Please to include yourself in that number, Mr. and Mrs. Schuler.

  • steve Link

    TB-Your views on military action are bizarre. All or nothing is not advocated by any serious military writer. Also, you seem to be totally unaware of the campaign on the right to get the admin to attack Muslims anytime, anywhere as long as they have even the flimsiest excuse. The brilliant foreign policy people referred to by the WSJ are essentially all interventionists. You don’t get to go on TV as an “expert” if you are generally opposed to intervention. (This is true for right and left.) Add these two groups together and there has been a major shift in public opinion (remember that 54% now want us to bomb).

    As far as the admin changing its views, ISIS was not much of a threat to anyone until they got Saddam’s old Sunnis, especially the military, to sign up. Conditions on the ground changed tremendously. I think that makes it reasonable to reassess your policy.

    Steve

  • TastyBits Link

    What is really amazing is that the Left accuses the American people of being bombing crazy, and the Right accuses them of being bombing shy.

    The American people do not want to be bothered with the rest of the world. They do not want to waste their time bombing anybody. They have their own lives to worry about, and if the rest of the world leave them alone, they will leave the rest of the world alone.

    Americans do not care about Rwanda because they are racist. They do not care about Ukraine either. If the Africans do not care about Rwanda, why should Americans? If Europeans do not care about Ukraine, why should Americans?

    If the answer is Hitler, please provide a realistic action plan that would have altered history. Let me help you. You have none because anything that would have worked was unrealistic. Stopping Hitler is a fantasy dreamed up by people who understand the world from a comfortable sofa in a nice safe living room.

  • TastyBits Link

    @steve

    My views are a realistic power based. They are not the delusions of today’s hawks or the fantasies of today’s doves. You, and most in the West, assume that we have evolved beyond the past 10,000 years of human history. Assad, Putin, the Mullahs, etc. are not throwbacks. They are what man naturally yearns for.

    Did you notice that the WSJ is now at my position? Who knows. You may be next.

    Who do you think I refer to as the delusional hawks? Do you think I pulled that term out of my ass? I coined it myself, and it is not a mistake. They are a minority on the right, and they get more shrill as they get smaller.

    The “experts” all have a monetary motive. They are political operatives, writers, security consultants, etc. There is never an ex-CIA agent who is now a shoe salesman. These people have been in the media for the last 25 years – cable and talk radio, and they have one goal – money.

    The delusional hawks push for bombing and intervention all the time. (The American people had mostly tuned them out, and they deride the public. Have you heard of Rand Paul?) The only difference between now and a year ago is the administration and the Left have joined them. Again, take it up with your side not the American public.

    I do not care why your side changed. If you think it is justified, it seems a little silly to be accusing the public of being bombing happy. You seem to be the one who is conflicted.

  • If Europeans do not care about Ukraine, why should Americans?

    It’s not just that. It’s that I have yet to hear anybody articulate a convincing argument as to why we should support this particular Ukrainian regime. The American press seem to have forgotten that they’re right wing nationalists who ousted the previous regime in a coup.

  • Andy Link

    CStanley,

    “It’s not a matter of what course, military or otherwise, interventional or not, one would like him to take. It’s whether or not the decision to act or not act is based on anything but a political calculus.”

    Personally, I don’t think that’s the case. There really isn’t a domestic political “win” in a mid-east intervention, at least there’s not one I can see. The various choices all come with serious political tradeoffs, not to mention all the other tradeoffs.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Dave Schuler

    … The American press seem to have forgotten that they’re right wing nationalists who ousted the previous regime in a coup.

    Or, they intentionally tossed it down the memory hole. With all the Hitler references, I will bring up Goebbels. Egypt I & II, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine have all been reshaped through propaganda to fit a narrative that supports the goals of the West (Right & Left).

    I found the image of you hiding in a closet reading interventionist material by flashlight to be amusing. I would expect you to be accused of being a closet pacifist not closet interventionist.

  • CStanley Link

    Andy- my point is that most interventions, particularly with commitment of troops, are more risky than doing nothing (speaking of political risk, and short term.) the one exception is air strikes, which Obama is often willing to do and has further decreased the risk:benefit through drone strikes.

    It is certainly possible that this approach really is the best one for US interests, but I don’t feel confident that it has been chosen for that reason because everything this administration does seems to put politics first. I really don’t have confidence in my own ability to judge when a more interventionist policy is warranted or feasible, but I’ve lost trust in our government to make that determination .

  • CStanley — a perfect opportunity to use that gorgeous big word “pusillanimous”

  • steve Link

    “It is certainly possible that this approach really is the best one for US interests, but I don’t feel confident that it has been chosen for that reason because everything this administration does seems to put politics first.”

    Of course. So, just ignore the media and don’t be influenced by them. What makes the most sense? Can you really come up with a good reason for us to go back into Iraq with a significant number of troops? I certainly can’t. I think what we are doing now is pretty reasonable. Out of a bunch of not so great options, it is the best. Cant say that I really know if it is being done only for political purposes as I am not privy to the inner workings of Obama’s office, and I am not willing to be lead around by the nose by National Review, Drudge, etc. People always claim that the other team’s president acts with unsure motives.

    Steve

  • CStanley Link

    So, just ignore the media and don’t be influenced by them.

    A bit like living in an old house and ignoring the lead in your pipes- just drink the pure H20.

Leave a Comment