Was Bush's foreign policy smarter than Obama's?

[WildCat]

I propose that winning a "War on Terror" is akin to winning a "War on Crime" or a "War on Poverty" or "War on Drugs" or any other "War on [Social Issue]"

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea. You cannot bomb a concept. You cannot shoot at a viewpoint. And so long as this is how the debate is framed, things will not change.

Good thing we're not at war with an idea then, isn't it? If you think we are, feel free to point out the part(s) of the AUMF authorizing military force against an idea. You can find it here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/sjres23_eb.asp

Good luck, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your strawman.

 

[Sporanox]

Fareed Zakaria, who people might remember was considered conservative prior to the advent of Dubyaism, likes Obama's foreign policy better:

[. . . ]​

Of course this is to be expected, Zakaria is a realist in the IR undertsanding of the term and so is Obama.

Realist foreign policy is very much rooted in conservatism - and so we should recognize that there are critics of Bush foreign policy grounded in a respected foreign policy tradition that aren't "lefty libs".

I'm coming into this late, so I haven't read the thread too much, but I have a few words about the op-ed:

As George W. Bush's term came to a close, he had few defenders left in the world of foreign policy. Mainstream commentators almost unanimously agreed the Bush years had been marked by arrogance and incompetence.

Rats generally abandon sinking ships. No, seriously - many events, particularly in this past year, have proven that a significant number of journalists are interested first and foremost in their Beltway cred.

In fact, though consumed by the economic crisis in its first 50 days, the Obama administration has nevertheless made some striking moves in foreign policy. Obama announced the closure of Guantánamo

By now, of course, the order to close Gitmo is a farce and in fact a great example of why Obama shouldn't have got the job - he doesn't know how to get anything done. The only thing he accomplished there was scalping one of his top attorneys. EDIT: and ticking off other nations. I hear he's going to keep 50 or so detainees indefinitely at this point.

Perhaps he was moving in the right direction on torture - but his new interrogation policy is the equivalent of the Wizard of Oz. All smoke and mirrors. The HIG doesn't even EXIST yet, and his DNI forgot about that little fact.

Incompetent.

He gave his first interview as president to an Arab network and spoke of the importance of respect when dealing with the Muslim world—a gesture that won him rave reviews from normally hostile Arab journalists and politicians.

Question is, what are those rave reviews worth? Do these Arab journos and pols even BELIEVE what they wrote?

I think we need to abandon the mentality that somehow most of the pols in the US have employed platitudes and empty gratifications in order to cover up deeply sinister goals, yet leaders of countries in the ME will let their true feelings out if we simply make a nice gesture. Ultimately, national leaders are after one thing - what's in it for their country.

Now, Obama hasn't necessarily hurt anything, but he's not helping. Or, perhaps he is hurting us with the general effect of his signals - giving the appearance of weakness.

The administration has signaled a willingness to start engaging with troublesome regimes like Syria and Iran.

Again, what difference does it make? Iran's quite comfortable instructing us to take our inspectors on a long walk off a short pier.

Clinton publicly affirmed that the United States would work with China on the economic crisis and energy and environmental issues despite differences on human rights.

How accommodating has China been? See Copenhagen. Not so much.

She has also offered the prospect of a more constructive relationship with Russia.

Heh.

Obama said he was open to the prospect of talking to some elements of the Taliban in an effort to isolate its hard-core jihadis.

Out of everything written in the op-ed so far, this is probably the worst. I used to respect Zakaria, but he's strongly attached to centrism. Sometimes, the most moderate position is not the right one to take.

 

[Praktik]

Out of everything written in the op-ed so far, this is probably the worst. I used to respect Zakaria, but he's strongly attached to centrism. Sometimes, the most moderate position is not the right one to take.

Ok well, a lot here. Its good to see the legwork being put in buddy..)

However I think that to engage in the usual kind of picking apart of each post point by point would be more work than it's worth, since I suspect we are philosophically so far apart* that we'd not do much more than be stating our opinions at each other with little chance of reconciling the differences.

Also maybe discussing Zakaria's editorial would be a little unfair since its brevity does not allow him to elaborate in that format (and its 6 months old).

But I singled out this quote because I think it may prove a more fruitful launching point to further this discussion. I've already laid out my position on the previous page after all.

The reason I highlighted it is because it immediately generated a question in my mind, the answer to which I think might illustrate clearly the gulf between us.

So, if this is the thing in Zakaria's piece that you think is the "worst" I have to ask, what exactly do you envision for the end of hostilities in Afghanistan? How is it going to be brought to an end?

----

** for full disclosure I'll share how I self-identify when it comes to international politics: though I am centre-left in domestic policy I've had a hard time extending that to the international arena, which I think realism (in the IR sense) captures best. I believe in the law of the jungle, the constant quest to safeguard the national self-interest and that might often can make right (though not always without self-defeating unintended consequences).

To illustrate: I try to root my opposition to things like the Iraq War not so much in morality, though I do think the occupation was immoral, but rather the practical concerns of launching the war. How it affected the region, the chances for future terror attacks, the strain it put on alliances, the drain on American resources and so on.

Call me a leftist at heart with a realist brain..

 

[Sporanox]

Ok well, a lot here. Its good to see the legwork being put in buddy..)

However I think that to engage in the usual kind of picking apart of each post point by point would be more work than it's worth, since I suspect we are philosophically so far apart* that we'd not do much more than be stating our opinions at each other with little chance of reconciling the differences.

Also maybe discussing Zakaria's editorial would be a little unfair since its brevity does not allow him to elaborate in that format (and its 6 months old)..

Point taken about the quote fragments. I'm trying to wean myself off the habit. Zakaria's editorial, though, was too ripe to pass up in my eyes - the very fact that it made a number of testable predictions (in effect saying these are good ideas) six months ago was awesome.

The reason I highlighted it is because it immediately generated a question in my mind, the answer to which I think might illustrate clearly the gulf between us.

So, if this is the thing in Zakaria's piece that you think is the "worst" I have to ask, what exactly do you envision for the end of hostilities in Afghanistan? How is it going to be brought to an end?

I'd be more definite in response if not for the way Iraq has gone so far. I would never have dreamed the last Marines would have been withdrawing by now.

I have hopes for progress in Afghanistan. I think we will secure the country and train its army effectively enough to deny a second al-Qaeda nest. I believe President Obama realizes that withdrawing will only add to a growing perception that he can't get things done.

 

[Praktik]

Point taken about the quote fragments. I'm trying to wean myself off the habit. Zakaria's editorial, though, was too ripe to pass up in my eyes - the very fact that it made a number of testable predictions (in effect saying these are good ideas) six months ago was awesome.



I'd be more definite in response if not for the way Iraq has gone so far. I would never have dreamed the last Marines would have been withdrawing by now.

I have hopes for progress in Afghanistan. I think we will secure the country and train its army effectively enough to deny a second al-Qaeda nest. I believe President Obama realizes that withdrawing will only add to a growing perception that he can't get things done.

Well I didn't really have an issue with your quote fragments per se, it gave you an opportunity to state your position and as I gain experience tangling in message boards I've come to be satisfied with a "here's my position" -> "here's my position" format without having to continue on until someone "wins".

Sometimes there can be no winner, maybe even most of the time..

What I was getting at with that one part I wanted to use as a launchpad to change the discussion about how Afghanistan would end is that to me it appeared as if your incredulity at Zakaria's statement stemmed from the idea that the Taliban could be successfully eliminated, and that that was the reason for your disagreement. Therefore, someone suggesting that elements from within the Taliban should be courted would appear to be either naïve or insufficiently committed to victory.

And I think this is where a lot of disagreement on Afghanistan is rooted: people like Zakaria and myself and many others see that the end game will involve some kind of accommodation of the Taliban, and that it is impossible to eradicate their presence from the country. The end game is therefore to weaken them militarily while also doing so politically: finding elements within the taliban whose demands are more easily filled who could be peeled off from the others, convincing some of the Taliban that giving up fighting brings more benefits than continuing to fight. This kind of approach was used successfully in Iraq with the insurgent Sunnis.

So Obama's statement was singled out by Zakaria as worthy of praise because it recognized an endgame that deviated from the previous impression, that it was possible to eliminate the Taliban and that the Taliban represented a force with whom no accommodation could ever be realized short of complete military victory.

Its that kind of thinking that led to disaster in Algiers and Vietnam (and early on in Iraq).

And I think that this difference of opinion is one of the most visible fault lines between these opposing schools of thought.

 

[Sporanox]

And I think this is where a lot of disagreement on Afghanistan is rooted: people like Zakaria and myself and many others see that the end game will involve some kind of accommodation of the Taliban, and that it is impossible to eradicate their presence from the country. The end game is therefore to weaken them militarily while also doing so politically: finding elements within the taliban whose demands are more easily filled who could be peeled off from the others, convincing some of the Taliban that giving up fighting brings more benefits than continuing to fight. This kind of approach was used successfully in Iraq with the insurgent Sunnis.

I assume that what you see as the ultimate, primary goal is the elimination of an al-Qaeda sanctuary in Afghanistan so our military endeavor is not completely devoid of meaning. With that in mind, a few points wrt the opposing position:

1: Assuming we can accommodate the Taliban, with the aforementioned goal in mind, also assumes that there are sections of the Taliban that would not shelter al-Qaeda. There is no basis for this assumption, i.e. accommodating any Taliban means sending a tacit acknowledgement that al-Qaeda can operate with them. There is also no way to verify that these so-called more moderate, interested-in-benefits elements are not sheltering al-Qaeda afterwards.

Another point is that whenever one acquiesces to Taliban demands, you are making a deal with the devil that will only result in more and more demands. See Pakistan's experience with Sharia law: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/04/21/pakistan.taliban/

2: It's harder to insist that you're fighting for human rights when you essentially give up a chunk of the country's population to be poppy field slaves, unwilling taxpayers, dead if gay or female student, etc

3: Your analogy to the Sunnis in Iraq is close to comparing apples to oranges. The Sunni insurgency was nationalist, not religious, and they turned against al-Qaeda before we started reaching out to them. The ideological difference is particularly important, since they weren't likely to throw acid on schoolgirls after the fighting stopped. al-Qaeda was an interloper pulling faction strings throughout the entire Iraqi conflict, and never enjoyed the close relationship with the Sunnis that they do with the Taliban. Also, the Sunnis weren't interested in taking over Iraq through brute force.

Short summary: the Taliban isn't going to fight al-Qaeda. Neither are grassroots; both are oppressors.

 

[Ziggurat]

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea.

Yes you can. It's rather common, in fact. We won a war against the idea that England could control the fate of its American colonies. We won a war against the idea that states could secede from the union. We won a war against the idea of national socialism. We won a war against the idea of Japanese imperialism.

Of course, in this particular case, the idea in question isn't really "terrorism", but jihad. The "war on terror" is a politically correct euphemism, and I'm not fond of it, but it's still a hell of a lot closer to reality than "overseas contingency operations".

How do I propose stopping terrorism? The same way we have in the past- qualified, trained, equipped law enforcement.

And here's where the mislabeling can get you in trouble: we have never stopped an idea like jihadism with police.

You know- the same folks who responded in 1993 when the WTC was bombed

I wouldn't really call that a success story.

or a few years later when McVeigh snapped

A terrorist, but not a jihadist.

the same folks we expect to stop horrible crimes everywhere else they occur.

Except in the cases you mentioned, horrible crimes were not stopped, we only caught the perpetrators after the fact.

How will we know when we've won?

When the average Moslem is more concerned with their own prosperity than the death of America.

No. We'll know we've won when we stop getting attacked by jihadists. Your "victory" condition isn't sufficient to achieve that.

Arguably, by this framing of the debate, we've already won. All we need to do now is declare victory and leave.

If you think you can declare victory by simply reframing the debate, well, you're not dealing with reality.

 

[leftysergeant]

Yes you can. It's rather common, in fact. We won a war against the idea that England could control the fate of its American colonies. We won a war against the idea that states could secede from the union. We won a war against the idea of national socialism. We won a war against the idea of Japanese imperialism.

Horse feathers.

We "destroyed the enemies' ability to resist our will in matters of policy."

There are still Nazis. Some of them post to this board. There are still seccessionists in America. We threw the British off of a good part of North America, but they went on to colonize a whole bunch of other places. We wrested control of all of the captured territories from the hands of the Japanese Empire and convinced the Japanese people that the cost of continued hostilities was unrerasonably high.

The Fail Boat is here to take you home.

 

[zaphod2016]

There are still Nazis. Some of them post to this board. There are still seccessionists in America. We threw the British off of a good part of North America, but they went on to colonize a whole bunch of other places. We wrested control of all of the captured territories from the hands of the Japanese Empire and convinced the Japanese people that the cost of continued hostilities was unrerasonably high.

An excellent, excellent point. Ideas are immortal, and jihadism is no different.

Of course, in this particular case, the idea in question isn't really "terrorism", but jihad. [...] And here's where the mislabeling can get you in trouble: we have never stopped an idea like jihadism with police.

Have we stopped jihadism with war? Quite the contrary; Al Queda recruitment is on the rise.

And, let's give some credit where credit is due: the police stop jihadist activity. Every. Single. Day.

In the cases you mentioned, horrible crimes were not stopped, we only caught the perpetrators after the fact.

Very true. But we caught them, put them on trial, and delivered justice. And the whole world watched us do it- along with any other would-be terrorists.

No. We'll know we've won when we stop getting attacked by jihadists. Your "victory" condition isn't sufficient to achieve that.

When the jihadists' children decide they are more interested in buying DVDs and a new car than sacrificing themselves for Allah, I will have achieved total victory.

If you think you can declare victory by simply reframing the debate, well, you're not dealing with reality.

And if you think you can achieve victory by persuing the same failed tactic, nether are you.

 

[zaphod2016]

Good thing we're not at war with an idea then, isn't it? If you think we are, feel free to point out the part(s) of the AUMF authorizing military force against an idea. You can find it here: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/sjres23_eb.asp

Good luck, I won't hold my breath waiting for you to support your strawman.

My good friend WildCat- cheaper than law school and just as painful.

From your link:

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent [9/11] attacks launched against the United States.

This begs two questions:

1. Who was responsible?

2. Have those people responsible been neutralized?

For example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was 1) responsible and 2) neutralized. By this logic- the war's over; we won. We did exactly what this resolution set out to do.

If this war is NOT over, and those responsible have NOT been neutralized, this begs another question:

What are we waiting for? Seriously. The past two administrations have been given every dime in funding they've asked for, and this war is now 8 years old. Consider that for a moment: this war is older than an average 3rd-grader.

Fallacy notwithstanding, the facts of the case are thus:

1) The objectives of this resolution have been met, and the war has already been won (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et all, have been killed or captured).

Or-

2) Even with 8 years and unlimited funding, this is simply not a resolution our military is capable of enforcing, and thus, a new policy is needed.

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.

 

[McHrozni]

...which pretty much everybody does at this point.

It's only fair - Bush was blamed for the 2000-2001 recession as well as early as 2002.

Either look for deeper reasons, or accept that whomever is in power gets the blame. Your pick.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.

If there is an alternative approach that has a snowflakes' chance in a volcano in hell to work, of course. Is there?
What would you do? A peace conference, where we discuss our common ground with every possible branch of Islamic fanatics and try to reach a compromise? Something else? Please, speak, I am interested in your solutions.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

This is a fallacy; you cannot win a war against an idea.

This is also a fallacy. You can win a war against an idea. You can't destroy an idea with a war, but there are lesser goals you can achieve that are just as effective in such a war.

Using the example of Nazism in another reply to this statement - there is a profound difference between an idea, supported by a few radical groups worldwide, that may be able to gang together and beat up a few people here and there and an idea, supported by majorities of several of the worlds' richest and most powerful nations, with off shots around the world.
The fact Nazism wasn't rooted out completely doesn't mean it wasn't utterly defeated.

McHrozni

 

[WildCat]

My good friend WildCat- cheaper than law school and just as painful.

From your link:



This begs two questions:

1. Who was responsible?

2. Have those people responsible been neutralized?

For example: Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was 1) responsible and 2) neutralized. By this logic- the war's over; we won. We did exactly what this resolution set out to do.

KSM was the sole person responsible for 9/11? There aren't any other members of al Qaeda? No other groups, such as the Taliban, provided material support for al Qaeda?

Your point makes no sense at all unless the above is true, which it clearly isn't. The war against Japan didn't end when we shot down Yamamoto's (the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack) plane. Though this was a big blow to them, the rest of Japan's armed forces were still fighting.

If this war is NOT over, and those responsible have NOT been neutralized, this begs another question:

What are we waiting for? Seriously. The past two administrations have been given every dime in funding they've asked for, and this war is now 8 years old. Consider that for a moment: this war is older than an average 3rd-grader.

So it can't be a war since it's over 8 years old?

Fallacy notwithstanding, the facts of the case are thus:

1) The objectives of this resolution have been met, and the war has already been won (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, et all, have been killed or captured).

There you go again, claiming the war was only against a few people. In the link to the AUMF you will find that the war is actually against "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

Has everyone in that group since been pacified? You'll find the answer is "no". Al Qaeda still fights on, as do their Taliban allies. I don't think any nations (other than Afghanistan) were involved, so that part is likely satisfied.

Or-

2) Even with 8 years and unlimited funding, this is simply not a resolution our military is capable of enforcing, and thus, a new policy is needed.

In either event, continuing this madness is illogical.

It's only illogical insofar as your scenario (the war was against KSM) is true, which it isn't.

The war will be over when Congress decides it is and rescinds the AUMF.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that this is a war against an idea...

 

[Thunder]

Bush prevented an Indian-Pakistani nuclear war. Bush invaded Afghanistan to kick out Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban.

These are the only good things Bush did, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Everything else was a disaster.

 

[mortimer]

Bush prevented an Indian-Pakistani nuclear war. Bush invaded Afghanistan to kick out Al-Qaeda and remove the Taliban.

These are the only good things Bush did, as far as foreign policy is concerned. Everything else was a disaster.

What about Bush's Africa anti-AIDS/HIV policies?

 

[Thunder]

What about Bush's Africa anti-AIDS/HIV policies?

that was good too.

 

[zaphod2016]

KSM was the sole person responsible for 9/11? There aren't any other members of al Qaeda? No other groups, such as the Taliban, provided material support for al Qaeda?

KSM was not the sole person responsible, nor was he the only one captured or killed.

Your point makes no sense at all unless the above is true, which it clearly isn't. The war against Japan didn't end when we shot down Yamamoto's (the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack) plane. Though this was a big blow to them, the rest of Japan's armed forces were still fighting.

You are comparing a nation-state's uniformed army with a band of disenfranchised zealots. Apples and Oranges.

There you go again, claiming the war was only against a few people. In the link to the AUMF you will find that the war is actually against "against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons".

The enemy: those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided or harbored the 9/11 terrorists. I think we agree here.

For the past 8 years, our armed forces have done everything in their power to capture and kill these folks. I think we still agree.

Has everyone in that group since been pacified? You'll find the answer is "no". Al Qaeda still fights on, as do their Taliban allies. I don't think any nations (other than Afghanistan) were involved, so that part is likely satisfied.

I think your argument supports my overall premise that:

a) The military is non designed for this sort of threat

b) The enemy has been poorly defined

c) The enemy has been emboldened by our strategy thus far

The war will be over when Congress decides it is and rescinds the AUMF.

Legally, this is totally correct.

I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that this is a war against an idea...

This is the "War on Terrorism", right? What is terrorism? By my definition, terrorism is an ideological tactic.

The "War on Terror" includes a variety of enemy-specific police actions, such as Afghanistan, but the overall premise is a declared war against a political ideology.

It is the difference between a war against the Axis powers (as defined by a specific geographical territory, defended by a uniformed army under the flag of a nation-state) and a war against Nazism (as defined by a political ideology, defended by a loosely affiliated group of people in violation of their own nation's laws).

 

[zaphod2016]

If there is an alternative approach that has a snowflakes' chance in a volcano in hell to work, of course. Is there?
What would you do? A peace conference, where we discuss our common ground with every possible branch of Islamic fanatics and try to reach a compromise? Something else? Please, speak, I am interested in your solutions.

McHrozni

The basic premise:

A. I agree with the hawks than any sort of lasting compromise with jihadists is futile. The jihadist culture is not interested in a peaceful resolution with us, and it is silly to pretend otherwise.

B. The gross majority of Moslems worldwide do not subscribe to, nor support, the jihadist mentality. The jihadists are a minority subset of Moslems, just like the 7th-Day Adventists do not represent the whole of Christianity*

C. Most terrorism is a crime of opportunity; it is easier to prevent an attack like 9/11 (months of planning, infiltration onto our own shores) than it is to prevent a jihadist scumbag sniping at a Marine in Baghdad, or planting a IED near a Tikrit marketplace.

Assuming I were in charge, here are my orders:

1. Host a global summit in which we a) define the legal status of a terrorist b) define the legal right rights of terrorists and c) define due process regarding terrorist prosecution.

In other words, when is it acceptable to shoot them dead, and when is it more appropriate to arrest? What sort of court system is used? Which law applies? Rather than deciding this unilaterally, we find a legal consensus with our global partners against the jihadists.

2. Announce a 4-year plan in which all US forces in not-hostile regions are redeployed, and our local bases either sold to ally governments, or disassembled/abandoned. All our forces sitting around in Germany, in Guam, in South Korea, can be brought back home.

3. In conjunction with our withdrawal, announce repeatedly that any act of aggression against our interests will be met with war. I.e. if they are dumb enough to shoot at us as we are leaving (after decades of peace) we turn around and crush them.

4. Forces left in hostile regions would be trained according to the new legal consensus on terrorism, and be fully equipped with all the resources no longer spread around the rest of the world.

5. Forces returning to the USA could elect to be trained (and eventually discharged to) civilian law enforcement. In other words, since their services are no longer needed to patrol Guam, they can be put to better use.

6. In a nutshell, my military would focus on maintaining air and naval superiority, but focus far less on the ground troops. With modern technology,we could deploy from the continental USA to anywhere in the world within a matter of days. Air and naval support can move in with the support of local allies, even if we no longer have a base or other occupation in the hostile zone.

7. The primary duty of law enforcement would be prosecute violent crime. After diverting significant military resources to this task (see #5), we could divert even more resources by decriminalizing other non-violent crime. I.e. instead of arresting potheads wandering around, the police focus instead on thwarting violent crimes, such as terrorist acts.

8. The military returns to a role of self defense. If attacked, we re-deploy, crush the enemy, and return home. When not in active combat, our military patrols our air, sea and land in constant lookout for the enemy, or other threats to America. They can act as a supplement to law enforcement, so long as new and more effective rules of engagement have been established (see #1).

9. To ensure our ability to respond to a credible threat, we have the draft, not to mention 40,000 nuclear weapons. We could easily destroy any nation state that marches against us. Any other threat would be considered criminal, and addressed by the judicial (see #7)

TL;DR I advocate that America embraces a foreign policy which acknowledges that the Cold War ended almost 20 years ago.

* Not comparing ideologies, just populations

 

[leftysergeant]

What about Bush's Africa anti-AIDS/HIV policies?

Sucked. Utterly. He opposed actual health-based sex education.