![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogAnd so we are at war with ISIS now. Or ISIL. Or IS. Or, if yr Fox News, IIG (Islam In General).
Anyway. Good morning,
I was sitting in the business class lounge in Mactan International Airport just after Presidente Obama unveiled his anti-ISISISILISIIG strategy, which meant I overheard the talking heads on CNN “analyzing” it. On the internet, the commentary has pretty much conformed to the usual party lines.
As it happened, I was working on a post about Obama’s overall foreign policy and the criticisms thereof, which was inspired by his own former Secretary Of State, who was going around saying, “Yr doing it wrong.”
That says a lot, though what it mainly says is “Hillary 2016” – not least because Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments were, for the most part, a lot more popular back when Hillary was head of State than they are now. Still, the fact does remain that Obama’s foreign policy approval ratings in 2014 are bleak enough that you can’t pin it all on Republican naysaying.
There’s more to that than ISIL, of course. It’s been a rough year for foreign policy issues – Ukraine, Gaza, the Middle East in general, etc. Still, when ISIS is decapitating American journalists on YouTube, that’s an attention getter. And suddenly Obama’s general foreign policy approach (i.e. “don’t do stupid stuff”) doesn’t cut the mustard.
And so now it’s air strikes for IS and anyone who happens to be standing near them when the smart drones kill them. For starters. There may be boots on the ground later. Or perhaps golf shoes.
There are two obvious follow-up questions to this development:
1. Is it the right decision? Depends who you ask. Conservatives are grudgingly approving it, though you can bet they’ll criticize the way Obama handles it. The anti-war section of Obama’s liberal base is against it because they see it as an addendum to Bush’s ill-advised endless-by-design Iraq War 2. Also, there’s a possibility the threat of ISIS has been somewhat exaggerated. Which isn’t exactly unprecedented when it comes to the US GWOT.
2. Will it do any good? Beats me. My gut feeling is it might contain ISIL but create new problems. It won’t stop terrorism or quell the radicalism that fuels it.
Meanwhile, I’m more interested in the overall paradigm that ISIS actually represents and what it means for foreign policy in the future.
The majority of grown-ups in America – as well as in Congress – have had their opinions of foreign policy shaped by the Cold War and Vietnam. Someone said somewhere that Obama would be the first post-Boomer POTUS to come from outside that Cold War mindset, and that this would be a point in his favor, because the 21st Century sociopolitical arena isn’t being driven by major opposing political ideologies. The problem seems to be that while Obama doesn’t think in either/or Cold War terms, he hasn’t really worked out what the 21st Century framework should be beyond “don't do stupid stuff”.
This is one of the better critiques I’ve read (written before the ISIS speech), which makes a good point: Obama’s foreign policy doctrine is really more of an anti-doctrine, which is fine to a point but has its limitations, and the statelessness of ISIL is currently demonstrating that:
I don’t know if Obama’s ISIS strategy counts as a framework or not. It looks more like another ad hoc solution to a specific situation. I suppose it could serve as a template for similar future situations. Provided it works.
As I said above, I don’t have any wisdom here. But I feel reasonably confident in saying most of Obama’s critics don’t either, especially conservatives who think Instant Disproportionate Violence both counts as a policy and actually solves problems. (Of course, “problems” in this case usually means the problem of Halliburton and other defense companies not making enough money.) And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, conservative critics have generally demonstrated they’re less interested in offering solutions and more in bashing Obama – hopefully hard enough to damage Hillary’s 2016 chances. So there’s no reason for me to take them seriously.
If nothing else, I suppose the best thing you can say about Obama’s foreign policy is that he doesn’t use Instant Disproportionate Violence and actually takes time to think about it first. I don’t know how effective it will prove to be, but I figure it can’t possibly be worse than Bush’s “shoot now, shoot first and shoot often” approach to everything post-9/11.
Stupid is as stupid does,
This is dF
Anyway. Good morning,
I was sitting in the business class lounge in Mactan International Airport just after Presidente Obama unveiled his anti-ISISISILISIIG strategy, which meant I overheard the talking heads on CNN “analyzing” it. On the internet, the commentary has pretty much conformed to the usual party lines.
As it happened, I was working on a post about Obama’s overall foreign policy and the criticisms thereof, which was inspired by his own former Secretary Of State, who was going around saying, “Yr doing it wrong.”
That says a lot, though what it mainly says is “Hillary 2016” – not least because Obama’s foreign policy accomplishments were, for the most part, a lot more popular back when Hillary was head of State than they are now. Still, the fact does remain that Obama’s foreign policy approval ratings in 2014 are bleak enough that you can’t pin it all on Republican naysaying.
There’s more to that than ISIL, of course. It’s been a rough year for foreign policy issues – Ukraine, Gaza, the Middle East in general, etc. Still, when ISIS is decapitating American journalists on YouTube, that’s an attention getter. And suddenly Obama’s general foreign policy approach (i.e. “don’t do stupid stuff”) doesn’t cut the mustard.
And so now it’s air strikes for IS and anyone who happens to be standing near them when the smart drones kill them. For starters. There may be boots on the ground later. Or perhaps golf shoes.
There are two obvious follow-up questions to this development:
1. Is it the right decision? Depends who you ask. Conservatives are grudgingly approving it, though you can bet they’ll criticize the way Obama handles it. The anti-war section of Obama’s liberal base is against it because they see it as an addendum to Bush’s ill-advised endless-by-design Iraq War 2. Also, there’s a possibility the threat of ISIS has been somewhat exaggerated. Which isn’t exactly unprecedented when it comes to the US GWOT.
2. Will it do any good? Beats me. My gut feeling is it might contain ISIL but create new problems. It won’t stop terrorism or quell the radicalism that fuels it.
Meanwhile, I’m more interested in the overall paradigm that ISIS actually represents and what it means for foreign policy in the future.
The majority of grown-ups in America – as well as in Congress – have had their opinions of foreign policy shaped by the Cold War and Vietnam. Someone said somewhere that Obama would be the first post-Boomer POTUS to come from outside that Cold War mindset, and that this would be a point in his favor, because the 21st Century sociopolitical arena isn’t being driven by major opposing political ideologies. The problem seems to be that while Obama doesn’t think in either/or Cold War terms, he hasn’t really worked out what the 21st Century framework should be beyond “don't do stupid stuff”.
This is one of the better critiques I’ve read (written before the ISIS speech), which makes a good point: Obama’s foreign policy doctrine is really more of an anti-doctrine, which is fine to a point but has its limitations, and the statelessness of ISIL is currently demonstrating that:
Whether you're talking about al-Qaida or ISIL or whatever nihilistic gang comes along next, what you're talking about is a global assault on the very idea of statecraft. And increasingly the operative question will probably be, Do you have a functional government at all? And if you do, can't we find interests that align?
I don’t know if Obama’s ISIS strategy counts as a framework or not. It looks more like another ad hoc solution to a specific situation. I suppose it could serve as a template for similar future situations. Provided it works.
As I said above, I don’t have any wisdom here. But I feel reasonably confident in saying most of Obama’s critics don’t either, especially conservatives who think Instant Disproportionate Violence both counts as a policy and actually solves problems. (Of course, “problems” in this case usually means the problem of Halliburton and other defense companies not making enough money.) And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, conservative critics have generally demonstrated they’re less interested in offering solutions and more in bashing Obama – hopefully hard enough to damage Hillary’s 2016 chances. So there’s no reason for me to take them seriously.
If nothing else, I suppose the best thing you can say about Obama’s foreign policy is that he doesn’t use Instant Disproportionate Violence and actually takes time to think about it first. I don’t know how effective it will prove to be, but I figure it can’t possibly be worse than Bush’s “shoot now, shoot first and shoot often” approach to everything post-9/11.
Stupid is as stupid does,
This is dF
