I'm amused by - or is that concerned by - notions that somehow with Putin's Ukraine move making a mockery of that malingering vestige of Obama's 'reset' idiocy that had not already been mocked unto death by Syria etc etc - I'm amused by notion expressed by many that somehow this learning experience will lead to a more mature, unsentimental, forthright and strength based foreign policy from Dear Leader - why?
I see three problems with the conceit. One, how on earth do you realistically expect a guy who had zero foreign policy credentials when he entered the office [and related to this lacking zero executive experience as well] and what little he did know or understand about the art was forged in the delusional furnaces of liberal ideology where American power is a thing to be at best not trusted, at worse despised, how on earth do you realistically expect this guy to suddenly turn into Reagan? To use a glib analogy, that's like telling the guy who never learned to hit the curveball in the minors when he gets to the majors and struggles hitting the curveball to just go out there and start hitting the curveball - that ain't gonna happen - and Putin's got a nice curve.
Secondly, even if Obama could manage a semblance of this transformation, if he practised it in a haphazard way or did not demonstrate a total commitment to the change, do people not see how this could become a more destabilizing thing in the end? Putin is acting as if he's totally got Obama's number - or to borrow There Will Be Blood's excellent imagery, he's acting as if he's totally drinking his milkshake - and China and Iran too, watching all this closely, are no doubt feeling the same way when it comes to their concerns - if Obama suddenly starts acting in a way they haven't planned for or are not expecting, they have to recalibrate, a recalibration that may mean a doubling down on aggression because it would be based on a very legitimate belief that Obama's putative change is without real substance or weakly held - in other words, they may see it as yet another opportunity to further their interests at America's expense - so you see, if Obama starts trying to act as if he's Reagan or even just Bush or hell even Kennedy that could escalate things in a very unpleasant way especially if he hasn't thought the ramifications of the change through in a clear headed way. It's not only demonstrated weakness that can encourage escalation and brinksmanship - phony shows of strength can do so as well and quite conceivably inspire a more rigid and vigorous response than might otherwise have been the case.
And finally, why do people continue to think that Obama's foreign policy 'mistakes' are seen as mistakes by him and his catamites - what if this mess is deliberate? Yes, naive in its conceptual framework and assumptions and therefore poorly thought through, sure - but why not deliberate all the same? Leading from behind in Libya is not a mistake if your goal is to dramatically redraw traditional notions of American influence as the indispensable power. Pulling out of Iraq, applying an utterly arbitrary and debilitating deadline to an Afghanistan withdrawal, backing away from red lines viz Syria and Iran, trying to shame or blackmail Israel into making concessions that no clear thinking Israeli PM would ever agree to, applauding the ostensibly democratic rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as if willfully embracing the naive ignorance of such a position, resetting with an obviously not to be trusted Putin at the expense of true eastern European allies, making a rhetorical pivot to Asia that is not attended by an actual pivot to Asia may all seem like mistakes to a person who values the indispensable nature of American power and wished to preserve the strategic profile it has maintained since the end of WWII - but that ain't Obama - left wing ideologues, which I wholeheartedly believe Obama to be, do not see America nor the world in those terms and the zealotry of their ideological arrogance precludes a rethinking of their beliefs - but regardless of the idealistic sympathies which prop up such a fragile viewpoint they realize in what amounts to a spasm of pragmatism for them that an America as a Reagan might wish to see it is simply not compatible budget wise with the welfare state they so lovingly indulge in their dreams - you cannot afford to buy votes by promising poor minorities and the unemployable and bloated, inefficient public service unions and single women romanticising progressivism because they know they'll never marry or have kids and they need to convince themselves that's okay and the fringe and not so fringe grievance mongers forever crying out for attention and myopic youth and the just all round hopelessly delusional, you cannot promise these guttersnipe wretches reaching out for the state's teat the activist, nurturing government they need and at the same time fund a great military worthy of a superpower - you gotta pick one or the other and there should be absolutely no debate about how Obama chooses - and so why continue to believe he has or could ever have a problem with the regressive foreign policy he has forged?
I see three problems with the conceit. One, how on earth do you realistically expect a guy who had zero foreign policy credentials when he entered the office [and related to this lacking zero executive experience as well] and what little he did know or understand about the art was forged in the delusional furnaces of liberal ideology where American power is a thing to be at best not trusted, at worse despised, how on earth do you realistically expect this guy to suddenly turn into Reagan? To use a glib analogy, that's like telling the guy who never learned to hit the curveball in the minors when he gets to the majors and struggles hitting the curveball to just go out there and start hitting the curveball - that ain't gonna happen - and Putin's got a nice curve.
Secondly, even if Obama could manage a semblance of this transformation, if he practised it in a haphazard way or did not demonstrate a total commitment to the change, do people not see how this could become a more destabilizing thing in the end? Putin is acting as if he's totally got Obama's number - or to borrow There Will Be Blood's excellent imagery, he's acting as if he's totally drinking his milkshake - and China and Iran too, watching all this closely, are no doubt feeling the same way when it comes to their concerns - if Obama suddenly starts acting in a way they haven't planned for or are not expecting, they have to recalibrate, a recalibration that may mean a doubling down on aggression because it would be based on a very legitimate belief that Obama's putative change is without real substance or weakly held - in other words, they may see it as yet another opportunity to further their interests at America's expense - so you see, if Obama starts trying to act as if he's Reagan or even just Bush or hell even Kennedy that could escalate things in a very unpleasant way especially if he hasn't thought the ramifications of the change through in a clear headed way. It's not only demonstrated weakness that can encourage escalation and brinksmanship - phony shows of strength can do so as well and quite conceivably inspire a more rigid and vigorous response than might otherwise have been the case.
And finally, why do people continue to think that Obama's foreign policy 'mistakes' are seen as mistakes by him and his catamites - what if this mess is deliberate? Yes, naive in its conceptual framework and assumptions and therefore poorly thought through, sure - but why not deliberate all the same? Leading from behind in Libya is not a mistake if your goal is to dramatically redraw traditional notions of American influence as the indispensable power. Pulling out of Iraq, applying an utterly arbitrary and debilitating deadline to an Afghanistan withdrawal, backing away from red lines viz Syria and Iran, trying to shame or blackmail Israel into making concessions that no clear thinking Israeli PM would ever agree to, applauding the ostensibly democratic rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as if willfully embracing the naive ignorance of such a position, resetting with an obviously not to be trusted Putin at the expense of true eastern European allies, making a rhetorical pivot to Asia that is not attended by an actual pivot to Asia may all seem like mistakes to a person who values the indispensable nature of American power and wished to preserve the strategic profile it has maintained since the end of WWII - but that ain't Obama - left wing ideologues, which I wholeheartedly believe Obama to be, do not see America nor the world in those terms and the zealotry of their ideological arrogance precludes a rethinking of their beliefs - but regardless of the idealistic sympathies which prop up such a fragile viewpoint they realize in what amounts to a spasm of pragmatism for them that an America as a Reagan might wish to see it is simply not compatible budget wise with the welfare state they so lovingly indulge in their dreams - you cannot afford to buy votes by promising poor minorities and the unemployable and bloated, inefficient public service unions and single women romanticising progressivism because they know they'll never marry or have kids and they need to convince themselves that's okay and the fringe and not so fringe grievance mongers forever crying out for attention and myopic youth and the just all round hopelessly delusional, you cannot promise these guttersnipe wretches reaching out for the state's teat the activist, nurturing government they need and at the same time fund a great military worthy of a superpower - you gotta pick one or the other and there should be absolutely no debate about how Obama chooses - and so why continue to believe he has or could ever have a problem with the regressive foreign policy he has forged?