Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
Hope is not a strategy; Looking presidential
Topic Started: Oct 8 2012, 05:48 PM (599 Views)
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Finally the mans actual words get some play in MSM. This from Fox via Huffington.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/08/romney-hope-is-not-strategy-in-middle-east/
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I love soundbites and bumper stickers.

They get votes.

Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Finally, Fox get behind Romney.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Do you know how to read? If so, try again.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Which one are you describing as MSM, Fox or Huffington?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Getting back to what Romney said, I thought the conservative case was that the Arab Spring wasn't necessarily a Good Thing, since it risked Islamic extremists taking over from authoritarian leaders, and that the US support for the Libyan rebels is going to end up replacing an authoritarian dictatorship with an Islamist government which will destabilise the region, and could lead to further attacks on US interests.

Could somebody explain to me how arming the people trying to overthrow Assad is going to result in a different outcome than that obtained by arming the Libyan rebels?

Or is this completely different, and I'm too stupid to understand?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Yes, that last is quite possibly true. No one can say at this point whether the Arab Spring ends up being good or bad in the long run. It is certainly fraught with risks to our interests.

What is possibly good about overthrow of the Assad regime is the loss of Iran's ally and a Mediterranean seaport for the Russian navy.

What is incredibly inept is our Carteresque disengagement in the Syrian rebellion after having made much international noise about the imperative to prevent civilian bloodshed in Libya.
Edited by Mikhailoh, Oct 8 2012, 06:37 PM.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Perhaps the Russians require more flexibility until after the election.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Funny thing is when the Arab spring first started out Mik was crediting Bush.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
It seems to me that Romney and Obama's foreign policy are pretty much Coke and Pepsi. The marketing people tell us that they're completely freaking different, one is awesome, one is horrible, etc.

In reality, there's not much difference other than the slogans.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
jon-nyc
Oct 9 2012, 01:22 AM
Funny thing is when the Arab spring first started out Mik was crediting Bush.
No, I speculated that since spreading democracy in he region was a part of his strategy that might be the case.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
There have been plenty of people condemning the US involvement in Libya as needlessly interfering in foreign domestic affairs. I'd be interested to hear their opinions regarding Romney's proposed interference in Syria.

Personally, I have very mixed feelings about it - I think the situation is way too unstable to make accurate predictions as to what will happen, and that anybody who says otherwise is delusional or trying to sell me something.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
It is dicey. But for Obama to have trumpeted 'Human Rights! Stop The Slaughter!' in Libya then his silence for so long on Syria, well, it does not give me any sense of leadership. Nor does his sucking up to Medvedev.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Chris Aher
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Interesting take on this topic:

The Emergiing Doctrine of the United States

By George Friedman

Over the past weekend, rumors began to emerge that the Syrian opposition would allow elements of the al Assad regime to remain in Syria and participate in the new government. Rumors have become Syria's prime export, and as such they should not be taken too seriously. Nevertheless, what is happening in Syria is significant for a new foreign doctrine emerging in the United States -- a doctrine in which the United States does not take primary responsibility for events, but which allows regional crises to play out until a new regional balance is reached. Whether a good or bad policy -- and that is partly what the U.S. presidential race is about -- it is real, and it flows from lessons learned.

Threats against the United States are many and complex, but Washington's main priority is ensuring that none of those threats challenge its fundamental interests. Somewhat simplistically, this boils down to mitigating threats against U.S. control of the seas by preventing the emergence of a Eurasian power able to marshal resources toward that end. It also includes preventing the development of a substantial intercontinental nuclear capability that could threaten the United States if a country is undeterred by U.S. military power for whatever reason. There are obviously other interests, but certainly these interests are fundamental.

Therefore, U.S. interest in what is happening in the Western Pacific is understandable. But even there, the United States is, at least for now, allowing regional forces to engage each other in a struggle that has not yet affected the area's balance of power. U.S. allies and proxies, including the Philippines, Vietnam and Japan, have been playing chess in the region's seas without a direct imposition of U.S. naval power -- even though such a prospect appears possible.

Lessons Learned
The roots of this policy lie in Iraq. Iran and Iraq are historical rivals; they fought an extended war in the 1980s with massive casualties. A balance of power existed between the two that neither was comfortable with but that neither could overcome. They contained each other with minimal external involvement.

The U.S. intervention in Iraq had many causes but one overwhelming consequence: In destroying Saddam Hussein's regime, a regime that was at least as monstrous as Moammar Gadhafi's or Bashar al Assad's, the United States destroyed the regional balance of power with Iran. The United States also miscalculated the consequences of the invasion and faced substantial resistance. When the United States calculated that withdrawal was the most prudent course -- a decision made during the Bush administration and continued by the Obama administration -- Iran consequently gained power and a greater sense of security. Perhaps such outcomes should have been expected, but since a forced withdrawal was unexpected, the consequences didn't clearly follow and warnings went unheeded.

If Iraq was the major and critical lesson on the consequences of intervention, Libya was the smaller and less significant lesson that drove it home. The United States did not want to get involved in Libya. Following the logic of the new policy, Libya did not represent a threat to U.S. interests. It was the Europeans, particularly the French, who argued that the human rights threats posed by the Gadhafi regime had to be countered and that those threats could quickly and efficiently be countered from the air. Initially, the U.S. position was that France and its allies were free to involve themselves, but the United States did not wish to intervene.

This rapidly shifted as the Europeans mounted an air campaign. They found that the Gadhafi regime did not collapse merely because French aircraft entered Libyan airspace. They also found that the campaign was going to be longer and more difficult than they anticipated. At this point committed to maintaining its coalition with the Europeans, the United States found itself in the position of either breaking with its coalition or participating in the air campaign. It chose the latter, seeing the commitment as minimal and supporting the alliance as a prior consideration.

Libya and Iraq taught us two lessons. The first was that campaigns designed to topple brutal dictators do not necessarily yield better regimes. Instead of the brutality of tyrants, the brutality of chaos and smaller tyrants emerged. The second lesson, well learned in Iraq, is that the world does not necessarily admire interventions for the sake of human rights. The United States also learned that the world's position can shift with startling rapidity from demanding U.S. action to condemning U.S. action. Moreover, Washington discovered that intervention can unleash virulently anti-American forces that will kill U.S. diplomats. Once the United States enters the campaign, however reluctantly and in however marginal a role, it will be the United States that will be held accountable by much of the world -- certainly by the inhabitants of the country experiencing the intervention. As in Iraq, on a vastly smaller scale, intervention carries with it unexpected consequences.

These lessons have informed U.S. policy toward Syria, which affects only some U.S. interests. However, any U.S. intervention in Syria would constitute both an effort and a risk disproportionate to those interests. Particularly after Libya, the French and other Europeans realized that their own ability to intervene in Syria was insufficient without the Americans, so they declined to intervene. Of course, this predated the killing of U.S. diplomats in Benghazi, Libya, but it did not predate the fact that the intervention in Libya surprised planners by its length and by the difficulty of creating a successor regime less brutal than the one it replaced. The United States was not prepared to intervene with conventional military force.

That is not to say the United States did not have an interest in Syria. Specifically, Washington did not want Syria to become an Iranian puppet that would allow Tehran's influence to stretch through Iraq to the Mediterranean. The United States had been content with the Syrian regime while it was simply a partner of Iran rather than Iran's subordinate. However, the United States foresaw Syria as a subordinate of Iran if the al Assad regime survived. The United States wanted Iran blocked, and that meant the displacement of the al Assad regime. It did not mean Washington wanted to intervene militarily, except possibly through aid and training potentially delivered by U.S. special operations forces -- a lighter intervention than others advocated.

Essential Interests
The U.S. solution is instructive of the emerging doctrine. First, the United States accepted that al Assad, like Saddam Hussein and Gadhafi, was a tyrant. But it did not accept the idea that al Assad's fall would create a morally superior regime. In any event, it expected the internal forces in Syria to deal with al Assad and was prepared to allow this to play out. Second, the United States expected regional powers to address the Syrian question if they wished. This meant primarily Turkey and to a lesser degree Saudi Arabia. From the American point of view, the Turks and Saudis had an even greater interest in circumscribing an Iranian sphere of influence, and they had far greater levers to determine the outcome in Syria. Israel is, of course, a regional power, but it was in no position to intervene: The Israelis lacked the power to impose a solution, they could not occupy Syria, and Israeli support for any Syrian faction would delegitimize that faction immediately. Any intervention would have to be regional and driven by each participant's national interests.

The Turks realized that their own national interest, while certainly affected by Syria, did not require a major military intervention, which would have been difficult to execute and which would have had an unknown outcome. The Saudis and Qataris, never prepared to intervene directly, did what they could covertly, using money, arms and religiously motivated fighters to influence events. But no country was prepared to risk too much to shape events in Syria. They were prepared to use indirect power rather than conventional military force. As a result, the conflict remains unresolved.

This has forced both the Syrian regime and the rebels to recognize the unlikelihood of outright military victory. Iran's support for the regime and the various sources of support for the Syrian opposition have proved indecisive. Rumors of political compromise are emerging accordingly.

We see this doctrine at work in Iran as well. Tehran is developing nuclear weapons, which may threaten Israel. At the same time, the United States is not prepared to engage in a war with Iran, nor is it prepared to underwrite the Israeli attack with added military support. It is using an inefficient means of pressure -- sanctions -- which appears to have had some effect with the rapid depreciation of the Iranian currency. But the United States is not looking to resolve the Iranian issue, nor is it prepared to take primary responsibility for it unless Iran becomes a threat to fundamental U.S. interests. It is content to let events unfold and act only when there is no other choice.

Under the emerging doctrine, the absence of an overwhelming American interest means that the fate of a country like Syria is in the hands of the Syrian people or neighboring countries. The United States is unwilling to take on the cost and calumny of trying to solve the problem. It is less a form of isolationism than a recognition of the limits of power and interest. Not everything that happens in the world requires or justifies American intervention.

If maintained, this doctrine will force the world to reconsider many things. On a recent trip in Europe and the Caucasus, I was constantly asked what the United States would do on various issues. I responded by saying it would do remarkably little and that it was up to them to act. This caused interesting consternation. Many who condemn U.S. hegemony also seem to demand it. There is a shift under way that they have not yet noticed -- except for an absence that they regard as an American failure. My attempt to explain it as the new normal did not always work.

Given that there is a U.S. presidential election under way, this doctrine, which has quietly emerged under Obama, appears to conflict with the views of Mitt Romney, a point I made in a previous article. My core argument on foreign policy is that reality, not presidents or policy papers, makes foreign policy. The United States has entered a period in which it must move from military domination to more subtle manipulation, and more important, allow events to take their course. This is a maturation of U.S. foreign policy, not a degradation. Most important, it is happening out of impersonal forces that will shape whoever wins the U.S. presidential election and whatever he might want. Whether he wishes to increase U.S. assertiveness out of national interest, or to protect human rights, the United States is changing the model by which it operates. Overextended, it is redesigning its operating system to focus on the essentials and accept that much of the world, unessential to the United States, will be free to evolve as it will.

This does not mean that the United States will disengage from world affairs. It controls the world's oceans and generates almost a quarter of the world's gross domestic product. While disengagement is impossible, controlled engagement, based on a realistic understanding of the national interest, is possible.

This will upset the international system, especially U.S. allies. It will also create stress in the United States both from the political left, which wants a humanitarian foreign policy, and the political right, which defines the national interest broadly. But the constraints of the past decade weigh heavily on the United States and therefore will change the way the world works.

The important point is that no one decided this new doctrine. It is emerging from the reality the United States faces. That is how powerful doctrines emerge. They manifest themselves first and are announced when everyone realizes that that is how things work.

Stratfor
Edited by Chris Aher, Oct 9 2012, 04:24 AM.
Regards,
Chris
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Mikhailoh
Oct 9 2012, 04:14 AM
It is dicey. But for Obama to have trumpeted 'Human Rights! Stop The Slaughter!' in Libya then his silence for so long on Syria, well, it does not give me any sense of leadership.
Well, he's full of sh!t, so that explains that.

I don't know which is more bizarre, liberals trumpeting on about giving peace a chance as their beloved leader uses drone strikes, or conservatives trumpeting non-interference to the back-drop of the Iraq war and Romney's intention to arm foreign rebels.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copper
Member Avatar
Shortstop
Chris Aher
Oct 9 2012, 04:22 AM
Many who condemn U.S. hegemony also seem to demand it.

See the above post.
The Confederate soldier was peculiar in that he was ever ready to fight, but never ready to submit to the routine duty and discipline of the camp or the march. The soldiers were determined to be soldiers after their own notions, and do their duty, for the love of it, as they thought best. Carlton McCarthy
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Personally, I wish people would be a bit more honest with themselves. It's probably too much to expect politicians to do anything other than try and differentiate themselves from their opposition over the most minor of points, but there's no reason for the rest of the world to follow blindly on behind them.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mikhailoh
Oct 8 2012, 06:35 PM

What is possibly good about overthrow of the Assad regime is the loss of Iran's ally and a Mediterranean seaport for the Russian navy.

I personally have no issue with Russians having a Mediterranean sea port. They are no less entitled to having one than any NATO member whose borders are not in the Mediterranean. Until such time the Syrians ask them to leave they should maintain their base at Tartus.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Pppssssshhhhh ... just like Jolly and Larry are still fighting the Crusade, Mik is still fighting the Cold War.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Axtremus
Oct 9 2012, 07:44 AM
Pppssssshhhhh ... just like Jolly and Larry are still fighting the Crusade, Mik is still fighting the Cold War.
I like to stay up on current events. :lol2:

Ren, I have no real problem with a Russian seaport in the Med either. But it would probably still be better for us if they did not.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Yes, but the world is not always about the USA.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Renauda
Oct 9 2012, 08:09 AM
Yes, but the world is not always about the US.
Says you; American exceptionalism says otherwise!
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
It is not in the interest of Russia or the US to reduce either of their presence or influnce in a region. The US pulling out only creates a vacuum that Russia or any others will be only to happy to fill. It is not just about the US nor is it just about Russia. Each will act according to their respective interests if they have competent leadership.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Renauda
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Indeed it's all about state interests and the business arising from those state interests:

Russia to become Iraq's second-biggest arms supplier Iraq is rebuilding its armed forces
Iraq has signed contracts to buy Russian arms worth $4.2bn (£2.6bn; 3.2bn euros) this year
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Oct 9 2012, 08:19 AM
Renauda
Oct 9 2012, 08:09 AM
Yes, but the world is not always about the US.
Says you; American exceptionalism says otherwise!
Liberals and conservatives mean two very different things when they use that term.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1