[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

Dan,

From my perspective, the argument was never that Obama was dumb. Rather, he is a foreign policy dilettante, as Joe Biden opined (and was later forced to retract in response to pressure from the DNC). While I don’t agree with Biden’s politics, he is one of the more capable operators on the Hill, and is something of an elder statesman when it comes to foreign relations.

I could care less about Obama’s gaffes; pols are forced to do dozens of speeches while on the stump and mistakes will happen.

I would also not question his academic record; to me it is somewhat irrelevant. Bill Clinton was admirably suited to the role of President, and I was extremely impressed with his status as a Rhodes Scholar. It did not, however, translate into a meaningful foreign policy capability and Clinton was widely admired as a policy wonk.

As to Obama’s record: It is curious to mention this, when there really isn’t anything to look at. He is a fairly junior member of the Senate, and his voting record (such as it is) is noticeably sparse; not because he doesn’t vote, but because he hasn’t been there long enough to really establish any sort of reputation. His record shows a politician who votes along party lines, and adheres to a left-leaning philosophy. This is not partisan, by the way, it is simply an observation.

He has shown less depth when it comes to history, and having an academic background in the law and international relations does not a historian make. I brought this up with gandalf following the Zakaria article: Zakaria was attempting to ascribe certain positions and policies to Obama in clear contradiction to the facts. The facts being that Obama did not have the voting record to support Zakaria’s assertions, nor did he have the foreign policy record to underpin Zakaria’s claims.

If Obama does embrace a policy of “American Realism” (which I am taking to mean a more pragmatic approach): I am all for it.

However, someone on this blog pointed out that, in all likelihood, the problems confronting him domestically will prove exceptionally daunting and, wrong-headed though it is, he will be blamed for continued lackluster economic performance. Much akin to the comment about LBJ’s Great Society dying in the fields of Vietnam.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: Saw this article on Yahoo and thought it relevant to our discussions regarding diplomacy and its effectiveness:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080725/ap_on_re_mi_ea/nuclear_iran;_ylt=AuVn8sd3VtkK70zzeHPhvFELewgF

Question here is: Is this cooperation genuine? Is it part of a “cheat and retreat” strategy? I will profess to an innate mistrust of the Iranians, however, this doesn’t mean they are doing so.

Just curious as to your thoughts. Read the article through and tell me what you think.

This blog is like crack. Seriously. I have so much frickin’ work to do, but here I sit firing off these little missives. Fortunately, I am self employed, but I am starting to see working at Wal-Mart in my immediate future (at the rate I’m going).

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This response is totally off topic on an off topic, but I wanted to address your comments about WWII. You’re absolutely correct about some of the mismanagement of that war, both in terms of prosecuting campaigns in the Pacific and Europe and on the homefront as well (war profiteering, infighting between Republicans and Democrats).

What I wanted to say, was that I think Joe Stalin was right about one thing: I think the US and Britain allowed the Russians to bleed the Germans and themselves white while they slowly moved towards an eventual invasion of Fortress Europe.

Operation Torch (North Africa) is an excellent case in point, as are the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. We didn’t land in France until June of 1944 and the Germans were pretty much a spent force at that point (Operation Citadelle/Zitadelle in the Kursk pocket was the Wehrmacht’s last hurrah in Russia, and that was summer of 1943).

Stalin had been screaming for an Allied invasion in Europe and FDR and Churchill had been glad handing him the entire time. I think they knew that the Russians were the bigger “over the horizon” problem and having the Soviets deplete their forces while ejecting the Nazis from the Motherland was part of a larger strategy that envisioned the coming Cold War.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This response is totally off topic on an off topic, but I wanted to address your comments about WWII. You’re absolutely correct about some of the mismanagement of that war, both in terms of prosecuting campaigns in the Pacific and Europe and on the homefront as well (war profiteering, infighting between Republicans and Democrats).

What I wanted to say, was that I think Joe Stalin was right about one thing: I think the US and Britain allowed the Russians to bleed the Germans and themselves white while they slowly moved towards an eventual invasion of Fortress Europe.

Operation Torch (North Africa) is an excellent case in point, as are the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. We didn’t land in France until June of 1944 and the Germans were pretty much a spent force at that point (Operation Citadelle/Zitadelle in the Kursk pocket was the Wehrmacht’s last hurrah in Russia, and that was summer of 1943).

Stalin had been screaming for an Allied invasion in Europe and FDR and Churchill had been glad handing him the entire time. I think they knew that the Russians were the bigger “over the horizon” problem and having the Soviets deplete their forces while ejecting the Nazis from the Motherland was part of a larger strategy that envisioned the coming Cold War.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This response is totally off topic on an off topic, but I wanted to address your comments about WWII. You’re absolutely correct about some of the mismanagement of that war, both in terms of prosecuting campaigns in the Pacific and Europe and on the homefront as well (war profiteering, infighting between Republicans and Democrats).

What I wanted to say, was that I think Joe Stalin was right about one thing: I think the US and Britain allowed the Russians to bleed the Germans and themselves white while they slowly moved towards an eventual invasion of Fortress Europe.

Operation Torch (North Africa) is an excellent case in point, as are the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. We didn’t land in France until June of 1944 and the Germans were pretty much a spent force at that point (Operation Citadelle/Zitadelle in the Kursk pocket was the Wehrmacht’s last hurrah in Russia, and that was summer of 1943).

Stalin had been screaming for an Allied invasion in Europe and FDR and Churchill had been glad handing him the entire time. I think they knew that the Russians were the bigger “over the horizon” problem and having the Soviets deplete their forces while ejecting the Nazis from the Motherland was part of a larger strategy that envisioned the coming Cold War.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This response is totally off topic on an off topic, but I wanted to address your comments about WWII. You’re absolutely correct about some of the mismanagement of that war, both in terms of prosecuting campaigns in the Pacific and Europe and on the homefront as well (war profiteering, infighting between Republicans and Democrats).

What I wanted to say, was that I think Joe Stalin was right about one thing: I think the US and Britain allowed the Russians to bleed the Germans and themselves white while they slowly moved towards an eventual invasion of Fortress Europe.

Operation Torch (North Africa) is an excellent case in point, as are the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. We didn’t land in France until June of 1944 and the Germans were pretty much a spent force at that point (Operation Citadelle/Zitadelle in the Kursk pocket was the Wehrmacht’s last hurrah in Russia, and that was summer of 1943).

Stalin had been screaming for an Allied invasion in Europe and FDR and Churchill had been glad handing him the entire time. I think they knew that the Russians were the bigger “over the horizon” problem and having the Soviets deplete their forces while ejecting the Nazis from the Motherland was part of a larger strategy that envisioned the coming Cold War.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

John: This response is totally off topic on an off topic, but I wanted to address your comments about WWII. You’re absolutely correct about some of the mismanagement of that war, both in terms of prosecuting campaigns in the Pacific and Europe and on the homefront as well (war profiteering, infighting between Republicans and Democrats).

What I wanted to say, was that I think Joe Stalin was right about one thing: I think the US and Britain allowed the Russians to bleed the Germans and themselves white while they slowly moved towards an eventual invasion of Fortress Europe.

Operation Torch (North Africa) is an excellent case in point, as are the Sicilian and Italian campaigns. We didn’t land in France until June of 1944 and the Germans were pretty much a spent force at that point (Operation Citadelle/Zitadelle in the Kursk pocket was the Wehrmacht’s last hurrah in Russia, and that was summer of 1943).

Stalin had been screaming for an Allied invasion in Europe and FDR and Churchill had been glad handing him the entire time. I think they knew that the Russians were the bigger “over the horizon” problem and having the Soviets deplete their forces while ejecting the Nazis from the Motherland was part of a larger strategy that envisioned the coming Cold War.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

gandalf: I want to isolate your comment about Vietnam and the aftermath to illustrate the problems with “misperceptions”.

The US military in Vietnam never lost a battle. Not one. The Tet Offensive of 1968, which Walter Cronkite (among other US newspeople) characterized as a US “defeat” was exactly the opposite. The US destroyed the fighting capability of the Viet Cong for the balance of the war and inflicted such massive casualties on the North Vietnamese Army that it took them years to rebuild their offensive capabilities. However, the American people believed that Tet was a defeat for US forces and the pressure increased on the homefront to end the war and get the troops home.

In 1972, the US launched the “Linebacker” campaigns, a series of sustained bombings against Hanoi and Haiphong Harbor (the main transhipment point for Soviet and Chinese military supplies and materiel). In large part, the campaign was designed to break the deadlock for the US/North Vietnamese peace talks and the overwhelming display of US firepower worked superbly.

Lastly, and most importantly, from 1973 through 1975, during Nixon’s “Vietnamization” program (the tranisition from US led operations to South Vietnamese led operations) the ARVN (Army of the Republic of Vietnam – the South Vietnamese forces) forces more than held their own against the North Vietnamese Army (communist). However, this success was entirely predicated on continued US military aid and materiel, and, in 1975 Congress pulled the plug on aid to South Vietnam and precipitated the complete collapse of the South.

I bring all of this up for two reasons: (1) Vietnam was not “Vietnam” in the conventionally held sense, meaning most of what we’ve been told or taught is in direct contradiction of the actual facts of the war, and (2) The parallels exist between Vietnam and Iraq, but not in the way(s) most people think.

Our precipitate withdrawal from Southeast Asia allowed the predations of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouges, as well as those of the North Vietnamese. It also started a long slide for US prestige and power on the world stage, culminating with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the hostage crisis in Iran, both in 1979.

I would argue that our strategic position is not as awful as you imagine. I don’t think our bellicosity with Iran is the best approach, but I don’t think we’ll get much out of attempting to engage the people, either. The hardliners control that country in every sense of the word, and breaking that control will take years, if not a decade or longer. We don’t have that kind of time when it comes to Iran’s timeline to develop the bomb (and I would agree that they probably are already in possession of one or more). We need to develop a strategy that works now and includes possible options that the Europeans won’t countenance, such as military strikes or action by proxy (Israel).

I was also being serious when I asked your opinion of what the heck “American Realism” is. What school of thought is this? Wilsonian? Emersonian? Kissingerian?

[Author]

Posts