The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ubama, Hussein still has a lot of time remaining in his presidency.

What is Ubama, Hussein president of?

[Darnell 8,479]

man, that sideways reference to 'The World of Islam' ..

Ya know, if some fella had a deeper understanding of just what the #### that really is, complete with all historical knowledge and 'sects' and geography - he might have said 'no' when Kuwait called up to 'enforce the peacekeeping contract' back in the '90s.

Oh well.. here we are today, with this new fella.

I'm still watching AlJaZeeraTV, it's good this few fella has bored them to tears...

[nowhereman 1]

Ubama, Hussein still has a lot of time remaining in his presidency.

What is Ubama, Hussein president of?

By any objective measure the Bush doctrine was a failure. However now that Obama is President all the right can do is criticize and make silly statements based entirely on rhetoric (see OP's comment above). The POTUS has four elements of national power: "Diplomatic," "Information," "Military" and "Economic" power, or DIME, at his disposal. The Bush doctrine relied very heavily on the Military element & as the saying goes if your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. It seems to me that President Obama's intent is to use all 4 elements.

My question is if you don't like Obama's foreign policy what's the alternative? I'm looking for an answer with some substance & not the usual empty rhetoric.

[lucyrich 20]

Wait a minute. Does the right wing want to judge the US President by how much applause comes from the arab world? If so, I don't think G.W. Bush ranks very highly on that scale, not that it's relevant.

I'm sure that, if Obama had been pandering to the Arab interests in order to gain a lot of popularity over there, the right wing would have had a fit and said that was a bad thing to do. So when he doesn't pander to the arabs, how do they turn that into a bad thing? Which do they want?

[alienlovechild 75]

Criticism is perfectly fine and often warranted. Hate is when people start humping over non-issues or blame a guy for not having changed the world in 10 months time.

No effect on the economy? We still have an economy. How's that for an effect? The broad view among economists is that w/o the action taken by Bush towards the end of his term and the action taken by Obama since, there wouldn't be much of an economy left.

As for the supposed indecision on Afghanistan, I'd argue that a deliberate approach and periodic strategic review of our war over there from the start may actually have seen us out of there some time ago. The shoot from the hip approach taken by the previous administration certainly hasn't been successful. Why engage in more of it? Why not take a different approach to reach a better outcome?

Personally, I'd rather we get out of that hellhole and leave it to the Afghans to do with as they please. I'm not happy with the decision Obama reached to send more troops over there. I think it's useless. But that doesn't lead me to sit there and claim that I know better what is and isn't the right move at this point. It certainly doesn't lead me to sit there and say that the President isn't decisive. He just decides with his head rather than his gut.

So Obama hasn't changed the world but he's saved the U.S. economy? Now you know where the all the messiah talk comes from. We have an economy and would have one regardless of actions taken by the president. Whether all the actions taken were smart or necessary is the question. The initial actions on saving the financial sector were done out of fear with little deliberation beyond thinking about the ghosts of the Great Depression but Obama went far beyond that stage while playing on the fears on the population. Can't let a good crisis pass by. The sluggish economy shows that Obama hasn't been doing well unless you consider huge growth in government spending and the highest unemployment in nearly 30 years as acceptable for the next 3-5 years.

Are you talking about the delibrative president who said he was ready to lead on day one until he had to make a decision on a war he deemed necessary? Or that other president who took two years to invade Iraq and after 13 years of sanctions/periodic aerial bombings? Pretty slow decision making for guy shooting from the hip but keep repeating the myth anyways. We'll we see a better outcome with Obama? Well his usual supporters are largely against him on his Afghan policy so he'll find a way to declare victory and pull most of troops out. He's indecisive because he really doesn't care much about what happens in Afghanistan as he's got other priorities. He's indecisive because he's a talker and not much of doer in fulfilling his promises made. Other presidents have done that but Obama was touted as an inspired outsider able to bring the country together and win international support- didn't happen which is what I've said before he was elected.

[nowhereman 1]

Obama has 3 groups to deal with (conservatives, moderates & liberals) and regardless of what he does 2 out of the 3 groups will say he's doing the wrong thing. As I have said before it's pretty clear all the conservatives want is to get back the oval office in 2012 (and see Obama fail) & the liberals can't see the forest through the trees (i.e. they would rather be stubborn than compromise) so Obama needs to align himself with the moderates & tell the other two groups to go have sex with themselves. Besides IMO the moderates are the most reasonable of the 3 groups anyways.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Wait a minute. Does the right wing want to judge the US President by how much applause comes from the arab world? If so, I don't think G.W. Bush ranks very highly on that scale, not that it's relevant.

I doubt that conservatives actually rate anyone by how much applause they get from foreign rulers, especially of the "fair-weather-friend" (such as Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) or downright-foe (Iran) persuasions--since by that measure (I know I'm stretching this to extremes) Churchill would rate almost as poorly on that scale as Chamberlain (deservedly, since Hitler had absolute scorn/contempt for the surrendering pre-WW2 PM).

BTW, even Bush Sr wasn't applauded by Arabs, even those nations he had defended (Saudi Arabia) or "liberated" (Kuwait--he DID kick Iraq out of there).

[alienlovechild 75]

By any objective measure the Bush doctrine was a failure. However now that Obama is President all the right can do is criticize and make silly statements based entirely on rhetoric (see OP's comment above). The POTUS has four elements of national power: "Diplomatic," "Information," "Military" and "Economic" power, or DIME, at his disposal. The Bush doctrine relied very heavily on the Military element & as the saying goes if your only tool is a hammer everything looks like a nail. It seems to me that President Obama's intent is to use all 4 elements.

My question is if you don't like Obama's foreign policy what's the alternative? I'm looking for an answer with some substance & not the usual empty rhetoric.

Which Bush doctrine? There are several.

Diplomatic? Obama hasn't persuaded our allies to join in and more will quit if Obama announces a withdrawal timetable. No need for the Taliban to talk peace while they're on the offensive.

Information? Well Obama dumped the foolish talk about scrapping intelligence gathering from the Patriot Act but will that last? Less harsh interrogation methods and fear among interrogators of getting prosecuted later may not help much.

Military? He's half-stepping the troop surge to keep his political base and to keep spending on his pet programs against his own handpicked commander in theater.

Economic? He's a walking disaster there as the economy flounders so he can only issue promisory notes.

He's got only one worsening war (the smaller one at that) to deal with and he's got shaky support from his own party. To be honest, as the war years drag on, people are just going to tune out and hope for the best but accept anything as long as it's over.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm sure that, if Obama had been pandering to the Arab interests in order to gain a lot of popularity over there, the right wing would have had a fit and said that was a bad thing to do. So when he doesn't pander to the arabs, how do they turn that into a bad thing? Which do they want?

It doesn't matter what he does. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Do whatever, that is. One minute he's the continuation of Bush, next minute he's a dangerous socialist. It doesn't matter what Obama does, the right will attack him regardless. That's why they can't really have any expectation of being taken seriously.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Criticism is perfectly fine and often warranted. Hate is when people start humping over non-issues or blame a guy for not having changed the world in 10 months time.

No effect on the economy? We still have an economy. How's that for an effect? The broad view among economists is that w/o the action taken by Bush towards the end of his term and the action taken by Obama since, there wouldn't be much of an economy left.

As for the supposed indecision on Afghanistan, I'd argue that a deliberate approach and periodic strategic review of our war over there from the start may actually have seen us out of there some time ago. The shoot from the hip approach taken by the previous administration certainly hasn't been successful. Why engage in more of it? Why not take a different approach to reach a better outcome?

Personally, I'd rather we get out of that hellhole and leave it to the Afghans to do with as they please. I'm not happy with the decision Obama reached to send more troops over there. I think it's useless. But that doesn't lead me to sit there and claim that I know better what is and isn't the right move at this point. It certainly doesn't lead me to sit there and say that the President isn't decisive. He just decides with his head rather than his gut.

So Obama hasn't changed the world but he's saved the U.S. economy?

He hasn't single-handeldy saved the US economy. He has worked with the relevant institutions in this country and with the leadership in other countries to pull the US and world economy back from the cliff that it was about to fall off of. Bush has done that as well and he and his administration do deserve credit for that. No doubt out that. Were the actions done and carried out perfectly? No. But hindsight is typically 20/20.

Are you talking about the delibrative president who said he was ready to lead on day one until he had to make a decision on a war he deemed necessary?

Taking time to carefully consider various options and strategies in the light of cahnging realities on the ground is not the same as being indecisive. Quite the opposite, actually.

[nowhereman 1]

Which Bush doctrine? There are several.

I was referring to the two main pillars identified in the Bush doctrine: preemptive strikes against potential enemies and promoting democratic regime change. These ideals are not inherently flawed but we attacked Iraq based on wrong (and many argue trumped up) intel & then royally screwed up the execution of the war for about 3 yrs (2003-2006).

Diplomatic? Obama hasn't persuaded our allies to join in and more will quit if Obama announces a withdrawal timetable. No need for the Taliban to talk peace while they're on the offensive.

Diplomacy doesn't always work & we have to be prepared to apply other measures, but if you don't at least try then of course you're down to just 3 options (info, economic or military).

Information? Well Obama dumped the foolish talk about scrapping intelligence gathering from the Patriot Act but will that last? Less harsh interrogation methods and fear among interrogators of getting prosecuted later may not help much.

I have mixed feelings on this one... I have no problem with harshly interrogating terrorists but without the proper supervision & leadership it can easily lead to abuse & buffoonery (like Abu Ghraib).

Military? He's half-stepping the troop surge to keep his political base and to keep spending on his pet programs against his own handpicked commander in theater.

I have stated previously that I wish President Obama made his decision on Afghanistan quicker, but lets see what the plan looks like (Obama speaks tonight).

Economic? He's a walking disaster there as the economy flounders so he can only issue promisory notes.

There are signs of economic recovery... whether this is due to Obama's policies or is just part of the natural economic cycle I am not qualified to say.

However from my vantage point President Obama is trying to enact positive change, while President Bush just kept trying the same failed policies over & over. Supporters claim Bush was consistent, but then again the coach of the Detroit Lions was consistent last year as well. B)

[alienlovechild 75]

Taking time to carefully consider various options and strategies in the light of cahnging realities on the ground is not the same as being indecisive. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is when you're losing more troops to the enemy despite and having huge of number veteran combat soldiers' experience to rely on. The military needs the C-in-C more than the White House parties need their host. Remember how steamed people got with Bush for waiting 7 minutes on 9/11 with those kids?

"Changing realities" in Afghanistan, are you kidding? That place doesn't change much which is a big part of problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Taking time to carefully consider various options and strategies in the light of cahnging realities on the ground is not the same as being indecisive. Quite the opposite, actually.

It is when you're losing more troops to the enemy despite and having huge of number veteran combat soldiers' experience to rely on. The military needs the C-in-C more than the White House parties need their host. Remember how steamed people got with Bush for waiting 7 minutes on 9/11 with those kids?

"Changing realities" in Afghanistan, are you kidding? That place doesn't change much which is a big part of problem.

Go back and take a look at how the pisspoor execution of the war in Afghanistan has enabled the Taliban to regain ground in that country after they were first ousted. The Bush administration was never shy to pull the trigger. They were just magnificently inept - or one could argue not interested - when it came to securing the country they invaded. That's true for both Afghanistan and Iraq. **, they let Osama bin Laden get away because they were indecisive.

[alienlovechild 75]

Go back and take a look at how the pisspoor execution of the war in Afghanistan has enabled the Taliban to regain ground in that country after they were first ousted. The Bush administration was never shy to pull the trigger. They were just magnificently inept - or one could argue not interested - when it came to securing the country they invaded. That's true for both Afghanistan and Iraq. **, they let Osama bin Laden get away because they were indecisive.

Afghanistan fell off the radar scope fairly quickly even before the Iraq War kicked off.

The country was never secured in the first place as we relied on the anti-Taliban forces to run the country.

Bin Laden got away because they relied heavily on local troops and Pakistani promises. After hearing for years about how easy it would be to get Bin Laden, team Obama hasn't done much better.

A former Delta Force commander, using the pen name "Dalton Fury", who was present at Tora Bora has revealed in a book that bin Laden escaped into Pakistan on or around December 16, 2001. Fury gives three reasons for why bin Laden was able to escape: (1) the US mistakenly thought that Pakistan was effectively guarding the border area, (2) NATO allies refused to allow the use of air-dropped GATOR mines, which would have helped seal bin Laden and his forces inside the Tora Bora area, and (3) over reliance on native Afghan military forces as the main force deployed against bin Laden and his fighters. Fury states that the Afghan forces would usually quit the battlefield in the evenings to break their Ramadan fasts, thereby allowing the al-Qaeda forces a chance to regroup, reposition, or escape.[5]

Fury, in an interview on 60 Minutes, stated that his Delta Force team and CIA Paramilitary Officers traveled to Tora Bora after the CIA pinpointed bin Laden's location in that area. Fury's team proposed an operation in which they would assault bin Laden's suspected position from the rear, over the 14,000 foot high mountain separating Tora Bora from Pakistan. But, Fury's proposal was denied by unidentified officials at higher headquarters for unknown reasons. Fury then proposed the dropping of GATOR mines in the passes leading away from Tora Bora, but this was also denied. Forced to approach the al-Qaeda forces from the front, at one point Fury reports that his team was within 2,000 yards of bin Laden's suspected position, but withdrew because of uncertainty over the number of al-Qaeda fighters guarding bin Laden and a lack of support from allied Afghan troops.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tora_Bora

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Which Bush doctrine? There are several.

Diplomatic? Obama hasn't persuaded our allies to join in and more will quit if Obama announces a withdrawal timetable. No need for the Taliban to talk peace while they're on the offensive.

To reiterate a commonly-missed fact: Taliban was created by ISI--and does not rise above its creators morally (many of ISI cadre which created Taliban were/are unremorseful 1971-war-criminals or toadies thereof) or conceptually (ISI's only concept of peace is the kind preceded by "rest in", also duplicated in Taliban). Even when on defence, Taliban limited in concepts to:

• attack and be d@mned (modified marginally, since the concept of their own criminality and candidacy for d@mnation never occurs to touts like Taliban)
• withdraw and attack later

Information? Well Obama dumped the foolish talk about scrapping intelligence gathering from the Patriot Act but will that last? Less harsh interrogation methods and fear among interrogators of getting prosecuted later may not help much.

Military? He's half-stepping the troop surge to keep his political base and to keep spending on his pet programs against his own handpicked commander in theater.

Economic? He's a walkingheadlong run to disaster (deliberately) there as the economy flounders so he can only issue promisory notes.

He's got only one worsening war (the smaller one at that) to deal with and he's got shaky support from his own party. To be honest, as the war years drag on, people are just going to tune out and hope for the best but accept anything as long as it's over.