The thing to consider about the economy is that the president is not only not responsible, but mostly irrelevant. An easy way to see this is the 2008 stimulus packages. Critics of the president frequently share the graph of national debt which grows sharply immediately after he took office—ignoring that the package was demanded by congress and supported by his predecessor, who wore a different color shirt.
A key in evaluating a president is the difference between what he did, what he could have done, and what people think about him. Consider that the parties were polarizing before he took office.
In terms of specifics, I am disappointed that he continued most of the civil rights abuses of the previous administration with regards to due process. I also oppose the employment of the drone warfare doctrine, which is minimally effective at achieving strategic goals and highly effective at generating ill will in the region.
By contrast, I am greatly pleased at the administrations’ commitment to diplomacy and improvement of our reputation among our allies. I am pleased that major combat operations were ended in two theaters, and that no new ones were launched. I applaud the Iranian nuclear agreement.
I am pleased that major combat operations were ended in two theaters, and that no new ones were launched.
So what about Libya? What about the fight against ISIS? The former was a quick-strike operation that caused the country in question to go to hell fast. The latter is an example of things going to hell so badly after a “successfully ended operation” that we had to intervene again.
As compared to what alternative? There is no success condition for large scale ground operations in the region. If the criticism of the current administration is “failed to correct the lack of strategic acumen in the Pentagon” then I would agree, but I wonder what basis we have for expecting an improvement.
It seems to me we can identify problems, but have no available solutions to implement.
What are your criteria for good foreign policy choices then? You have conveyed that you want Iraq to be occupied, but Libya to be neglected, so non-intervention clearly is not the standard.
My current best guess is ‘whatever promotes maximum stability’. Also, how do you expect these decisions are currently made?
I wouldn’t object nearly as much to occupying Libya as to what Obama actually did. Namely, intervene just enough to force Gaddafi out and leave a huge mess.
Actually I would still object, but that’s because Gaddafi had previously abandoned his WMD program under US pressure. So getting rid of him now sends a very bad message to other thrid world dictators contemplating similar programs.
I am pleased that major combat operations were ended in two theaters, and that no new ones were launched.
What like Libya? Or the fight against ISIS? The former is an example of a fast intervention that caused things to go straight to hell. The latter is an example of him “ending an operation” and things going to hell so badly that he had to intervene again.
The thing to consider about the economy is that the president is not only not responsible, but mostly irrelevant. An easy way to see this is the 2008 stimulus packages. Critics of the president frequently share the graph of national debt which grows sharply immediately after he took office—ignoring that the package was demanded by congress and supported by his predecessor, who wore a different color shirt.
A key in evaluating a president is the difference between what he did, what he could have done, and what people think about him. Consider that the parties were polarizing before he took office.
In terms of specifics, I am disappointed that he continued most of the civil rights abuses of the previous administration with regards to due process. I also oppose the employment of the drone warfare doctrine, which is minimally effective at achieving strategic goals and highly effective at generating ill will in the region.
By contrast, I am greatly pleased at the administrations’ commitment to diplomacy and improvement of our reputation among our allies. I am pleased that major combat operations were ended in two theaters, and that no new ones were launched. I applaud the Iranian nuclear agreement.
So what about Libya? What about the fight against ISIS? The former was a quick-strike operation that caused the country in question to go to hell fast. The latter is an example of things going to hell so badly after a “successfully ended operation” that we had to intervene again.
As compared to what alternative? There is no success condition for large scale ground operations in the region. If the criticism of the current administration is “failed to correct the lack of strategic acumen in the Pentagon” then I would agree, but I wonder what basis we have for expecting an improvement.
It seems to me we can identify problems, but have no available solutions to implement.
Well, not intervening in Libya for starters.
What are your criteria for good foreign policy choices then? You have conveyed that you want Iraq to be occupied, but Libya to be neglected, so non-intervention clearly is not the standard.
My current best guess is ‘whatever promotes maximum stability’. Also, how do you expect these decisions are currently made?
I wouldn’t object nearly as much to occupying Libya as to what Obama actually did. Namely, intervene just enough to force Gaddafi out and leave a huge mess.
Actually I would still object, but that’s because Gaddafi had previously abandoned his WMD program under US pressure. So getting rid of him now sends a very bad message to other thrid world dictators contemplating similar programs.
What like Libya? Or the fight against ISIS? The former is an example of a fast intervention that caused things to go straight to hell. The latter is an example of him “ending an operation” and things going to hell so badly that he had to intervene again.