The Costanza Approach
May 13, 2016 22:09:12 #
The Costanza Approach--7h.,b26
Since his policies toward Iran, Israel, ISIS, Russia, and others seem textbook studies of how not to conduct foreign policy. But Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article, "The Obama Doctrine " relating a series of interviews with the president, makes it clear that a form of "Oppositism" or "Antitheticalism" (if you will permit a slight butchering of the English language), already defines Obama's foreign policy. For Obama's foreign policy is less about what he stands for than what he rejects—namely, much of what America has stood for and done over many decades. Obama's doctrine, such as it is, consists of a few simplistic ideas that emerge from a shallow " and ideological disdain for the American past. It marks a radical departure from the outlook of every recent American president. Democrat and Republican.^.
Attlee quickly sought to move beyond the "mess of centuries" by putting most of his faith in the new United Nations while withdrawing troops precipitiously and pell-mell from much of the world. Consider this passage from Obama: "We have history. We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be a mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other peoples suspicious.
In his view, American foreign policy for decades has been too aggressive and militaristic and has been on what he considers the wrong side of history, whether in o*******wing Mossadegh in lran in the 1950s. waging, war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, or intervening in Iraq in the 2000's. American foreign policy has been, Obama thinks, counterproductive to U.S. interests and bad for the world. And it has created unnecessary suspicions and enemies.
The key is to reassure enemies: With Russia that meant a "reset"; in South America it meant reaching out to l*****t thug regimes in Venezuela and Cuba; and in the Middle East it meant embracing radical Shiite and Sunni Muslim regimes, whether the Erdogan government in Turkey or its sister Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt headed by Mohamed Morsi or the Khamenei regime in Iran. It has meant a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and virtual withdrawal after a brief intervention in Libya.
Obama's policy toward Iran is fundamental to his radical approach. For decades, American policy toward the Middle East was founded on three main principles: the security of Israel; the secure flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and support for those key oil-producing Arab regimes; and weakening if not defeating radical Islam. An assertive Islamic Republic of Iran stood in the way of all these strategic objectives. So President Obama reversed course and sought to reassure Iran at the expense of our traditional allies.
Most of all, he sought a deal with Iran, without consultation with our traditional allies who were most threatened by a stronger Iran on a path to nuclear weapons. Obama's announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its implementation were telling. When he unveiled the deal last July, Obama declared in his very first sentence that the United States with its partners "achieved something that decades of animosity has not"—apparently ascribing as blame to the United States and his own predecessors as to the Iranian regime.
Ceremonial summits are the key battlegrounds in Obama's mind. Deploying military power, on the other hand, is a sign of weakness: "The notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before [Putin] had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally mis- understand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally."
And so when Obama says that Iran should get an equal share of regional influence, he sees no need for a strategy to ensure Iran doesn't become the predominant regional power. A true realist would note that Iranian ascendancy comes at the expense of the United States and would focus on how to check Iranian expansion in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. A true realist wouldn't invoke some meaningless "sharing" but would work on pushing Iran back to ensure greater regional stability, the security of our allies. and a restoration of American credibility. But that would require serious deliberation and the study of history.
source--weekly standard (4/11/16), clement attlee,
Since his policies toward Iran, Israel, ISIS, Russia, and others seem textbook studies of how not to conduct foreign policy. But Jeffrey Goldberg's recent Atlantic article, "The Obama Doctrine " relating a series of interviews with the president, makes it clear that a form of "Oppositism" or "Antitheticalism" (if you will permit a slight butchering of the English language), already defines Obama's foreign policy. For Obama's foreign policy is less about what he stands for than what he rejects—namely, much of what America has stood for and done over many decades. Obama's doctrine, such as it is, consists of a few simplistic ideas that emerge from a shallow " and ideological disdain for the American past. It marks a radical departure from the outlook of every recent American president. Democrat and Republican.^.
Attlee quickly sought to move beyond the "mess of centuries" by putting most of his faith in the new United Nations while withdrawing troops precipitiously and pell-mell from much of the world. Consider this passage from Obama: "We have history. We have history in Iran, we have history in Indonesia and Central America. So we have to be a mindful of our history when we start talking about intervening, and understand the source of other peoples suspicious.
In his view, American foreign policy for decades has been too aggressive and militaristic and has been on what he considers the wrong side of history, whether in o*******wing Mossadegh in lran in the 1950s. waging, war in Vietnam in the 1960s and 1970s, or intervening in Iraq in the 2000's. American foreign policy has been, Obama thinks, counterproductive to U.S. interests and bad for the world. And it has created unnecessary suspicions and enemies.
The key is to reassure enemies: With Russia that meant a "reset"; in South America it meant reaching out to l*****t thug regimes in Venezuela and Cuba; and in the Middle East it meant embracing radical Shiite and Sunni Muslim regimes, whether the Erdogan government in Turkey or its sister Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt headed by Mohamed Morsi or the Khamenei regime in Iran. It has meant a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq and virtual withdrawal after a brief intervention in Libya.
Obama's policy toward Iran is fundamental to his radical approach. For decades, American policy toward the Middle East was founded on three main principles: the security of Israel; the secure flow of oil from the Persian Gulf and support for those key oil-producing Arab regimes; and weakening if not defeating radical Islam. An assertive Islamic Republic of Iran stood in the way of all these strategic objectives. So President Obama reversed course and sought to reassure Iran at the expense of our traditional allies.
Most of all, he sought a deal with Iran, without consultation with our traditional allies who were most threatened by a stronger Iran on a path to nuclear weapons. Obama's announcement of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and its implementation were telling. When he unveiled the deal last July, Obama declared in his very first sentence that the United States with its partners "achieved something that decades of animosity has not"—apparently ascribing as blame to the United States and his own predecessors as to the Iranian regime.
Ceremonial summits are the key battlegrounds in Obama's mind. Deploying military power, on the other hand, is a sign of weakness: "The notion that somehow Russia is in a stronger position now, in Syria or in Ukraine, than they were before they invaded Ukraine or before [Putin] had to deploy military forces to Syria is to fundamentally mis- understand the nature of power in foreign affairs or in the world generally."
And so when Obama says that Iran should get an equal share of regional influence, he sees no need for a strategy to ensure Iran doesn't become the predominant regional power. A true realist would note that Iranian ascendancy comes at the expense of the United States and would focus on how to check Iranian expansion in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere. A true realist wouldn't invoke some meaningless "sharing" but would work on pushing Iran back to ensure greater regional stability, the security of our allies. and a restoration of American credibility. But that would require serious deliberation and the study of history.
source--weekly standard (4/11/16), clement attlee,
May 13, 2016 22:34:32 #
I can't believe it but it is true. Obama has reversed course from history and has reaped benefits no one has ever been able to achieve. Credit where credit due. But time will tell whether or not it will remain as Obama has benefited US citizens. I think it will likely remain for the next one to two decades and then, it will be time once again to go back to the pre-Obama foreign policy. Everything is cyclical and credit Obama for the guts to see where it was overdue for a policy shift. It don't look like either Trump or Hillary will be reversing the Obama policy and I don't blame them.
May 14, 2016 16:56:52 #
UncleJesse wrote:
I can't believe it but it is true. Obama has reve... (show quote)
You actually sound like you BELIEVE what you are saying.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.