Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

I think his chances are not very good.

[mc ukrneal]

I'm not a peacenik, but I do lean toward anti-interventionism of a more cold-hearted variety, and Trump ain't my candidate.  One could always go with Rand Paul.  I can't do that either.  Kasich's actual voting record is not too bellicose (eg, kill the B2), so he may be sensible.  (He's by far my preferred candidate, but he cannot win.)  Cruz is all bellicose bluster, and this is where Rubio loses some attractiveness for me.  He talks tough.  He might put himself in a position where he has to act to placate this or that group.  Of course, he is a flexible politician and could say the facts on the ground changed his mind, but rhetorically almost all the Republican candidates are too fond of war, as is our probable next president, Mrs Clinton.

I actually appreciate Obama's current Syria policy, and his deal with Iran, and his relative inaction over Ukraine (the only sane response), but he screwed up on Libya, and his red-line debacle previously on Syria cost him internationally, and he is too eager to put boots on the ground in parts of Africa, which will not end well.  The small acts of saber rattling in the East China Sea and South China Sea are so far not too aggressive, but that is something that could escalate quickly.  Best not to maneuver the country into a position where confrontation is inevitable.  I'm not convinced whoever comes next will show enough restraint here.

This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria.  Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.

[Gurn Blanston]

I think his chances are not very good.

I swear to god, Todd, for a moment I had a feeling I was reading The Onion...    Well, it's Iowa.

[Gurn Blanston]

This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria.  Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.

Really, Neal? You see an upside to going into Ukraine? Even Syria would be a black hole for thousands of soldiers, but Ukraine? Some of the stuff Obama said was screwy, but the overall strategy of not being goaded into putting troops there is as sound as you could hope for in an impossible situation. Seriously, there IS no upside.

[mc ukrneal]

Really, Neal? You see an upside to going into Ukraine? Even Syria would be a black hole for thousands of soldiers, but Ukraine? Some of the stuff Obama said was screwy, but the overall strategy of not being goaded into putting troops there is as sound as you could hope for in an impossible situation. Seriously, there IS no upside.

Did I suggest invading in either place? That is not what I wrote and not the only interpretation. Certainly in Syria and the region, we waited too long to deal with/respond to ISIS, don't you think? And in Ukraine, what are we doing there, besides providing a little money and a little training?

[Todd]

This is the problem, he screwed up in all of them and you are praising his waffling and weakness. His actions will bring us less security down the line. I don't think he could have handled foreign policy much worse in Ukraine or Syria.  Of course, some of the candidate positions are even worse, but then it is too early to tell if they believe all of what they say.

He did waffle in Syria early on.  And he flubbed badly on Libya.  So you're right, he made mistakes.  Just not the ones you claim.

Unfortunately, Obama has also dispensed with any pretext of democratic or Constitutional rule by continuing limited operations in Syria and surrounding countries without even an AUMF or even trying to comply with the War Powers Resolution timelines.  Increased efforts there would/will only make this worse.  Obama has also continued extralegal/illegal drone strikes, though now at a decreased level, for far too long, which has damaged the US more than the supposed mistakes you mention.

Escalating tensions in Ukraine would have been, and would be, totally insane.  Even tough guy Bush knew to offer only a few tough words over Georgia.  Providing a little money and a little training is more than sufficient in Ukraine.  It would be best if the next President killed that off.

[Gurn Blanston]

Did I suggest invading in either place? That is not what I wrote and not the only interpretation. Certainly in Syria and the region, we waited too long to deal with/respond to ISIS, don't you think? And in Ukraine, what are we doing there, besides providing a little money and a little training?

"couldn't have handled it much worse" doesn't leave a lot of latitude beyond doing the opposite of what he did. Basically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working. As for ISIS, since they aren't a nation-state, there is little room for standard diplomatic efforts or sanctions, although we have crippled a good deal of their money supply. There is no group on the ground in Syria that we can trust to deal with except the Kurds. Who are also embroiled in a decades old war with one of our few allies in the region, Turkey. To whom can we offer assistance with any assurance that we aren't arming our enemies?

In addition to all the uncertainties in both of those areas, let us not forget that a very large percentage of the American people don't want to invest a huge amount of money and lives in a war in either one of those places. Any president we had in this time, no matter what political party he belonged to, would have been in a lose/lose situation both in Syria and in Ukraine. We could piss away billions in either of those places and we would still lose both, plus there is no political will here to back those kinds of moves, and he would have lost any sort of support here at home too.

Please demonstrate a strategy which, if followed, would have had us come out in a stronger position than we are now. I think, even with the benefit of hindsight (let us not forget that!) you will be hard-pressed to do so. I'm not being hostile about this, I'm looking for answers as much as anyone is. Berating the President for not putting us into a situation where we could have no idea of a positive outcome can only be a good thing.

[Todd]

Basically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working.

OPEC's ongoing overproduction of oil is doing more damage than US sanctions.  And not just to Russia.

[Gurn Blanston]

OPEC's ongoing overproduction of oil is doing more damage than US sanctions.  And not just to Russia.

Yes, now, But even before that became a crisis, Russia was in the shitter economically, and allied sanctions had a fair amount to do with it.

[mc ukrneal]

He did waffle in Syria early on.  And he flubbed badly on Libya.  So you're right, he made mistakes.  Just not the ones you claim.

Unfortunately, Obama has also dispensed with any pretext of democratic or Constitutional rule by continuing limited operations in Syria and surrounding countries without even an AUMF or even trying to comply with the War Powers Resolution timelines.  Increased efforts there would/will only make this worse.  Obama has also continued extralegal/illegal drone strikes, though now at a decreased level, for far too long, which has damaged the US more than the supposed mistakes you mention.

Escalating tensions in Ukraine would have been, and would be, totally insane.  Even tough guy Bush knew to offer only a few tough words over Georgia.  Providing a little money and a little training is more than sufficient in Ukraine.  It would be best if the next President killed that off.

He made mistakes all right. Interestingly, you just added more examples of the mistakes he made. it just strengthens my argument - thanks.

Escalating tensions in Ukraine - well we've had this argument before. His response was pathetic. Ukraine and the world will suffer for it. There is a lot more that could have been done, even in non-combat areas. Of course, Ukraine continues to shoot itself in the foot, which really makes it harder to support them. But letting Russia do what it wants isn't exactly a proactive foreign policy either. We should certainly be doing more.

[Todd]

Yes, now, But even before that became a crisis, Russia was in the shitter economically, and allied sanctions had a fair amount to do with it.

Certainly it had a significant impact, and it is or should be the preferred approach, especially where the only meaningful alternatives include armed conflict with Russia.  In Ukraine.

But I am also becoming more skeptical of the American use of economic sanctions and laws as tools of foreign policy.  The US not only imposes sanctions against what some people consider bad guys (eg, Russia), but through various laws (eg, FACTA), the US is also engaging in heavy-handed action that makes even some of our allies unhappy.  It works now, and will for a decade or two or three to come, but it also sets precedents that may not be so welcome in the not too distant future.

[Todd]

it just strengthens my argument - thanks.

Please elaborate.  Your statement is opaque to the point of meaninglessness.

Ukraine and the world will suffer for it.

Ukraine will.  So what?  How will the US, or Japan, or India, or Brazil, or Nigeria, or other parts of the world?  Most important from an American standpoint is how the US will suffer for it.

Also, what is a "proactive" foreign policy, and why is it to be desired?

[Gurn Blanston]

Certainly it had a significant impact, and it is or should be the preferred approach, especially where the only meaningful alternatives include armed conflict with Russia.  In Ukraine.

But I am also becoming more skeptical of the American use of economic sanctions and laws as tools of foreign policy.  The US not only imposes sanctions against what some people consider bad guys (eg, Russia), but through various laws (eg, FACTA), the US is also engaging in heavy-handed action that makes even some of our allies unhappy.  It works now, and will for a decade or two or three to come, but it also sets precedents that may not be so welcome in the not too distant future.

It is the fascination with bright and shiny things which leads to their overuse. Note how the "drone solution" followed that path. It's new and currently indefensible, has a big upside, so let's ignore the downside. I'm still rather keen on drones, but I know there will be a large and difficult-to-handle backlash when it comes. Same with sanctions. They work because we have the innate power to make them work. Their indiscriminate use will force the rest of the world to devise a defense, which they have every right to do, and the result will be a negative for us, probably on our economic system.

It is a normal human trait to use what works until it doesn't work any longer, whether it is the best thing to do or not. It is easy + we are lazy = that's what we're gonna do.

[Todd]

Their indiscriminate use will force the rest of the world to devise a defense, which they have every right to do, and the result will be a negative for us, probably on our economic system.

The main defense is the gradual replacement of the dollar as the primary reserve currency.  We're at least a generation away from that since it is clear that current Europeans are entirely incapable of formulating a sensible monetary policy combined with political policy coordination, and China will need to open its capital markets substantially before it can become a meaningful rival. 

[mc ukrneal]

"couldn't have handled it much worse" doesn't leave a lot of latitude beyond doing the opposite of what he did. Basically he tried diplomacy and sanctions. Look at Russia's economy to decide whether that is working. As for ISIS, since they aren't a nation-state, there is little room for standard diplomatic efforts or sanctions, although we have crippled a good deal of their money supply. There is no group on the ground in Syria that we can trust to deal with except the Kurds. Who are also embroiled in a decades old war with one of our few allies in the region, Turkey. To whom can we offer assistance with any assurance that we aren't arming our enemies?

In addition to all the uncertainties in both of those areas, let us not forget that a very large percentage of the American people don't want to invest a huge amount of money and lives in a war in either one of those places. Any president we had in this time, no matter what political party he belonged to, would have been in a lose/lose situation both in Syria and in Ukraine. We could piss away billions in either of those places and we would still lose both, plus there is no political will here to back those kinds of moves, and he would have lost any sort of support here at home too.

Please demonstrate a strategy which, if followed, would have had us come out in a stronger position than we are now. I think, even with the benefit of hindsight (let us not forget that!) you will be hard-pressed to do so. I'm not being hostile about this, I'm looking for answers as much as anyone is. Berating the President for not putting us into a situation where we could have no idea of a positive outcome can only be a good thing.

Who said it was easy? And sure, it is easy to be an armchair critic. But surely all the money we spent in Syria and Iraq to date could have been spent more wisely? And surely part of the problem was that we seem to think that throwing money at the problem will make it go away. And surely recognizing that policy was not working and then changing course would have been better?

The problem with our current President, in my opinion, is that he is weak. He avoids conflict, and this drives his policy to some degree (or large degree as he himself has been candid about his views on the limitations of his office).

In Ukraine, there are numerous steps he could have taken, all across the spectrum. Some as simple as PR related steps all the way up through military assistance (which does not mean military invasion). But I cannot agree that leaving the situation be - meaning letting Russia keep Crimea and continue to do as it pleases in eastern Ukraine without some sort of repercussion is the way to go.

[Todd]

In Ukraine, there are numerous steps he could have taken, all across the spectrum.

As Gurn mentioned, sanctions were put in place, and the US has armed and funded various groups.  What additional, specific steps would yield your desired outcome?  And more important, just what is the desired outcome?

[mc ukrneal]

As Gurn mentioned, sanctions were put in place, and the US has armed and funded various groups.  What additional, specific steps would yield your desired outcome?  And more important, just what is the desired outcome?

Arms have been limited to defensive only, which I am sure you aware of. Specifically (for example), Russia was using highly sophisticated drones that Ukraine was not able to stop. Some help, in this area, would have yielded significant military results for Ukraine (both technology to detect and offensive drones to counter). And you and I both know that sanctions were cursory at best, limited to a few individuals. This was not enough.

The desired outcome should initially be a united Ukraine. It would be nice if Crimea were returned to Ukraine but at this point I think a monetary solution is the only realistic solution. Nevertheless, Russia has not paid any real price for its actions in Crimea and so the longer it stays this way, the harder it becomes. But Russia continues to control what happens in the militarized regions of Ukraine, and at a minimum, they should be encouraged (if possible) or forced (if necessary) to withdraw their military support from there. The long term outcome should be a prosperous Ukraine.

My suggestion is to either take this conversation elsewhere or let it lie as we are derailing the thread. My apologies for that.

[Todd]

The desired outcome should initially be a united Ukraine.

I see no US interests involved in a united Ukraine, nor do I see US security being put at risk, so the US has no compelling reason to do much. 

or forced (if necessary) to withdraw their military support from there.

Seeing the word "forced" applied to Russia is always cause for concern for me.  Russia can be of more assistance with other issues (the Iran nuclear deal, negotiating a political solution in Syria), and a temporarily or permanently dismembered Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay in my view.

No need to apologize for going over foreign policy in the US election thread.  Turns out it will be important this time, and for the most part I've heard or read comparatively little of interest from the candidates.

[mc ukrneal]

I see no US interests involved in a united Ukraine, nor do I see US security being put at risk, so the US has no compelling reason to do much. 




Seeing the word "forced" applied to Russia is always cause for concern for me.  Russia can be of more assistance with other issues (the Iran nuclear deal, negotiating a political solution in Syria), and a temporarily or permanently dismembered Ukraine is an acceptable price to pay in my view.

I'm embarrassed to read this and sure our allies will take comfort in such a position. Not much more to say I guess. Good night.

[Todd]

I'm embarrassed to read this and sure our allies will take comfort in such a position. Not much more to say I guess. Good night.

Just a quick question before you go to bed: What specific interests does the US have in Ukraine?