Obama's Foreign Policy

[Tiberius]

Well, as we wind down the Presidency of Obama it's time PPP took a look back, and possibly forward, to how Obama handled the world situation and where it leaves us. To be sure, Obama had little taste for sending American troops into conflicts around the globe. Hard to blame him. Dealing with Iran, Israel and Russia, etc. all led to massive criticisms and cries of weakness, bias and other BS. So here is your chance to register your opinion on his FP. No matter who is elected next will most likely have a different approach and might either leave us wishing for a less muscular FP or cheering American troops fighting for freedom some place in the world. My two cents says he did ok. The world is a pretty volatile place and he left it not much worse or better than he found it. I like his move on Cuba, it was about time. Glad he made gestures and agreements with Iran. Happy he did not blindly follow Israel and not really sure what will happen with Russia or if it could have been handled better.

 

Anyway, shoot:

[4merper4mer]

Taxes are too high.

[Tiberius]

Taxes are too high.

I'm so angry I'm going to flap my wings and stir up all kinds of dirt mud and other stuff found in a dried out pond

[4merper4mer]

I'm so angry I'm going to flap my wings and stir up all kinds of dirt mud and other stuff found in a dried out pond

 

I don't get it.

[Tiberius]

 

I don't get it.

its ok

 

I was just being silly

[DC Tom]

As good a place as any:

 

2012: Denmark and Norway punch above their weight...

 

2016: The Nordic countries visit the White House. Guess what praise Obama gives them? http://videos.usatoday.net/Brightcove2/29906170001/2016/05/29906170001_4892311373001_4892294084001.mp4

 

(Then proceeds to give Legos, Abba, and Finnish heavy metal bands as examples.)

[Deranged Rhino]

Obama's Foreign Policy revolves around two pillars: regime change and drone warfare.

 

Under 44's leadership we've seen US backed coups and/or military actions designed for regime change in: Ukraine, Brazil, Honduras, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. The Drone War has claimed over 3,600 lives (including some American citizens) -- and that's only counting theaters outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, if you include those two theaters the drone count goes up considerably. The withdrawal from Iraq (not that he had much of a choice but the buck stops with him) was poorly thought out and condemned that nation to the sectarian strife we see on the news everyday and forced the US to redeploy boots on the ground in the region. We've seen red lines crossed and abandoned, sabre rattling, and reset buttons from an administration more concerned about the optics than the reality on the ground.

 

All of these actions have led to less stability, not more, in Europe, Africa, the Middle East and strained relations with both the Russians and Chinese.

 

At home, 44 has doubled down on "the war on terror" and upped the surveillance state and erosion of constitutional protections for American citizens. He's persecuted more whistleblowers than any other administration (this from the "most transparent administration" in American history) and has doubled down on the US relationship with the Saudis and the extremists running that country while simultaneously misleading the American public (and the world) into a deal with Iran which has/will spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

 

At the end of his 8 years, China has taken over much of the South China Sea and continually breaches our security with cyber attack after cyber attack. Russia is stronger and doing more to bring stability to the Middle East and eastern Europe than NATO or the US. South America is in flames, lit by US backed actors... but the US foreign policy is more concerned with cramming the highly controversial (and anti-democratic) TTIP / TTP agreements down everyone's throats.

 

History will not be kind to his administration's meandering foreign policy. He's leaving the country in a much more dangerous and less stable position on the international scene than even his harshest critics could have imagined when he first took office...

 

...Just in time for Clinton to step into the office and continue the misguided policies of last century. Joy. Strap in, **** is about to get even worse.

Edited May 13, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[DC Tom]

Obama's Foreign Policy revolves around two pillars: regime change and drone warfare.

 

Not true. It revolves around the pillars of "Protect his image" and "Pass the buck." Drone warfare's just a tactic. And regime change...? What regime change?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Not true. It revolves around the pillars of "Protect his image" and "Pass the buck." Drone warfare's just a tactic. And regime change...? What regime change?

 

Ukraine, Brazil, Honduras, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. 4 of them going on right this moment.

[Doc]

He's been an abject failure.

[meazza]

 

Ukraine, Brazil, Honduras, Libya, Syria, and Yemen. 4 of them going on right this moment.

 

How did Obama trigger regime change in Brazil? Did he send the IRS there?

[3rdnlng]

How did Obama trigger regime change in Brazil? Did he send the IRS there?

Silly boy, has Brazil been granted non profit status yet? I think not.

[3rdnlng]

This is the definition of "Policy":


A policy is a deliberate system of principles to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. A policy is a statement of intent, and is implemented as a procedure or protocol. Policies are generally adopted by the Board of or senior governance body within an organization whereas procedures or protocols would be developed and adopted by senior executive officers. Policies can assist in both subjective and objective decision making. Policies to assist in subjective decision making would usually assist senior management with decisions that must consider the relative merits of a number of factors before making decisions and as a result are often hard to objectively test e.g. work-life balance policy. In contrast policies to assist in objective decision making are usually operational in nature and can be objectively tested e.g. password policy.[1]

The term may apply to government, private sector organizations and groups, as well as individuals. Presidential executive orders, corporate privacy policies, and parliamentary rules of order are all examples of policy. Policy differs from rules or law. While law can compel or prohibit behaviors (e.g. a law requiring the payment of taxes on income), policy merely guides actions toward those that are most likely to achieve a desired outcome.[citation needed]

Policy or policy study may also refer to the process of making important organizational decisions, including the identification of different alternatives such as programs or spending priorities, and choosing among them on the basis of the impact they will have. Policies can be understood as political, managerial, financial, and administrative mechanisms arranged to reach explicit goals. In public corporate finance, a critical accounting policy is a policy for a firm/company or an industry which is considered to have a notably high subjective element, and that has a material impact on the financial statements.[citation needed]

This is the definition of "Chaos":



1.complete disorder and confusion.


OP, please change the title of this thread to reflect reality.

Edited May 14, 2016 by 3rdnlng

[Deranged Rhino]

 

How did Obama trigger regime change in Brazil? Did he send the IRS there?

 

Obama is ineffectual on nearly every level in terms of Foreign policy. I don't think he triggered anything, or actively plotted to destabilize Brazil. It's the actual power players behind the scenes, the big moneyed interests who actually dictate US policy (a point we have continually come to loggerheads over I know) who have the most to gain from Rousseff's impeachment. It's not as if the US doesn't have a history of using indirect (and sometimes direct -- albeit covert) means of helping out big moneyed interests in South America. Do some digging yourself and you might be surprised what you find. Start by reminding yourself what the B in BRICS stands for.

 

 

Despite all the fancy anti-corruption rhetoric, the assault on President Rousseff’s leftist government is the result of a coordinated campaign by business interests tied to Washington and Wall Street.

 

(snip)

 

BRICS countries account for 46 percent of the world’s population – over 3 billion people, as of 2015 – making it the single largest bloc in terms of human capacity among global alliances. The scope of BRICS, combined with its increasing assertiveness as an economic power unto itself, has undoubtedly ruffled a few feathers in Washington and elsewhere in the West.

 

It should come as no surprise that major moves have been taken in the last 12 to 24 months to undermine each BRICS member nation and destabilize them through political and economic means. And it is no coincidence that those leaders shown smiling and shaking hands at recent BRICS summits are now either the targets of destabilization efforts and subversion – as in the cases of Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa – or are a target of a military and political charm offensive, as in the case of India. In each case, the United States and its allies benefit significantly from the latest developments.

One of the U.S. empire’s tried and true methods of destabilizing a targeted country is through manufacturing and promoting political scandals and/or political movements that appear oppositional but whose interests, whether consciously or not, align with the ruling establishment in the West. Both of these elements are at play in Brazil, which has been moving toward increased economic, and consequently political, independence in recent years.

In Brazil, the government of Dilma Rousseff is facing a major destabilization campaign orchestrated by powerful right-wing elements in the country and their U.S. backers. Under the always convenient banner of “anti-corruption,” millions have turned out in the streets to demand the ouster of the twice-elected Rousseff government on the heels of a series of revelations about alleged corruption pertaining to the quasi-state, quasi-private Petrobras oil company.

(snip)

The right wing is the driving force of the protests, despite any progressive-minded, anti-corruption sentiment being expressed by various segments of the protest movement. Two of the principal groups responsible for organizing and mobilizing the demonstrations are the Free Brazil Movement (MBL) and Students for Liberty (EPL), both of which havedirect ties to Charles and David Koch, the right-wing, neocon, U.S. billionaires, as well as other leading figures of the far right, pro-business neoliberal establishment.

MBL is fronted by Fabio Ostermann and Juliano Torres, both of whom were educated in the Atlas Leadership Academy, a satellite of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, which is directly funded by the Koch brothers. EPL is a direct affiliate of the U.S.-based Students for Liberty, a well-known Koch brothers outfit with deep ties to the right-wing political establishment in the U.S.

One of the leading faces of the movement is Kim Kataguiri, a 20-year-old “activist,” who is both a founder of MBL and a leader in EPL. Unabashedly pro-big business, he’s an adherent of the so-called Austrian School of Economics, the economic ideology that advocates total deregulation of the economy in the interests of private business, and a great admirer of Milton Friedman, the father of what is known today as neoliberal capitalism.

 

As Kataguiri explained to The Guardian in 2015:

“We defend free markets, lower taxes and the privatisation of all public companies. … In Brazil, the left is still seen as cool by young people. … We want to destroy this idea that if you defend free markets then you’re an old man who is asking for a dictatorship. … Unfortunately, we don’t have any big sponsors. The government and some sectors of the press say that we are financed by rich people. We would have no problem in being financed by rich people.”

Unfortunately for Kataguiri, Ostermann, Torres and their colleagues, the truth about their connections to powerful finance capital and business in the U.S. and throughout Latin America is well known. Still, the corporate media whitewashes these connections, presenting the protests as some sort of pure expression of people’s discontent, rather than a manufactured form of political manipulation and destabilization which has seized upon difficult economic times to cynically exploit public opinion. Brazil’s economic downturn over the past two years has made this much easier.

Other influential groups such as VemPraRua (“Come to the Streets”) are directly fundedby powerful right-wing business interests inside the country, including Brazil’s richest man, Jorge Paulo Lemann. As Bloomberg noted in a 2013 profile of Lemann:

“In the U.S., Lemann is virtually unknown, even though he and his two longtime partners, Marcel Herrmann Telles and Carlos Alberto Sicupira, now control three icons of U.S. consumer culture: Heinz ketchup, Burger King, and, after the $52 billion takeover of Anheuser-Busch in 2008, Budweiser beer. The combined market value of the companies they run is $187 billion—larger than that of Citigroup.

(snip)

As the North American Congress on Latin America correctly assessed in April 2015: “Don’t believe the right-wing media’s emphasis on corruption—the recent demonstrations are motivated by entrenched elite discontent over expanding economic and political inclusion for the nation’s majority.”

(snip)

Essentially, what’s unfolding in Brazil is a multi-pronged effort to destabilize the country via a variety of political and economic means, with the ultimate goal of bringing to heel a key member of BRICS. But it is not the only one.

https://off-guardian.org/2016/03/22/brics-under-attack-the-empire-strikes-back-in-brazil/

 

 

I can hear you rolling your eyes at that take, but here's Greenwald (... and now I just heard GG's eyes roll at the mention of Glenn Greenwald. GG/GG there can only be one) who lives in Brazil talking about it in more localized terms. The whole interview is worth a listen, but if you want to skip around 4:00 mark to the 5:12 is a good summary of where it's headed, 6:35ish to 7:02 is important as well as is 8:23-9:00.

 

[meazza]

you've lost your mind.

 

If the governments goal is to actually destabilize a foreign government, chances are they'd end up doing the exact opposite.

[keepthefaith]

Well, as we wind down the Presidency of Obama it's time PPP took a look back, and possibly forward, to how Obama handled the world situation and where it leaves us. To be sure, Obama had little taste for sending American troops into conflicts around the globe. Hard to blame him. Dealing with Iran, Israel and Russia, etc. all led to massive criticisms and cries of weakness, bias and other BS. So here is your chance to register your opinion on his FP. No matter who is elected next will most likely have a different approach and might either leave us wishing for a less muscular FP or cheering American troops fighting for freedom some place in the world. My two cents says he did ok. The world is a pretty volatile place and he left it not much worse or better than he found it. I like his move on Cuba, it was about time. Glad he made gestures and agreements with Iran. Happy he did not blindly follow Israel and not really sure what will happen with Russia or if it could have been handled better.

 

Anyway, shoot:

Poppycock.

[Deranged Rhino]

you've lost your mind.

 

If the governments goal is to actually destabilize a foreign government, chances are they'd end up doing the exact opposite.

[....lybob]

Obama is a supposed disciple of Zbigniew Brzezinski who's main adjective was to ring fence China and Russia with the hope of one day driving them into war with each other - this plan consisted of making countries friends of the West where they traded mostly with the West using Western financial institutions, trade organizations, courts etc etc - countries that could not be pulled into the Western fold would be destabilized making business dealings difficult and less profitable.

 

 

In this basic world view terrorism would be a very low priority as they are no threat to U.S. long term world dominance.

[Deranged Rhino]

More on US involvement in Brazil from WikiLeaks:

 

WikiLeaks Exposes Newly “Selected” Brazilian President As Puppet For US Intelligence

http://www.activistpost.com/2016/05/wikileaks-exposes-newly-selected-brazilian-president-as-puppet-for-us-intelligence.html

 

 

...And Venezuela: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKCN0Y501X

 

...But nothing to see here. It's all a populist uprising.

************

And, switching topics to the Assassination Drones: (Salon alert)

 

Jeremy Scahill, Glenn Greenwald blast U.S. drone war and “assassination complex,” say liberals would never let a Republican get away with Obama’s crimes

 

“The most significant aspect of what President Obama has done, regarding drones and regarding the so-called targeted killing program around the world, is that Obama has codified assassination as a central official component of American foreign policy,” Scahill said in an interview on Democracy Now this week.

Obama “has implemented policies that a Republican probably would not have been able to implement, certainly not with the support that Obama has received from so many self-identified liberals,” he added.

In 2015 alone, the U.S. dropped at least 23,144 bombs on six Muslim-majority countries, many in which it has not officially declared war.

Scahill expressed doubts that, if a Republican wins the presidential election, MSNBC pundits and other liberals will maintain the same position on these very same policies.

Greenwald argued the same. Obama campaigned in 2007 on the destructive policies and undemocratic mindset of the Bush administration, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist recalled. Yet, once Obama became president, “he ended up not only embracing, but strengthening and increasing” these very same policies, continuing indefinite detention in Guantánamo and elsewhere and greatly expanding the drone program.

President Obama “has institutionalized a program where now we don’t only just imprison people without any charges or due process, we don’t just eavesdrop on them, which was one of his big critiques of the Bush administration, without first giving them due process or a trial, we now just target them for execution, for death, for a death penalty,” Greenwald added in the Democracy Now interview.

He pointed out the irony that, while Democrats have long opposed the death penalty in all cases, even when criminal defendants are given a full trial and assured all constitutional rights, the Democratic president “has embraced a policy that says that he can literally go around the world, target people for death anywhere in the world that he wants, including places where we’re not at war, including even American citizens, and simply eradicate their lives based on his order.”

 

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/05/05/jeremy_scahill_glenn_greenwald_blast_u_s_drone_war_and_assassination_complex_say_liberals_would_never_let_a_republican_get_away_with_obamas_crimes/

 

 

[/dev/null]

Wait, so is it Obama's foreign policy? Or Mk-Ultra's? Or the Aliens? Or the aliens running Mk-Ultra foreign policy?