Posted on 03/29/2015 6:57:46 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Yemen is in flames, ISIL is on the march, Syria is apocalyptic, Iran is racing through Iraq, anarchy reigns in Libya, Jordan is on the brink, Turkey is slipping away, and Americas relationship with the Middle Easts only democracy has hit an all-time low.
When academics look back to survey the wreckage of U.S. foreign policy at the start of the 21st century, many will wonder how a superpower with unrivaled military, economic, and cultural dominance lost that historic advantage so quickly. The answer? George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Story Continued Below
Liberal historians will trace much of the regions turmoil to President Bushs decision to go to war with Iraq. That war of choice was our turbulent eras original sin a misguided response to the horrors of September 11. Mr. Bushs march to Baghdad squandered the international goodwill Americans enjoyed after bin Ladens terror attacks, and doomed not only Iraq, but also Afghanistan, because of the neglect brought on by the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
Conservative historians may concede that Bushs Wilsonian foreign policy was disastrous, but still argue that Barack Obama inherited a bad hand from Mr. Bush but made it even worse. Unfortunately for Americans of all ideologies, both liberal and conservative critiques of these two presidents will prove to be correct. In the end, Bush and Obama were clearly overmatched by the events of their day.
Like George W. Bush, Mr. Obamas foreign policy was driven more by blind ideology than sound reason. Bushs neoconservative fantasy of exporting freedom to all four corners of the globe set loose a chain of events that brought chaos to the heart of the Middle East, cost Americans 4,000 lives, and taxpayers over a trillion dollars.
Bushs ideological foreign policy was tragically followed by Obamas delusional belief that America could erase the sins of the Bush-Cheney era by simply abdicating the U.S.s role as indispensable nation.
According to this liberal fairy tale retold often during the 2008 campaign, Barack Obamas enlightened approach to foreign policy would once again make the United States beloved across the globe. Its just too bad that long-term geopolitical strategy proved to be as far above the 44th presidents pay grade as it was for George W. Bush. As Bloombergs Mark Halperin notes, the only countries who arguably have a better relationship with America today than they had before Mr. Obama became president are Cuba and Iran.
Despite the sectarian meltdown that gripped Iraq in 2006 and 2007, the Petraeus Surge and the Sunni Awakening transformed the war ravaged country to such a degree that war correspondents like the New Yorkers Dexter Filkins told me that by 2008, Iraqs security situation had improved so much as to make the country unrecognizable from what it had been just a few years before. Barack Obama, who opposed the surge in 2007, told Americans in September 2008 that it had actually succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
Sadly, the stability brought to Iraq was short-lived because after candidate Obama became President Obama, the Democrat became more obsessed with reversing Bush administration policies than maintaining a stable Middle East. By retreating too quickly from Iraq, ignoring mass murder in Syria, abandoning Iranian reformers being shot in Tehrans streets, blowing up Libya and then leaving it to burn, ignoring ISIL until it the terror group metastasized across the Middle East, antagonizing the Sunni world by launching a desperate bid for an Iranian nuclear deal, and stiff-arming Americas two most important regional allies in Jerusalem and Cairo, Barack Obama has somehow inherited a dangerously unfocused U.S. foreign policy and reduced it to rubble.
If historians are to find mitigating factors in Bush and Obamas foreign policy failures, it may be this: that Al Qaeda has failed to launch another attack on U.S. soil over the past 14 years. While that may have sounded like an impressive policy success in the months following September 11, let us hope that Americas next commander in chief does more than react reflexively to a terror attack or the excesses of the president he replaced.
This article is a testimony that sometimes “hindsight” means “the initial view one gets as he pulls his head partway out of his behind”.
Real historians will remember W as the conqueror of Baghdad and Barack Obama as the black President that defamed the race
But...but...he got the Nobel prize?
Well, that means the next time you go to by toilet paler, there should be Nobel Prizes sitting next to the Charmin!! :)
Ding! Ding! Ding! Winner!
And this was continued and exacerbated by Clintoon
That doesn’t exonerate Obama, but GW played the cards he was dealt and Obama made a bad hand worse...
John kasich was his best friend. They both left office at the same time and both were best friends with Gary condit. Shame that poor woman was murded to cover up an affair with one of those 3 gentlemen.
Don’t forget Jimmy Carter’s role in assisting the overthrow of the shah of Iran.
Anyway, the Shah had a lot of people against him and would have fallen one way or the other I think (but I don't know). I think the Shah's position was more tenuous than Ghaddafis
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.