Political Roundtable Part XIII

[sfam]

Obama got a lot done internationally. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. TPP is another. There was lots of stuff like this over 8 years.

How was the Iran nuclear deal getting the UN or anyone else to do the work? In my mind this was another Obama flip-flop on foreign policy. Out of Iraq then back into Iraq. Out of Afghanistan then back in. Back the Syrian rebels and then not so much.

Don't get me wrong - his foreign policy looks terrific compared to Trump - but Obama's foreign policy wasn't good.

The Iran nuclear deal wasn't a bilateral agreement. This was multilateral and all about enforcing the world order. What was flip flop about it? It got Iran's nuclear program on hold for more than a decade.

And Obama never really had a coherent Syria policy other than not to do stupid "stuff". Unfortunately there was no really smart course, but neither is indecision. There was never a real opposition to support - shifting sands sort of describes it. But the end result was pretty horrific. I don't know that I put Afghanistan on Obama or Iraq for that matter. The Status of Forces agreement Bush set up had us leaving, and there was no political way for Maliki - a true disaster of a leader, as bad as Morsi in Egypt - to keep the US there. Iraq blew up again more due to Syria and Maliki than Obama. His mistake was backing him longer than he should have, but again, we didn't control Iraq's Presidential selection process at that point.

[sfam]

I'm sure the Trumpites here will explain to us how it's actually a good thing that #45 is ignoring the advice of counterterrorism experts.

HOW DONALD TRUMP IS FUELING ISIS

Since the horrors of 9/11, American presidents operating under the advice of the intelligence community’s counterterrorism experts have understood that countering this propaganda has been among the most essential parts of the fight against ISIS, Al-Qaeda and other murderous jihadi extremists. Through carefully selected language and—for the most part—considered policy, the United States has worked to expose the lies and convince young Muslims drawn by the propaganda toward hate that they are welcome and appreciated in America.

That era appears to be over. President Donald Trump, in office for less than two months, has gutted the strategy used by Republicans and Democrats alike—out of ignorance, hubris or both—sending a new message from the White House, one that reinforces the jihadi extremists’ propaganda and increases the likelihood that more Americans will die in attacks.

“If there was a scriptwriter for ISIS, he could not have written a better script than what is coming out of the White House,’’ said M. Ehsan Ahrari, an adjunct research professor with the Strategic Studies Institute at the Army War College. “Since President Trump came into office, he has been going out of his way to make statements and decisions that are hurting America’s cause.”

This is a shared view among both parties' national security experts. DoD just sent like 200 million to State for counter-terrorism stuff, with a lot of the funding allocated toward supporting positive messengers, researching what works, and strengthening ties. Its gotta be crazy for them to think through how the funding priorities will shift. Everyone pretty much has agreed that a "bag'em and tag'em" approach just creates more extremists. The debate was on what is actually working (a tough question), but it looks like we're going back to a "shoot'em, shoot'em dead, and then bomb the villiage just to be sure" type approach.

Trump's Islamophobic advisers will most likely get the war with Islam they desire. It won't reduce terrorism, it will ramp up instability in an increasingly unstable world. The international order may be crumbling. This too is not a good thing. This means less peace.

[sfam]

Obama got a lot done internationally. The Iran nuclear deal is an example. TPP is another. There was lots of stuff like this over 8 years.

How was the Iran nuclear deal getting the UN or anyone else to do the work? In my mind this was another Obama flip-flop on foreign policy. Out of Iraq then back into Iraq. Out of Afghanistan then back in. Back the Syrian rebels and then not so much.

Don't get me wrong - his foreign policy looks terrific compared to Trump - but Obama's foreign policy wasn't good.

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN. Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.
Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.
Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?
One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

Supporting a brutal dictator that barrel bombs and gases his people is really not a good option. This would cause decades of resentment toward the US, similar to propping up the Shah in Iran. If we did that, this would have been short term thinking in the extreme.

[sfam]

There's a massive gulf between the numbers of refugees Germany brought in versus the US.

Yep, because our politicians want to get reelected

The larger issue though is this is not the US's problem to solve. Its a worldwide problem. THE solution is to establish an international order that puts pressure on fragile states to improve their governance, and to isolate the countries engaged in massive human rights violations. This isn't a dollar cost issue...,

Sure it is... Peace keeping missions are very expensive - who do you think will end up covering the expenses? If we aren't willing to pony up the money, who will? If we don't send our troops who will?

...its one of whether we are still in the lead in establishing and supporting the existing world order.

And therein lies the problem. We certainly didn't do that over the last 8 years. I suppose that one could argue that we did it during the Bush administration - but how did that turn out? We had 8 years of Clinton and Rwanda came of that. Possibly we shouldn't be the ones taking the lead?

Unfortunately now we have both Putin and Trump looking to dismantle that order. Its really clear why Putin is doing it, but is nonsensical that the US is.

What is truly nonsensical from the Trump plan (or lack thereof) is the notion of increasing defense spending while summarily withdrawing. Why do both - do one or the other. But part of why Trump is doing what he is doing is in response to Bush/Obama. Or I should say, part of why his vitriol resonates.

Like medical expenses, peacebuilding is far cheaper the earlier you do it. Just in setting the table, the US spends approximately 600 billion on the military, 60 billion on aid and development assistance, and just 30 million on peacebuilding (USIP). Peacekeeping missions are usually there once a peace has been established, although this is no longer the case. We now here the BS phrase "robust peacekeeping" which means there is no peace but UN missions are being put in place regardless, but I digress.

The cost of going in Iraq was north of a trillion. Once you have a failed state, the costs internationally are high. The cheapest solution really is developmental assistance and peacebuilding either post conflict or prior to onset of conflict (Phase 0 operations in DoD terms, which surprisingly, they are spending lots more on). That plus a viable international order that places incentives on positive state actor behavior is really the best answer anyone has come up with.

And yeah, Trump's spending on the military while withdrawing is pretty strange. I sort of am waiting for the moment that Trump decides the intel community is a waste of time, and goes for massive cuts there.

[Induveca]

Trump's Islamophobic advisers will most likely get the war with Islam they desire. It won't reduce terrorism, it will ramp up instability in an increasingly unstable world. The international order may be crumbling. This too is not a good thing. This means less peace.

Sfam, you neglect to mention the regular assistance of the UAE/Turkey/Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Bahrain/Egypt/Iraq in your falsely labeled "War on Islam".

It's a war on Islamic Terror Groups, and all of those Muslim majority countries have assisted with military operations. 6/8 have actively bombed ISIS with their French/US or Russian made fighters. All have provided intelligence.

How can you label such a situation as a "War on Islam"?

[bsilver]

How was the Iran nuclear deal getting the UN or anyone else to do the work? In my mind this was another Obama flip-flop on foreign policy. Out of Iraq then back into Iraq. Out of Afghanistan then back in. Back the Syrian rebels and then not so much.

Don't get me wrong - his foreign policy looks terrific compared to Trump - but Obama's foreign policy wasn't good.

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN. Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.
Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.
Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?
One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

Supporting a brutal dictator that barrel bombs and gases his people is really not a good option. This would cause decades of resentment toward the US, similar to propping up the Shah in Iran. If we did that, this would have been short term thinking in the extreme.

I certainly don't support Assad, but have no clue what would have been a good alternative. What do you suggest?

[sfam]

Trump's Islamophobic advisers will most likely get the war with Islam they desire. It won't reduce terrorism, it will ramp up instability in an increasingly unstable world. The international order may be crumbling. This too is not a good thing. This means less peace.

Sfam, you neglect to mention the regular assistance of the UAE/Turkey/Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Bahrain/Egypt/Iraq in your falsely labeled "War on Islam".

It's a war on Islamic Terror Groups, and all of those Muslim majority countries have assisted with military operations. 6/8 have actively bombed ISIS with their French/US or Russian made fighters. All have provided intelligence.

How can you label such a situation as a "War on Islam"?

All of those nations are most certainly engaged in fighting, countering and preventing violent extremism. This is different from what Trump is doing, and how it comes across. Take a look at non right wing coverage, you'll see how Trump's travel ban has been interpreted around the world. This is what I was referring to. It is a horrific turn of events for the rest of the world to see the US as engaging on a war on Islam. Its even worse for US citizens who happen to be Muslim.

[sfam]

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN. Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?
Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.
Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.
Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?
One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

Supporting a brutal dictator that barrel bombs and gases his people is really not a good option. This would cause decades of resentment toward the US, similar to propping up the Shah in Iran. If we did that, this would have been short term thinking in the extreme.

I certainly don't support Assad, but have no clue what would have been a good alternative. What do you suggest?

That's just the problem. There was no good solutions, or even moderately bad ones. I do think there was debate within the administration to do more to have an R2P type response, with a free safe zone hopefully in Syria, but if not there, significant funding to Jordan to support the overrun there. Again, Obama I think determined this was not really possible given the risks, and he may have been right.

I have no magic crystal ball, and tend to think those who spout simplistic answers as to why everyone was wrong are really missing the complexity.

[AFM]

Please stop talking about my mother country Iran. Persians are the most peaceful people on planet earth. We just, ha ha ha, we just--HA-- want peace with Israel and Ameri--HA HAW HAW--America. Sorry, sorry. Someone's tickling me. But really, we just want everyone to get along and prosper, HAHAHAHA....
Seriously, we aren't building a nuke, it's for energy purposes, HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

[AFM]

[Induveca]

Trump's Islamophobic advisers will most likely get the war with Islam they desire. It won't reduce terrorism, it will ramp up instability in an increasingly unstable world. The international order may be crumbling. This too is not a good thing. This means less peace.

Sfam, you neglect to mention the regular assistance of the UAE/Turkey/Qatar/Saudi Arabia/Jordan/Bahrain/Egypt/Iraq in your falsely labeled "War on Islam".

It's a war on Islamic Terror Groups, and all of those Muslim majority countries have assisted with military operations. 6/8 have actively bombed ISIS with their French/US or Russian made fighters. All have provided intelligence.

How can you label such a situation as a "War on Islam"?

All of those nations are most certainly engaged in fighting, countering and preventing violent extremism. This is different from what Trump is doing, and how it comes across. Take a look at non right wing coverage, you'll see how Trump's travel ban has been interpreted around the world. This is what I was referring to. It is a horrific turn of events for the rest of the world to see the US as engaging on a war on Islam. Its even worse for US citizens who happen to be Muslim.

I'll pass on extreme right or left news coverage. They're pushing an agenda, not reality. Regardless I'm reliant mostly on Japanese and HK news who pay little to no attention to Trump. And they're both largely positive when they do, for their own agendas.

The reality is all of those ME countries I mentioned are still bombing ISIS, and other Muslim allies are bombing Boko Haram and Al-Shabaab, and AQAP in Africa and have been doing so for years now. That has zero to do with a 6 week old administration.

Most of those countries *were* on the 90 day temporary ban list. So.....Trump declares an immigration freeze against nations being bombed solo by our Muslim allies, or in combination with US forces and it's suddenly a "War on Islam" but the past 5-6 years of just bombing were just a war on"violent extremism".

You do realize how odd that sounds?

[FAH1223]

Supporting a brutal dictator that barrel bombs and gases his people is really not a good option. This would cause decades of resentment toward the US, similar to propping up the Shah in Iran. If we did that, this would have been short term thinking in the extreme.

I certainly don't support Assad, but have no clue what would have been a good alternative. What do you suggest?

That's just the problem. There was no good solutions, or even moderately bad ones. I do think there was debate within the administration to do more to have an R2P type response, with a free safe zone hopefully in Syria, but if not there, significant funding to Jordan to support the overrun there. Again, Obama I think determined this was not really possible given the risks, and he may have been right.

I have no magic crystal ball, and tend to think those who spout simplistic answers as to why everyone was wrong are really missing the complexity.

The Russians and Chinese weren't going to let Assad go by way of Gaddafi in 2011.

The No Fly Zone nonsense was pushed by Erdogan who was going crazy for it since 2012.

Russia kept supplying S-300 and then S-400 and other weapon systems to Tartus and Latakia.

Moscow sent planes there and their pilots are training Syrian Air Force on how to use the newer planes which have electronic jamming.

Hypothetically, The US has an answer to the S-300, its a whole doctrine called SEAD (Suppression of Air Defense) that they developed in Vietnam. There is no magic bullet, it will be a long and hard grinding fight, you will suffer heavy losses but you can suppress all air defenses.

The problem is that this is not 1970, and even though the Vietnamese were brave, talented and using the same mickey mouse downgraded equipment that the Arabs got... the Vietnamese literally slaughtered the US bomber force.

Technology has moved leaps and bounds, and the S-300 system and its accompanied systems of S-400 and Pantsir-1 are among the worlds best. But its not invincible, there will be no shortcuts and easy victories, you need to smash your Air Force against it until it breaks.

And this will be very expensive.

Obama and Trump now aren't going to do that to get rid of Assad.

[FAH1223]

Enforcement of the Iran Treaty is the responsibility of the UN.

It sure doesn't feel that way, does it to you? The ballistic missile launch?

Were you against the deal? Have a better idea? Think Iran is still trying to develop nuclear weapons?

No, probably and yes. I certainly didn't support the sunset clauses in the agreement.

Syria - There was no good policy. In hind sight, supporting Assad looks best, but I don't remember anyone even considering that option.

But we picked the absolute worst strategy - and then stuck with it.

Iraq - 75% of US wanted us out. Staying and propping up the corrupt Malaki govt would have been a never ending proposition. We had to go back when ISIS took control.

We pulled out waaaayyy to quickly. There was a period of time where we left them with no functional air cover. It was a political and bad execution of a good idea. He should have followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs.

Afghanistan - Again. What would be a good policy?

Same as above.

One can say Obama's policies failed, but if there were no good options, should he get the blame?

Of course there were. And yes, he should get some of the blame.

Just as he should get the credit for his Asia policy. The TPP was a good way to keep the balance of power where we wanted it. Of course, it didn't go through but it was a great temporary containment strategy.

U.N. Security Council 2231 calls upon Iran not to test ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.
Russia has said this test doesn't breach the resolution as the missiles aren't for nukes. If this were to go to the Security Council, Russia/China would veto any broad international sanctions aimed at Iran which aren't happening. Even France didn't completely condemn it... merely saying Iran shouldn't do these tests because of the optics.

Nothing new here. The EU still has sanctions on Iran for its missile program for 6 more years. The US is sanctioning Iran over the missile program.

This has nothing to do with the Nuclear Deal.

Iran was never serious about nuclear arms but they were dead serious about issues of sovereignty and keeping its right to maintain scientific research and control over the entire nuclear fuel cycle. Iran isn't stupid and they realize that a few nuclear warheads is not enough deterrence. Their whole strategy was keeping the ability to build weapons and using its nuclear program as bargaining chip to get sanctions cleared.

This is why Russia and China supported and pushed for the talks. It took a while because of US refusal to negotiate in good faith and the constant moving of goal posts even though the CIA's official position at one point in the 1990s was that Iran had a civilian program.

What made the nuclear deal happen was the EU threatening to leave the sanctions behind the scenes and Obama buckled under pressure because it was more important to keep leverage over the EU (and maintaining dollar hegemony) than have sanctions on Iran.... which other US allies were busting anyway. Turkey, India, UAE, South Korea along with Russia and China used Iran as a hotbed for de-dollarization and trade with mutual currencies/gold. The Europeans have been salivating at the opportunities across Iran and its young, educated populace.

Now that UN sanctions are gone, US sanctions do not matter because the understanding was that the US will never have peace with Iran and will continue to bully and scare European companies from investing in Iran.

China will continue investing heavily in Iran and oil exports will continue to be at their current levels despite OPEC cuts.

[DCZards]

Obamacare Reaches Highest Approval Rating

Despite Republican lawmakers' efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, a new survey shows that support for the health care law has reached an all-time high.

According to the Pew Research Center which conducted the poll, 54 percent of 1,503 adults surveyed between February 7 and 12 approve of the law while 43 percent disapprove.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/25/obamacare-reaches-highest-ever-approval-rating-as-gop-prepares-f/21721406/

[DCZards]

Obamacare Reaches Highest Approval Rating

Despite Republican lawmakers' efforts to dismantle the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, a new survey shows that support for the health care law has reached an all-time high.

According to the Pew Research Center which conducted the poll, 54 percent of 1,503 adults surveyed between February 7 and 12 approve of the law while 43 percent disapprove.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/02/25/obamacare-reaches-highest-ever-approval-rating-as-gop-prepares-f/21721406/

[DCZards]

Dub post

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[verbal8]

It has to do with an occupant of the oval office. However it is the current one, not the past one.

Read on Twitter

[Induveca]

Had access to CNN for first time tonight in Japan. After a few weeks what a psychotic mess of programming. Zero news, semi or full hysteria, fully US focused.

Switch over to Japanese morning news. Markets are rising.....specifics on trade and information that aids citizens in making money.

**** the US media. Time to wake up. If you "win" against the opposition, it doesn't help your pocketbook.

Don't forget you live in a capitalist nation.

[tontoz]

yeah that doesn't sound like something Obama would do, or even consider.