Support NeoGAF

[Lagamorph]

Actually, these comments remind me of President Booth from Judge Dredd.

 

[Jacobi]

I didn't find the Lybia stuff in the text but seems like Obama thinks Lybia was a success...

 

[Future PhaZe]

TLDR version:

ISIS:

Middle East:

France, UK:

Russia:

US:

 

[thefro]

I didn't find the Lybia stuff in the text but seems like Obama thinks Lybia was a success...

He thinks the US executed about as well as they could have but Europe got bored moved on and more importantly, the tribal politics in Libya were way worse than people expected.

This is the reason he's been super-wary to get more involved in the Middle East since.

“So we actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion—which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap. We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.”

Mess is the president’s diplomatic term; privately, he calls Libya a “shit show,” in part because it’s subsequently become an isis haven—one that he has already targeted with air strikes. It became a shit show, Obama believes, for reasons that had less to do with American incompetence than with the passivity of America’s allies and with the obdurate power of tribalism.

“When I go back and I ask myself what went wrong,” Obama said, “there’s room for criticism, because I had more faith in the Europeans, given Libya’s proximity, being invested in the follow-up,” he said. He noted that Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, lost his job the following year. And he said that British Prime Minister David Cameron soon stopped paying attention, becoming “distracted by a range of other things.” Of France, he said, “Sarkozy wanted to trumpet the flights he was taking in the air campaign, despite the fact that we had wiped out all the air defenses and essentially set up the entire infrastructure” for the intervention. This sort of bragging was fine, Obama said, because it allowed the U.S. to “purchase France’s involvement in a way that made it less expensive for us and less risky for us.” In other words, giving France extra credit in exchange for less risk and cost to the United States was a useful trade-off—except that “from the perspective of a lot of the folks in the foreign-policy establishment, well, that was terrible. If we’re going to do something, obviously we’ve got to be up front, and nobody else is sharing in the spotlight.”

Obama also blamed internal Libyan dynamics. “The degree of tribal division in Libya was greater than our analysts had expected. And our ability to have any kind of structure there that we could interact with and start training and start providing resources broke down very quickly.”

Libya proved to him that the Middle East was best avoided. “There is no way we should commit to governing the Middle East and North Africa,” he recently told a former colleague from the Senate. “That would be a basic, fundamental mistake.”

 

[Maxim726X]

Thank you, let's fuck out of the Middle East. They don't want us and we don't want them. All we've done is make it worse with supporting Israeli

That is an absurd oversimplification, and largely incorrect.

Do you think that the average person enjoys living in a barbaric theocracy?

 

[Fox318]

If the US pulled out of Nato would the rest of Europe even spend the money necessary to make it disadvantageous for a Putin invasion?

Obama is right about France with not getting involved enough in africa when most of it was their cause.

 

[The Boat]

What a bunch of jokers!

 

[wildfire]

Seriously. That's the sort of political comparison I'd expect to see on fucking Reddit.

But

I need to read the entire article but those quotes that you put in are kinda... dumb? Not sure how else to put it. What is helpful about calling France and UK freeriders? And now the Middle East is Gotham... so who is our batman?

Bush was Batman. Obama is Nightwing.

 

[Diablos]

We already know, one will act like an asshole because he is, the other will act like an asshole just to try and prove she's as tough as any man.

Um, no, that is not Hillary's agenda.

 

[Dubbedinenglish]

He's not wrong. The EU is pathetic when dealing with crisis. You have allies in Europe trying to complete weapon deals with Russia after invading Ukraine and shooting down a passenger liner. They were sitting on their hands while the Syrian conflict is going on for 5 years and do nothing about refugees while neighbors load millions and people are drowning by the thousands in the Mediterranean. Hell, they can't even properly engage with Turkey on ISIS relying on the US. Even now their response to the crisis is embarrassing. This is stuff that is in their back yard , directly effecting the EU and the response is pathetic. The US can't continue to solve European problems alone, we need better allies.

 

[giga]

About time the Saudis got called on their crap.

 

[yongeandcollege]

We already know, one will act like an asshole because he is, the other will act like an asshole just to try and prove she's as tough as any man.

Sexist

 

[ferr]

Hillary = Catwoman, Bernie = Doc Brown

 

[Kuldar]

Meanwhile, France is taking care of Mali and CAR basically on its own (talking about Western powers intervening here, not AU or other African forces).

Yes, but during the conflict in Lybia, Sarkozy bragged a lot about how France did many things while it was at best some joint actions.

 

[emag]

That is an absurd oversimplification, and largely incorrect.

Do you think that the average person enjoys living in a barbaric theocracy?

Which of the ME nations we've meddled in were theocracies, let alone barbaric ones? Libya? Iraq? Syria? All secular autocracies. It's through US invasions that barbaric groups like ISIS rose to power in all three.

 

[SteveWD40]

On Libya he may have a point, but tell that to the 100's of dead / injured UK servicemen and women who took part in the ill fated expeditions in Iraq / Afghanistan.

Whatever you may think of the cause and the motivations, that's not a "free ride"

 

[wildfire]

He's not wrong. The EU is pathetic when dealing with crisis. You have allies in Europe trying to complete weapon deals with Russia after invading Ukraine and shooting down a passenger liner. They were sitting on their hands while the Syrian conflict is going on for 5 years and do nothing about refugees while neighbors load millions and people are drowning by the thousands in the Mediterranean. Hell, they can't even properly engage with Turkey on ISIS relying on the US. Even now their response to the crisis is embarrassing. This is stuff that is in their back yard , directly effecting the EU and the response is pathetic. The US can't continue to solve European problems alone, we need better allies.

Pathetic is a strong word that masks the underlying problem. They are pathetic because their military are too small. When noone, including us, wanted to deal with the Taliban encroachment in Mali France unilaterally went in and kicked ass.

They didn't go into a fight that was beyond their abilities because frankly a lot of hot zones are beyond what they can handle.

What I'm essentially saying is don't confuse pathetic strength with pathetic willpower.

 

[Cesare Borgia]

While I have a few foreign policy disagreements with Obama I greatly respect his mind and the intention to think through things. I suspect his restraint is going to be greatly missed regardless of who replaces him next year.

 

[Trey]

On Libya he may have a point, but tell that to the 100's of dead / injured UK servicemen and women who took part in the ill fated expeditions in Iraq / Afghanistan.

Whatever you may think of the cause and the motivations, that's not a "free ride"

He's speaking in large scale geopolitical terms. Of course he doesn't consider the sacrifices made by individual allied forces valueless.

 

[SteveWD40]

Pathetic is a strong word that masks the underlying problem. They are pathetic because their military are too small. When noone, including us, wanted to deal with the Taliban encroachment in Mali France unilaterally went in and kicked ass.

They didn't go into a fight that was beyond their abilities because frankly a lot of hot zones are beyond what they can handle.

What I'm essentially saying is don't confuse pathetic strength with pathetic willpower.

Further to this, our strengths are not always the right type for the conflict. The UK has some cutting edge tech (the Dauntless for example) that would be great in certain theatres, but not any use in others.

We are also doing far more than most to fight ISIL, but it's largely covert actions.

 

[noshten]

On Libya he may have a point, but tell that to the 100's of dead / injured UK servicemen and women who took part in the ill fated expeditions in Iraq / Afghanistan.

Whatever you may think of the cause and the motivations, that's not a "free ride"

Iraq is a black stain on both the UK and US.
UK has always been a close ally and one of the only countries who have supported the US and actually put lifes on the line.
In the end the foreign policy which US has engaged and UK championed/followed has lead to grave consequences.

I like that Obama has finally decided to address this, I think he realizes that unless the global community comes together and invests into countries whose dictatorial regimes are toppled in the end everything spirals out of control. And it doesn't sound he is too pleased with foreign policy makers in the US.

 

[Erevador]

We do realize how good he is, that's why he's won every election he's ever run in.

Not in 2000

didn't win when ran for the house of representatives in 2000

I meant presidential elections, but I can see how I phrased it in a way that didn't convey that. Fair enough.

 

[theignoramus]

Obama is a good man. He allowed his legacy as a president to be compromised in order to keep America from having to fully commit itself to another Muslim civil war.
As he said,sometimes the playbook has to be tossed to the side for a common sense solution.

 

[Schweinehund]

Obama shillin for WB.

That call out on UK & France though.

 

[LegendofJoe]

If France and the UK are free riders what does that make Germany? A no rider?

 

[Discotheque]

Thank you, let's fuck out of the Middle East. They don't want us and we don't want them. All we've done is make it worse with supporting Israeli

Enjoy Hillary. She'll make ties to Israel as strong as ever.

To hell with her. Gonna make ppl miss Obama even more

 

[theignoramus]

Israel is basically the US's attack dog in that region.

It's a mutually beneficial thing. This narrative that Israel forces the hand of US foreign policy is a fallacy.

Except when Israel goes off the reservation without Americas approval, as they have done constantly. Israel is a nation state with a mind of its own and interests of its own, interests that frequently run counter to American interests.
The latest example was the Iran deal, and Israels attempt to get Republicans to derail the negotiations.

 

[theignoramus]

Thank you, let's fuck out of the Middle East. They don't want us and we don't want them. All we've done is make it worse with supporting Israeli

Not gunna happen with Hillary Clinton, whose a liberal interventionist like her husband.

 

[curls]

Enjoy Hillary. She'll make ties to Israel as strong as ever.

To hell with her. Gonna make ppl miss Obama even more

Who in their right mind is supporting Hillary at this point? 😮

We came, we saw, he died! ..... evil cackle

 

[okaay]

If France and the UK are free riders what does that make Germany? A no rider?

So Germany didn't intervene in Iraq or somewhere else in the first place and took a million people from that area in, which the other countries are unwilling to, which exceeds the cost by a multiple times.

So yes, the perfect analysis here, Germany is the no rider.

 

[theignoramus]

Who in their right mind is supporting Hillary at this point? 😮

We came, we saw, he died! ..... evil cackle

Hillary gets a lot of love round these here parts.

 

[Shake Appeal]

I love when Obama just gets tired and speaks his mind. He is absolutely right about everything he says here (including his own shortcomings).

Only thing this leaves out is just how hard Hillary pushed for the Libyan intervention so she'd have something to tout during her presidential run. How'd that work out, Hill?

 

[Tallshortman]

There is no question the US essentially subsidized much of Western European defense. They continually fall below NATOs GDP military spending requirement while much poorer eastern European NATO nations exceed it.

To be fair France is by far one of the lesser offenders, you have wealthy bati nations sending like 5 jets and calling that a big contribution to the coalition. Don't even get me started with the gulf nations who pretty much just provide political cover.

 

[AndyD]

greater than our analysts had expected

This is a recurring theme over decades, that western analysts fail to appreciate the issues of the Middle East at a deeper level.

 

[Shake Appeal]

This is a recurring theme over decades, that western analysts fail to appreciate the issues of the Middle East at a deeper level.

We've been getting it wrong for centuries, and yet we keep picking the scab and expecting it to heal.

 

[Mac@NeoGAF]

So Germany didn't intervene in Iraq or somewhere else in the first place and took a million people from that area in, which the other countries are unwilling to, which exceeds the cost by a multiple times.

So yes, the perfect analysis here, Germany is the no rider.

Germany only spends about half what the UK & France spend on defence per capita.

Germany can't do much militarily beyond its own borders even if it wanted to.

 

[Moosichu]

Germany only spends about half what the UK & France spend on defence per capita.

Germany can't do much militarily beyond its own borders even if it wanted to.

To be fair, interventionist foreign policy seriously seems to be an abject failure, so Germany probably has the right idea.

 

[LiK]

Trump = ?

Lex Luthor

 

[LegendofJoe]

So Germany didn't intervene in Iraq or somewhere else in the first place and took a million people from that area in, which the other countries are unwilling to, which exceeds the cost by a multiple times.

So yes, the perfect analysis here, Germany is the no rider.

I was making the point that Germany doesn't do military interventions at all. It wasn't a criticism, quite the opposite actually. Although that being said it would be good for the world and the US/Europe if other NATO countries scaled up their military budgets somewhat so that the US can scale down. Our proclivity towards using the military to solve every international problem needs to end. We need help from Europe if that is ever going to happen.

 

[Buba Big Guns]

Israel is basically the US's attack dog in that region.

It's a mutually beneficial thing. This narrative that Israel forces the hand of US foreign policy is a fallacy.

That's not true in the slightest.

Watch this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/netanyahu-at-war/

 

[Byakuya769]

This is really amazing interview (mid-way through). Reminds me why I supported Obama's views on foreign policy and why I should probably be concerned about Hillary's views.

 

[okaay]

I was making the point that Germany doesn't do military interventions at all. It wasn't a criticism, quite the opposite actually. Although that being said it would be good for the world and the US/Europe if other NATO countries scaled up their military budgets somewhat so that the US can scale down. Our proclivity towards using the military to solve every international problem needs to end. We need help from Europe if that is ever going to happen.

I don't disagree with you but do you think alot of people would be better off if Germany spent its ressources into interveritions instead of taking people in? Like dropping bombs is the hard part of the job and Germany is just free riding, like your first post suggested. If the US took as many refugees in, there'd be a civil war right now and the US has about 4 times the population.

 

[DrunkShogun]

I wish he would have expanded on all the counterparts to Gotham. Whose the Harley Quinn to Isis joker.

 

[Shake Appeal]

I wish he would have expanded on all the counterparts to Gotham. Whose the Harley Quinn to Isis joker.

ISIS-inspired terrorists living in Western nations.

 

[Toa TAK]

TLDR version:

ISIS:

Middle East:

France, UK:

Russia:

US:

Should be in the article itself, tbh.

 

[amanset]

Well arguably the danger of Russia is a continuation of the "who has the biggest dick" competition between the US and USSR that was the "Cold War".

And we're supposed to spend loads on defence due to a situation that the US escalated to ridiculous levels?

Fuck that and fuck him. I've lost a lot of respect for him today. He seems comically unaware that the US, both past and present, is more the problem than the cure.

 

[Nivash]

Germany only spends about half what the UK & France spend on defence per capita.

Germany can't do much militarily beyond its own borders even if it wanted to.

Germany can't do much within its own borders and fuck all outside them. The Bundeswehr isn't even a shadow of its Cold War self, and that's not exactly high marks considering it spent the war as the designated expendable NATO roadblock. Poland operates as many Leopard 2 tanks as Germany these days. The Luftwaffe can't even keep its planes in the air these days in combat effective numbers due to horrible maintenance - and even then they barely have more fighters than Sweden to begin with.

I understand that Germany has specific cultural reasons for pacifism but this is getting ridiculous and dangerous. And they're hardly alone - the EU as a whole is barely able to be on Russia's level despite having more than three times the population and over six times the GDP. I'm Swedish by the way, we officially can't defend Stockholm for more than a few days against even a limited Russian attack and even then only if we leave the rest of the country defenseless.

The EU is too naive, too content and too fractured. That's why we couldn't deal with Libya. That's why we can't deal with the refugee crisis. Sooner or later we're going to be reminded that the last war is never actually the last war and when we are, it's going to be a very rough awakening. Obama's marks on us being "free riders" are perfectly on point and after the shameful display that is the ongoing refugee crisis I frankly think we deserve whatever's coming for us.

Well arguably the danger of Russia is a continuation of the "who has the biggest dick" competition between the US and USSR that was the "Cold War".

And we're supposed to spend loads on defence due to a situation that the US escalated to ridiculous levels?

Fuck that and fuck him. I've lost a lot of respect for him today. He seems comically unaware that the US, both past and present, is more the problem than the cure.

Russia has invaded an annexed part of a European country, likely engaged in cyber warfare against another and practiced mock nuclear strikes against several more in just the last few years. Thinking it's all just because they're acting out because the US is being mean to them - like Putin is some kind of overgrown toddler - is astonishingly naive. They have designs of their own because they, unlike us, understand that mankind didn't just do away with our tens of thousands of years worth of military history just because the Cold War ended.

 

[theignoramus]

This is a recurring theme over decades, that western analysts fail to appreciate the issues of the Middle East at a deeper level.

They succeeded in Europe with the Russians and they kept the US from going to war with China, but they failed in Indochina, they failed in the Middle East and they failed in Latin America.
Some of their blunders (and the corresponding blowback) have been monumentally bad for America and the security of the Western world.

 

[Succinct Verbosity]

Obama got Batman V Superman on his mind.

Who would Obama want to win? Hmmm

 

[LegendofJoe]

I don't disagree with you but do you think alot of people would be better off if Germany spent its ressources into interveritions instead of taking people in? Like dropping bombs is the hard part of the job and Germany is just free riding, like your first post suggested. If the US took as many refugees in, there'd be a civil war right now and the US has about 4 times the population.

I didn't suggest that Germany is free riding, I was trying to say that they don't take part at all. And yes Germany should have the ability to project more military power abroad. That doesn't mean that they have to, the ability to do so in and of itself is what's important. The more capable the rest of Europe is militarily the less the US has to fill in the gaps. Which would lead to a much more balanced foreign policy approach from the US.

That change is sorely needed, and yes Germany should play a big part in helping to make it happen.