[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I think it’s fair to say that the President’s risk-adverse posture prohibts him from calling evil by it’s true name: Radical Islam. It may go deeper than that also. He’s very thin-skinned and hates confrontation. He prefers to fight from afar (think drones). He’s not the roll-up-your-sleeves type. That is why he despises our shirtless Russian friend. Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.
How do you see Mr. Obama’s worldview Bismark? [/quote]
I believe that President Obama’s Weltanschauung is that of a hopeful realist. If the idealism expressed in the 2008 Democratic primary and presidential campaign was sincere, it has been tempered by the realities of his office. Given the political climate at the time, it may have been exaggerated. I would say that his view of the world is most closely aligned with that of the English school of international relations, which represents a middle ground between realism and liberalism. Simply put, he would prefer to exert American influence through diplomacy and international political or economic regimes, but has no qualms with the use of force if those tools of foreign policy are exhausted or would be impractical. I believe the open source record affirms this position. I will now address your post.
I don’t believe that he is “risk-adverse” as much as he is a practitioner of cost-benefit analysis. If the potential costs of an action exceed or are not equal to the potential benefits, it would be irrational to take that course of action. What benefits would be gained by calling yesterday’s barbaric attack “Radical Islam”? Remember, the POTUS is his country’s chief diplomat. Public speech acts constitute public diplomacy.
“He prefers to fight from afar (think drones).”
I disagree. While is true that the use of drone strikes increased seven fold under President Obama, conventional and special operations also increased dramatically. The 2009 surge introduced over 30,000 additional troops into the Afghan theater. When Obama assumed office, the Pentagon increased the use of special operations raids (i.e., kill/capture missions) from 675 in 2009 to roughly 2,200 in 2011.
The raid in Abbottabad is about as “roll-up-your-sleeves” as military operations get. It was far from certain the UBL was the resident of the targeted compound. Despite what officials described as an extraordinarily concentrated collection effort leading up to the operation, no U.S. spy agency was ever able to capture a photograph of bin Laden at the compound before the raid or a recording of the voice of the mysterious male figure whose family occupied the structure’s top two floors. President Obama could have ordered a drone strike, sent fixed wing aircraft to bomb the facility, or refrained from acting at all. Instead, he sent a special operations force to conduct a clandestine kill/capture mission a mere 61 miles from the capital of a sovereign state, and authorized them to fight their way out if engaged by Pakistani forces. To that end, close air support and a quick reaction force were authorized to support the assault element. Robert Gates, reflecting on the raid in a 60 minutes interview, stated that “I’ve worked for a lot of these guys and this is one of the most courageous calls - decisions - that I think I’ve ever seen a president make.”
“. . . he despises our shirtless Russian friend.”
What evidence is there that Obama despises Putin?
“Further, the President firmly believes the U.S. and many of the West are the problem, that they oppose and inflame these poor dissidents who inturn are forced to acts of rebellion. We should share the blame.”
What evidence is there that Obama subscribes to such a world view? If he does, it certainly hasn’t affected his authorization of numerous kill/capture missions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. The scope of John Brennan’s disposition matrix may very well be revealed to be larger than the aforementioned states in the future.[/quote]
That is a pretty good analysis of the President. I don’t necessarily agree with some of your assertions, but you make some fair points. I think he’s more than a realist. Sure, some of his decisions are pragmatic, but I think it’s more than that. I think that is convenient cover for what I feel is his worldview:
You are correct in his preference for coalitions/diplomacy. I think it’s a strength. But I think he squanders America’s leverage as the lone Superpower. I think he despises it. He prefers a equal playing field, with a body such as the UN as the arbitrar. This is especially true with military might.
The annexation of Crimea is a prime example. I think Putin bullied him. Just like Assad did. Sure, I know nothing what’s really happening behind the scenes, but I want visible, vocal leadership for liberty.
So the President’s reliance on being a part of coalition as opposed to leading lends him to be “risk-averse”. He does not want to name what is a greater threat to the world than communism: Radical Islam. He does not want to inflame the Arabs. Look at his leadership in Gaza!!
My evidence is a combination of his statements and actions.
And you are right on about Abbottabad. But, how much was the President involved in this, other than to say “go”. I think Hillary and Panetta and the network being built years prior deserve the real credit. The President just wanted the feather in the cap.