A brief observation on political inertia

[Craig234]

The example: President Obama's support from Congress and public for Afghanistan

Because Bush was considered so aggressive on war, starting the Iraq War by choice, and the main question Obama faces from many is 'will he do enough to protect the nation like Bush did, as he reduces our involvement as theanti-war candidate', almost no one questions Obama's Afghanistan policy, suggesting it's unnecessary. He can be attacked for not doing enough, but Bush has given him great license to do a lot and still be seen as 'doing less than Bush' and not called on it for being 'too much'.

If he didn't have the Bush history, it would be more comparable to Clinton, where every minor action by Clinton was challenged by the right - including his largest war effort, the war in Bosnia where not a single US soldier was killed, but the right was constantly questioning the war's necessity, and talking about the high price of risking US troops, and the need for the President to provide an exit plan, and so on.

This thread is just to point out the interesting effect of the inertia of things like a Bush presidency on his successor's freedom of options on war, in this case.

There's an old saying, 'only Nixon could go to China', because any other president who did so faced resistance about 'making friends with our enemy', but Nixon had a reputation as being so 'anti-communist' that he was mainly vulnerable to attacks of being to warlike, while any peace efforts were assumed to be 'ok' since he would never be too soft on communists.

It's just worh noting, IMO, how different an Obama can be treated on war issues, based on the 'political climate' of the time, from his predecessor.

Did Jimmy Carter's perceived weakness make it easy for Reagan to get away with an aggressive foreiggn policy, baccking violent policies in Central America? Perhaps.

 

[bamacre]

I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

What parts of Bush's foreign policy is Obama continuing that the left opposed? The left has generally been quite supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has created a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that the left has been asking for. It might not be quite as fast as they wanted, but a steady reduction in forces with a concrete date for full removal is really fairly close, and so are they really going to attack him much on it?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

What parts of Bush's foreign policy is Obama continuing that the left opposed? The left has generally been quite supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has created a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that the left has been asking for. It might not be quite as fast as they wanted, but a steady reduction in forces with a concrete date for full removal is really fairly close, and so are they really going to attack him much on it?

The answer to your question(s) likely resembles the whole, "OMG Obama Economy!" line of complaint. aka, not based much in Reality.

It just so happens that Bush initiated a withdrawal that was similar to what the Dems had been calling for. Of course Obama is going to continue it, as it's basically what he had in mind to begin with. To Wingnuts, this becomes, "continuation of Bush Policy".

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sandorski

The answer to your question(s) likely resembles the whole, "OMG Obama Economy!" line of complaint. aka, not based much in Reality.

It just so happens that Bush initiated a withdrawal that was similar to what the Dems had been calling for. Of course Obama is going to continue it, as it's basically what he had in mind to begin with. To Wingnuts, this becomes, "continuation of Bush Policy".

Bush's withdrawal plan and Obama's are pretty different. Obama is leaving almost a year and a half before Bush was planning to. They both removed US troops from Iraq's cities at the same time, but that's about it.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

What parts of Bush's foreign policy is Obama continuing that the left opposed? The left has generally been quite supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has created a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that the left has been asking for. It might not be quite as fast as they wanted, but a steady reduction in forces with a concrete date for full removal is really fairly close, and so are they really going to attack him much on it?

There's some merit in your response. But I don't think many on the Left were calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and many are now very much opposed to it now, which is what counts anyway. Unless I am mistaken, the plans for withdrawal from Iraq haven't changed much since Obama took office, and we'll still have to see how that goes. I am very wary of Obama keeping his promise of "no permanent bases in Iraq." But then, he doesn't have to since he'd only be in office for a maximum of 8 years. I'm sure they are being built as I type. Obama has also increased the budget for the DoD. Much of the stance on the "war on terror" is the same, from a domestic and foreign perspective. "Prolonged Detention," anyone? And we're still trying to attack the symptoms rather than the disease, we're still trying to win the "war on terror" by doing more of the same that created the problem in the first place, i.e., our troops in other countries "defeating terrorists," yet creating more terrorists at the same time. All the while, impeding on Americans' rights and liberties at home. Keeping America safe, by slowly destroying what it stands for.

Edit:

Originally posted by: sandorski
The answer to your question(s) likely resembles the whole, "OMG Obama Economy!" line of complaint. aka, not based much in Reality.

It just so happens that Bush initiated a withdrawal that was similar to what the Dems had been calling for. Of course Obama is going to continue it, as it's basically what he had in mind to begin with. To Wingnuts, this becomes, "continuation of Bush Policy".

Might not want to put words in my mouth. Made yourself look foolish there.

 

[Drako]

Wow, BO has BI syndrome? YG2BK

Bu Bu Bu Bush Inertia! It's contagious!

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

What parts of Bush's foreign policy is Obama continuing that the left opposed? The left has generally been quite supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has created a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that the left has been asking for. It might not be quite as fast as they wanted, but a steady reduction in forces with a concrete date for full removal is really fairly close, and so are they really going to attack him much on it?

There's some merit in your response. But I don't think many on the Left were calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and many are now very much opposed to it now, which is what counts anyway. Unless I am mistaken, the plans for withdrawal from Iraq haven't changed much since Obama took office, and we'll still have to see how that goes. I am very wary of Obama keeping his promise of "no permanent bases in Iraq." But then, he doesn't have to since he'd only be in office for a maximum of 8 years. I'm sure they are being built as I type. Obama has also increased the budget for the DoD. Much of the stance on the "war on terror" is the same, from a domestic and foreign perspective. "Prolonged Detention," anyone? And we're still trying to attack the symptoms rather than the disease, we're still trying to win the "war on terror" by doing more of the same that created the problem in the first place, i.e., our troops in other countries "defeating terrorists," yet creating more terrorists at the same time. All the while, impeding on Americans' rights and liberties at home. Keeping America safe, by slowly destroying what it stands for.

Might not want to put words in my mouth. Made yourself look foolish there.

I guess I would view his whole detention policy as a civil liberties issue instead of a foreign policy one. I think his civil liberties record is atrocious so far, but on that issue there has been quite a large amount of condemnation of Obama from the left so I don't really think your post would apply to that.

Bush's plan for exit from Iraq was to stay there absolutely as long as the agreement with Iraq would let us, which was the end of 2011. Obama's plan has us completely disengaged in August of 2010. That's 16 months sooner, a significant improvement. While the left might not be thrilled by Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, that's not really the 'continuation of a Bush policy' as he's deliberately altering the plan, and even if it were he was quite vocal about it for the entirety of the campaign.

Overall the Obama foreign policy so far has been one of reaching out to other countries, the entire tenor and goals of it appear to be different than Bush's. It's far too early to tell how that will all work out, but to say that they are both going down the same misguided path is not supportable in my opinion.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've seen quite a bit of opposition to Obama's foreign policy, or rather, his continuation of the same foreign policy we've had for way too long. Just not much of it here. Likely, because no one on the Right can do so without being an obvious hypocrite, and too few on the Left care to speak out against Obama for anything, which pretty much makes most of them hypocrites due to their opposition to the Bush administration's foreign policy.

It should be the #1 issue in this country, for economic and for national security reasons, and yet there's very little talk regarding foreign policy since Obama was elected. For years we listened to Bush and Cheney trying to scare the American people, selling their wars, selling the war on terror. Obama is elected, and while the dishonest rhetoric is toned down, the truth, along with a sane foreign policy, is yet to be found.

Americans voted overwhelmingly for change, and it never showed up. Americans, duped again.

What parts of Bush's foreign policy is Obama continuing that the left opposed? The left has generally been quite supportive of the war in Afghanistan, and Obama has created a plan for withdrawal from Iraq that the left has been asking for. It might not be quite as fast as they wanted, but a steady reduction in forces with a concrete date for full removal is really fairly close, and so are they really going to attack him much on it?

There's some merit in your response. But I don't think many on the Left were calling for an escalation of the war in Afghanistan, and many are now very much opposed to it now, which is what counts anyway. Unless I am mistaken, the plans for withdrawal from Iraq haven't changed much since Obama took office, and we'll still have to see how that goes. I am very wary of Obama keeping his promise of "no permanent bases in Iraq." But then, he doesn't have to since he'd only be in office for a maximum of 8 years. I'm sure they are being built as I type. Obama has also increased the budget for the DoD. Much of the stance on the "war on terror" is the same, from a domestic and foreign perspective. "Prolonged Detention," anyone? And we're still trying to attack the symptoms rather than the disease, we're still trying to win the "war on terror" by doing more of the same that created the problem in the first place, i.e., our troops in other countries "defeating terrorists," yet creating more terrorists at the same time. All the while, impeding on Americans' rights and liberties at home. Keeping America safe, by slowly destroying what it stands for.

Might not want to put words in my mouth. Made yourself look foolish there.

I guess I would view his whole detention policy as a civil liberties issue instead of a foreign policy one. I think his civil liberties record is atrocious so far, but on that issue there has been quite a large amount of condemnation of Obama from the left so I don't really think your post would apply to that.

Bush's plan for exit from Iraq was to stay there absolutely as long as the agreement with Iraq would let us, which was the end of 2011. Obama's plan has us completely disengaged in August of 2010. That's 16 months sooner, a significant improvement. While the left might not be thrilled by Obama's escalation in Afghanistan, that's not really the 'continuation of a Bush policy' as he's deliberately altering the plan, and even if it were he was quite vocal about it for the entirety of the campaign.

Overall the Obama foreign policy so far has been one of reaching out to other countries, the entire tenor and goals of it appear to be different than Bush's. It's far too early to tell how that will all work out, but to say that they are both going down the same misguided path is not supportable in my opinion.

How can the detention policy not be considered both a domestic and foreign policy? If it were not relevant to foreign policy, i.e., the "war on terror," then I would be even more outraged. But perhaps we are playing with words here.

As for withdrawal plans for Iraq before Obama was elected, I thought the plan was revised before Bush left, but my memory could be wrong, so please correct me if that is the case. But I hate to argue over this matter of detail and thus avoid the more important discussion of overall foreign policy. To me, the bottom line is, we continue to spend 100's of billions of dollars overseas per year, we continue to occupy more than 800 military installations in over 130 different countries, we still have a never-ending and misguided "war on terror," and not only are we going broke, but also much of our foreign policy is actually a danger to our national security rather than actually making us safer at home. Now I am in NO way blaming Obama for inheriting a complete mess, but he isn't even attempting to clean it up.

 

[blackangst1]

Interesting thoughts. I honestly think its too soon to tell what Obama's differences will be. So far he seems to be continuing, for the most part, Bush's policies in the middle east.

The only other thing I would say is your false statement of no American deaths in Kosovo. That is false. Here is even a newspaper article about Americans killed in Bosnia put to rest.