What do you think about Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East?

Obama eats Middle Eastern babies.

C'mon, I wanna hear some opinions.

Personally I think he's an epic fail/loser

I hope Iraq and Iran become one country and then all of Obama's shoe shiners can say "WE ENDED THE WAR!!!!"

Football sucks.

@Brain_Duster: You're a bastardization of Necrifer. Leave

Didn't you want him to intervene heavily in Syria?

Is pretty cool, eh drones weddings and doesn't afraid of anything.

@HoolaHoopMan: Yes

I'm guessing that's part of the reason why you find his foreign policy deplorable? Or are there bigger examples you care to share?

Oh and the second poll option doesn't make any sense. Thinking Obama's middle east policy is good and thinking the US shouldn't be meddling there are contradictory positions.

Great article on the failure of Obama in Iraq on the front page of the Nytimes site

@Storm_Marine: touche

iraq: better pre us invasion or post us invasion?

opinions?

Aw...ok. :(

A fucking failure. You can say **** now you don't have to censor it by the way.

He has no idea what to do. Basically his policy is having no policy, to just set and watch how things that the U.S has worked on for probably decades in the region unravel on their own and get sabotaged. He's pissing off the entire region without garnering any benefits or interests from anyone. Even the Saudis, the U.S' most important lifelong ally in the region is pissed off of him.

The straw that broke the camel's back for many of the more moderate and western-friendly political powers and masses in the region was his support and discretion with the dipshit brotherhood. Then came Syria and boy is his flop there colossal or what. Not to mention the recent developments in Iraq.

I really feel bad for all the taxpayers money that the U.S spent in the region, whether in the form of military expenditures or "soft power" programs and whatnot. On one hand, military actions in the region yielded shit and on the other anti-American sentiments in the region are going rampant even among the very westernized, tolerant and/or secular/liberal Middle Easterns.

I've read this analysis of the situation of Syria and its relation to the Obama administration and its policy of no policy and apathy. Its a long read but its definitely worth it. Its quite detailed, thorough and credible and includes an in-depth analysis of all the belligerent factions there , their ideologies and to whom they pledge their allegiance:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/01/how-obamas-syria-policy-fell-apart-101704.html

Syria is the main one definitely. That's his biggest mistake on the chess board. If he's even playing

Oh and the "we have no business meddling in other peoples' business" argument is moot. Not only does the U.S still meddle and stir up shit in the Middle East, but also you can't meddle in a region for decades and then say "I'm out" and deny any responsibility for what's happening, something that is a direct consequence of your own policies over a prolonged period of time.

interesting question, though it's been asked many times.

A parallel question with higher extremes would be like asking whether one would rather live in North Korea or Somalia

Anyways, Im not sure as to if were better of pre or post Saddam

@BossPerson: I'm not sure its censored per say, but it will probably get you banned lol.

Short version of my first post: Obama 5awal kbeer :3

Why should the US feel obligated to intervene in Syria? There are plenty of neighboring countries in the region. The US is in no position to launch another campaign in the middle east.

and even if we did, then what? What are the chances the country could transition peacefully into a democracy? The entire country would be rife with sectarian violence either way.

Good politico article, only makes me more angry with Obama

The U.S is the world's super power and has been meddling in the ME for decades. And neighbouring countries intervening in Syria has only added to the problem because they're aligning themselves along religious grounds.

And I didn't even argue for a "campaign" in the ME, just considerable support for the now essentially gone secular syrian rebels

So the US should meddle some more simply because we've meddled in the past? What kind of reasoning is that? And that neighboring countries shouldn't help because they would be taking a stand on one religious side over the other? WHAT?! How about some better ideas like getting Russia and Iran to stop arming Assaad.

Perhaps these middle eastern countries should grow up and realize you don't need to align yourself on purely religious grounds when one side is clearly in the wrong. There are plenty of countries in the region that have much more at stake in the conflict. Let them handle it. They bitch when we go in, then they bitch when we don't.

As for arming the 'secular' rebels. Ok, how? Its essentially impossible to track weapons and support equipment once its shipped over there. We would be supplying foreign born fighters as well. To suggest otherwise is naivety on another level. Then what if they win? Are they just going to transition peacefully into a democracy? The track record for 'democracies' in the middle east isn't exactly stellar over the last decade.

The US is damned either way. If that's the case I'd rather choose the less costly option both in terms of cost and US lives.

I'm not even going to respond to someone with such a simplistic understanding of the situation.

Well, his Middle East policy was at least a huge improvement over Bush... if that's any consolation.

It's interesting how the majority feel that this 'policy' is an ultimate failure. Implying "failure" suggests that the US has some valid claim for being there in the first place.

Whatever floats your boat.

not enough nukes. I want to see the surface reduced to glass.

He is taking the therm "Wedding Crasher" to a whole new level, I'll give him that.

hit and miss, first off he inherited the mess that was Iraq and Afghanistan

as far as intervening in Libya went I'm glad he didn't devote our armed services in that event and instead provided a much more cheaper and less intrusive military support, as far as Syria goes though I thought it was a damn mistake arming the rebels there, as bad as the country's leadership goes I'd rather secular dictators rule these countries than religious fanatics that threaten the stability of the region, right now we don't hear a lot but the US is now trying to figure out how to obtain their chemical weapons which proves challenging considering rebel controlled ground, but at least they're trying to acquire those weapons which I think is a good thing

as far as Iran goes I'm glad he's starting a dialog, Israel doesn't seem to happy but I think it's for the better, if we can negotiate nuclear inspections in the future with lifting of some of the sanctions, Irans nuclear resources can be inspected and data can be compiled for nuclear forensics so in the event someone tries moving or using nuclear resources the origins of it can be tracked

as far as ordering the Bin Laden raid, had to be done IMO, Pakistan seems pissed we invaded their airspace and didn't share intelligence but they can't blame us, Pakistan's ISI is believed to contain elements sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban so I feel they're justified in their efforts, not to say from the head down though that Pakistan is a state sponsor of terror, they still get U.S. support (I imagine more to gain access to Afghanistan since it's landlocked and Russians don't want us using their airspace for access as a result of our missile shield which they believe to be more offensive in design than defensive), but Pakistan has been doing their part to aid the U.S. devoting lives to the fight in Waziristan

I feel like we're not bombing enough people. Obama is really slacking off

@MakeMeaSammitch said:

muricans

You mean besides it sucking dick?..

I think he handled Iraq more or less appropriately (a continuance of the status quo) until the abrupt manner in which troops were withdrawn and subsequent distancing which is starting to look like a serious fvck up, but I am going to withhold judgement until I have read more about the current state of events. Afghanistan, I think similarly of (allowing the status quo to continue) sans the temporary troop buildup - of which, I am uncertain of the effectiveness, but overall, no serious complaints there. I am inclined to think the proper course of action was taken. I do not have even the most basic grasp of the political intricacies of the Egyptian situation, which seems like a clusterfvck to me, so perhaps for that reason alone, it was best that it was left largely untouched, but I honestly haven't a fvcking clue. Iran, he also has taken a position of continuing the status quo and recent dialogue seems like the invariable eventuality of said policies. I have mixed feelings. Israel, status quo, which I am not the hugest fan of. We really should force them to get their act together. Pakistan, similar to Bush, which I do not think is helpful in terms of gaining needed influence in the area.

Basically, it seems that he largely leaves shit unchanged WRT Middle East policy, largely continuing Bush policies, for better or worse, without starting new conflicts or really doing anything whatsoever. People might be inclined to say that this is an improvement, but that isn't necessarily the case . . .

Syria was an unabated abortion.

As Gaza put it, he almost seems to lack policy towards the Middle East. Barring Iraq, I am inclined to think that he is worse than Bush on matters pertaining to the ME. With Iraq, I don't know. It'll be a while yet before I can arrive to a substantive conclusion on that one.

I read that one recently. Pretty much confirmed my previously held thoughts.

Also, I agree with hoola. We should ignore a ruthless dictator killing hundreds of thousands of people because they have neighbors (who gives a fvck if they are useless; not my problem), and if we intervene, we will have to marginally increase interest payments from the federal gov't, which could possibly, but won't necessarily, raise taxes in the foreseeable future.

What can I say? Obama sucks and that is that.

mhm

Obama's foreign policy in general doesn't receive much media coverage, it seems that both the American people and the Obama Administration have been mostly focused on domestic matters.

That being said I don't think Obama's Middle-East policy is much good. The Middle-East is in chaos, and I believe Al Qaeda is stronger now than they were in 2008. The U.S. probably should've kept a residual presence in Iraq which may have prevented al Qaeda in Iraq from reconstituting and could've helped the U.S. to intercept Iranian arms shipments to Syria.

I don't think the U.S. should arm the Syrian rebels or strike the Syrian army, I think perhaps Assad staying in power may be preferable to him falling. If the U.S. did get involved in Syria it should be more based on attacking Iranian Quds force members, Hezbollah members and Al Qaeda members in Syria.

As far a Libya goes, I don't really know, though we should've either had more security at the Benghazi consulate or closed the consulate all together.

well the US in particular and the west in general is losing its allies and any influence it has on the region, its letting the Russians (and to a much lesser extent, Chinese) into the region something which hasn't really happened since the cold war, signed agreements that actually strengthen Assad and the Iranians (something supposedly not part of the official policy), Afghanistan is still a mess and may well collapse the minute the Americans leave due to the nature of the country Id say its pretty miserable.

I understand and even sympathize with westerners who don't want to be involved, who would want to get involved in the political mess and bloodbaths of the Mideast?, but then , the question is do you want to be a super power (or a great power , in the case of the western European nations)?, if yes, then you get involved in order to maintain influence and good business and diplomatic relations, if no , then become a country like Guatemala , stop pretending to be a super power and let somebody else take that role, the various Middle Eastern countries will find a new ally/patron (and those patrons will be the ones to reap the rewards, be they economic or political)

there is a saying (maybe its just in Hebrew , I don't know) , that its not a good idea to dance at two weddings, the whole affair shows a lack of clear decision or spine, at this point no American aircraft carrier in the Gulf is going to calm the Gulf states regarding Iran for instance , the US also had aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean , who did nothing regarding Assad despite Obama's claim he will act over the chemical weapons.

I was going to comment on how nobody in this thread will have any clue what Obama's foreign policy in the Middle East is, but you had to just go and ruin my fun.

Obama's Middle East foreign policy is wholly consistent with that of previous presidents because he's as beholden to his Zionist masters as his predecessors were.

The strategy is as it has been for decades: To foment conflict between the Sunnis and the Shiites so that they'll be too busy fighting one another to offer any effective resistance to Zionist expansionism.

He couldn't come to an agreement (or didn't want to) with the Iraqi government to keep troops there in order to not lose progress that was made on the stability in the region.

He has shown no balls on the "red line" things with Syria and Iran. The situations in both places are much worse than when he took office.

I think he should be open about the whole bengazi thing. I believe he intentionally meslead the public in order to get reelected. He should've come out day one and owned up to the fact that administration f***ed up The whole issue would've gone away in a month.

How exactly?

Bush ^ Drone

i dont know what the power of drone is, but obama is bush raised to the power of drone.

The Bush administration massacred far more people than the Obama administration.

Anyway it's probably better than other countries' policy

That is really questionable.

There were up to 25,000 people killed in the Libyan civil war, and have been up 130,000 people killed in Syria since Obama has been in power. Obama/the US stood on the sidelines in Syria and let those people die (and they continue to die).

There were 125,000 people killed in Iraq. 40,000 people were killed in Afghanistan.

Those numbers are pretty similar, but you need to look more deeply. The majority of people killed in war are soldiers who are fighting, so it isn't really a "massacre". Looking at the civilian casualties, most were not killed by US/NATO forces.

Also under bush, a dictator was removed that committed genocide that killed as many as 180,000 people (which is a true massacre), and started a war that killed 1.25 million people over the course of 8 years.

Obama has also done a terrible job controlling Irans nuclear weapons (getting Iran to turn its enriched uranium into a compound that can be easily chemically changed back into enriched uranium is not a solution)

The 125,000 figure for Iraq has already been proven false years ago. That only referred to the deaths reported by the mainstream media. The vast majority of victims were never reported in the mainstream media. The most widely accepted estimate from the Lancet survey put the death toll at around 600,000 (out of a 400,000-800,000 range) back in 2006 (and it has only increased since then). Also keep in mind that the 130,000 death toll estimate for Syria that you're citing was arrived at using a similar methodology, just in case you're in doubt.

And speaking of the "dictator" you're referring to, it was not him that killed 1.25 million Iraqis, but it was the UN sanctions which killed that many people over the course of 8 years. And ironically, it was the Bush Sr. administration that implemented those sanctions. In total, that's some 1.5-2 million deaths that the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. administrations are responsible for in Iraq alone, let alone Afghanistan.

Just one question, are you Syrian?? I feel like you really don't understand the region, or for the matter, Syria. 100,000 people plus killed, and I say plus because the UN said it is too "dangerous" to keep counting. Anyway, The US intervened in Iraq, and they said it wouldn't turn sectarian. No position? Are you even aware that the US has a contingency plan AND is able through the military industrial complex to invade many countries? For once I'd like to see the US use it's power and influence for good, rather than ignorant/incoherent behavior.

Also Syria is NOT a sectarian country, like most countries there, and + we deserve democracy, hell, we are not some ignorant people like some may believe. Yes Syria doesn't have any oil resources, is not an energy rich country like most of the nations there, but I don't believe continuation of this same policy will yield to a different result.