How would you Rate Obama on Foreign Policy?

[Publius1787]

How would you Rate Obama on Foreign Policy?

 

[DarkFury]

Worst ever. And no doubt that ranking will go lower.

 

[S.J.]

Depends on who is answering. For the U.S., he is the worst. For our enemies, he is the best.

 

[MACAULAY]

I picked "the Worst Ever" because I guess we are talking about Presidents. But, if other leaders are included, he's got company in Neville Chamberlain, and that would put him "Among the Worst Ever."

Its real bad, and we've got 22 months to go. You got to believe Putin is planning something (else).

Wouldn't you...if you are a Russian; or an Ayatollah? Get while the getting is good...while there's a community organizer in the White House.

 

[S.J.]

I picked "the Worst Ever" because I guess we are talking about Presidents. But, if other leaders are included, he's got company in Neville Chamberlain, and that would put him "Among the Worst Ever."

Its real bad, and we've got 22 months to go. You got to believe Putin is planning something (else).

Wouldn't you...if you are a Russian; or an Ayatollah? Get while the getting is good...while there's a community organizer in the White House.

He may be hoping for that. It would give him an excuse to suspend the election and stay in office.

 

[blackhawk]

Among the worst the only thing you can call an accomplishment is the killing of Bin Laden and that seems to be more of a war on terror accomplishment than foreign policy one.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

He has accomplished much more than many presidents and, unlike some, he didn't give away the farm to do it.

 

[Publius1787]

He has accomplished much more than many presidents and, unlike some, he didn't give away the farm to do it.

Iraq, Yemen, Ukraine, Nukes to Iran, and soon to be terrorist ran and operated Afghanistan are awfully big farms. But please, provide your examples. Got to give you credit for one thing. having the nerve to support Obama's foreign policy. Most of the leftist here will no doubt avoid this topic like the plague.

 

[The Rabbi]

He has no foreign policy successes. None. Every foreign policy has been a disaster. Every single one. Obama is the worst negotiator in the world.

 

[Publius1787]

He has no foreign policy successes. None. Every foreign policy has been a disaster. Every single one. Obama is the worst negotiator in the world.

I think his pivot toward Asia has had some success.

 

[The Rabbi]

He has no foreign policy successes. None. Every foreign policy has been a disaster. Every single one. Obama is the worst negotiator in the world.

I think his pivot toward Asia has had some success.

He hasnt started war with the Chinese, that's true.
But please point to this success. North Korea is still bullying its way around. China is increasingly beligerent. Japan lacks confidence in our ability and will to protect them from China. I dont see any success. Maybe if he signs a trade treaty with Asian countries without negotiating the future status of Hawaii he will have success.

 

[Publius1787]

He has no foreign policy successes. None. Every foreign policy has been a disaster. Every single one. Obama is the worst negotiator in the world.

I think his pivot toward Asia has had some success.

He hasnt started war with the Chinese, that's true.
But please point to this success. North Korea is still bullying its way around. China is increasingly beligerent. Japan lacks confidence in our ability and will to protect them from China. I dont see any success. Maybe if he signs a trade treaty with Asian countries without negotiating the future status of Hawaii he will have success.

With the Obama Admin negotiating the treaty I wouldn't hold my breath for a deal that's good for U.S. interests. Remember when he demanded that Columbia unionize with FARC associated communists before a trade deal was reached?

 

[The Rabbi]

He has no foreign policy successes. None. Every foreign policy has been a disaster. Every single one. Obama is the worst negotiator in the world.

I think his pivot toward Asia has had some success.

He hasnt started war with the Chinese, that's true.
But please point to this success. North Korea is still bullying its way around. China is increasingly beligerent. Japan lacks confidence in our ability and will to protect them from China. I dont see any success. Maybe if he signs a trade treaty with Asian countries without negotiating the future status of Hawaii he will have success.

With the Obama Admin negotiating the treaty I wouldn't hold my breath for a deal that's good for U.S. interests. Remember when he demanded that Columbia unionize with FARC associated communists before a trade deal was reached?

Obama can fuckk up a one car parade.

 

[BlindBoo]

Too early to tell. But I'd estimate he's three and a half times better than Bush on average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/22/upshot/100000003008923.mobile.html?abt=0002&abg=0

 

[Publius1787]

Too early to tell. But I'd estimate he's three and a half times better than Bush on average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/22/upshot/100000003008923.mobile.html?abt=0002&abg=0

A leaders foreign policy credentials cannot be judged by foreigners. Funny liberals use this as a system of measurement. Different countries have different interests and are more likely to like your leader if his interests are congruent with theirs. It has nothing to do with whether his interests are in line with that of his own country. All of the countries you listed want a weakened US influence. That is hardly a unit of measurement. A better unit of measurement is "respect" (though it is impossible to measure). Foreign leaders don't "respect" Obama, they "like" him. They like him because they hate US influence and he is reducing it. With their increasing influence and the U.S. declining they are less likely to respect Obama. In foreign policy "respect" trumps "like" every time. They may like a wet noodle who will waive to their demands but they by no means respect the wet noodle.

At the home front, the average voter is much too stupid to be well versed in foreign policy. They will swing back and forth and a president who basses foreign policy off of what is popular is a coward who places votes above national security. Indeed it was unpopular for Bush to engage in the Iraq surge but after it succeeded the surge grew dramatically in public support. In Vietnam it was unpopular for Nixon to invade Cambodia but it was the right thing to do (The Vietcong had millions of lbs of supplies and storage there). That's called leadership. Obama does the opposite. He seeks what's popular despite the negative effects a policy may have on national security. When everything falls apart he loses support. Obamas foreign policy is a reactionary one of leading from behind. He leads from behind public opinion and he leads from behind the acts geopolitical enemies. It is much harder to lead from the front and Obama is too much a coward to do so.

 

[g5000]

Obama's ranking on foreign policy cannot be determined in the present. Only the future will tell.

Just like we are learning as more time goes by just how fucked up Bush's foreign policy was.

 

[BlindBoo]

Too early to tell. But I'd estimate he's three and a half times better than Bush on average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/22/upshot/100000003008923.mobile.html?abt=0002&abg=0

A leaders foreign policy credentials cannot be judged by foreigners. Funny liberals use this as a system of measurement. Different countries have different interests and are more likely to like your leader if his interests are congruent with theirs. It has nothing to do with whether his interests are in line with that of his own country. All of the countries you listed want a weakened US influence. That is hardly a unit of measurement. A better unit of measurement is "respect" (though it is impossible to measure). Foreign leaders don't "respect" Obama, they "like" him. They like him because they hate US influence and he is reducing it. With their increasing influence and the U.S. declining they are less likely to respect Obama. In foreign policy "respect" trumps "like" every time. They may like a wet noodle who will waive to their demands but they by no means respect the wet noodle.

At the home front, the average voter is much too stupid to be well versed in foreign policy. They will swing back and forth and a president who basses foreign policy off of what is popular is a coward who places votes above national security. Indeed it was unpopular for Bush to engage in the Iraq surge but after it succeeded the surge grew dramatically in public support. In Vietnam it was unpopular for Nixon to invade Cambodia but it was the right thing to do (The Vietcong had millions of lbs of supplies and storage there). That's called leadership. Obama does the opposite. He seeks what's popular despite the negative effects a policy may have on national security. When everything falls apart he loses support. Obamas foreign policy is a reactionary one of leading from behind. He leads from behind public opinion and he leads from behind the acts geopolitical enemies. It is much harder to lead from the front and Obama is too much a coward to do so.

That was a world public opinion poll. Not leaders. It is too early to make any call on Obama's foreign policy. Whatever tactical success the surge ever had was always overshadowed by the ongoing civil war. The surge and the bribing of the Sunnis tribes aligned with al Qaeda and a US press willing to ignore ever present sectarian violence during that time, combined so we could depart with our heads held high(and not get shot at). Be that as it may Obama made it clear that he was more than willing to keep US troops in Iraq, not a real popular opinion among liberals either, but the Iraqis made it clear we were not wanted. Even now they just want our Air Force.

 

[Syriusly]

How would you Rate Obama on Foreign Policy?

Mediocre- poor.

Better than George W. but that ain't saying much.

 

[Publius1787]

Too early to tell. But I'd estimate he's three and a half times better than Bush on average.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/22/upshot/100000003008923.mobile.html?abt=0002&abg=0

A leaders foreign policy credentials cannot be judged by foreigners. Funny liberals use this as a system of measurement. Different countries have different interests and are more likely to like your leader if his interests are congruent with theirs. It has nothing to do with whether his interests are in line with that of his own country. All of the countries you listed want a weakened US influence. That is hardly a unit of measurement. A better unit of measurement is "respect" (though it is impossible to measure). Foreign leaders don't "respect" Obama, they "like" him. They like him because they hate US influence and he is reducing it. With their increasing influence and the U.S. declining they are less likely to respect Obama. In foreign policy "respect" trumps "like" every time. They may like a wet noodle who will waive to their demands but they by no means respect the wet noodle.

At the home front, the average voter is much too stupid to be well versed in foreign policy. They will swing back and forth and a president who basses foreign policy off of what is popular is a coward who places votes above national security. Indeed it was unpopular for Bush to engage in the Iraq surge but after it succeeded the surge grew dramatically in public support. In Vietnam it was unpopular for Nixon to invade Cambodia but it was the right thing to do (The Vietcong had millions of lbs of supplies and storage there). That's called leadership. Obama does the opposite. He seeks what's popular despite the negative effects a policy may have on national security. When everything falls apart he loses support. Obamas foreign policy is a reactionary one of leading from behind. He leads from behind public opinion and he leads from behind the acts geopolitical enemies. It is much harder to lead from the front and Obama is too much a coward to do so.

That was a world public opinion poll. Not leaders. It is too early to make any call on Obama's foreign policy. Whatever tactical success the surge ever had was always overshadowed by the ongoing civil war. The surge and the bribing of the Sunnis tribes aligned with al Qaeda and a US press willing to ignore ever present sectarian violence during that time, combined so we could depart with our heads held high(and not get shot at). Be that as it may Obama made it clear that he was more than willing to keep US troops in Iraq, not a real popular opinion among liberals either, but the Iraqis made it clear we were not wanted. Even now they just want our Air Force.

Obama threw the SOFA and didn't twist any arms to get it. That would have been against his girlish demeanor. And you don't judge your foreign policy success on people who choose their interests over yours. I was in Ar-Ramadi twice and we secured the damn city along with the Al-Anbar Provence and won over the locals (The most violent province in Iraq.) Obama threw it away and everyone I served with is thus far of the same opinion. I have yet to have found an exception.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I would give Obama a grade of "fair" on foreign policy--overall. He's been awful in some cases, mediocre in some cases, and good in other cases.

I think Panetta, Hillary, Morell, and the Join Chiefs bear much of the blame for Benghazi. Panetta admitted that Obama told him "do what you have to do" when Panetta told him the Benghazi consulate was under attack. There were U.S. Air Force jets 90 minutes away on Crete, but they were never scrambled.

I think Obama's handling of Iran has been awful.

I think his Israeli policy started off tolerably well but has since gone bad.

I think his opening to Cuba was a great move and long overdue.

I think his Afghanistan policy has been fairly good.

I think he blundered terribly in not leaving behind a residual force in Iraq.