We're discussing Obama's approach to Iran.
At the time many people, including John McCain ridiculed the approach as unproductive and destined to fail.
Guess what. They were all right. It was destined to fail and it did.
Why would we believe that his next path is going to be any more successful? And he has caused us to be less respected in the Middle East, an area that understands power and force, making the job that much harder.
Ok. Everything about this statement is ridiculous. His engagement policy did not work. Yes. What it did do, is provide us with LEGITIMACY. Do you not understand this? The reason why Iraq is a failure now is because we lacked LEGITIMACY, not military power or strength.
What? He said he would engage with them, he didn't promise it would work. Once again, your ass talking is showing itself. You sound like an upset third grader, "B-But he pwomised mommy."
You haven't presented ONE feasible alternative. Not one. Once again let me remind you, ISRAEL, Iran's hated enemy who knows they are developing nukes, haven't bombed them yet, but you're implying that WE should take the initiative and bomb them, becoming the scapegoat for all of Israel's issues? Good one.
Does he get some kind of Legitimacy Card for his efforts? Who issues it? Is it voted on in the U.N?
Bush got numerous resolutions with threat of military force from the U.N and a Congressional resolution before invading Iraq. That isn't legitimacy? Obama got what? A speaking invitation in Istanbul and Cairo?
You admit his approach is a failure and yet it gives him "legitimacy". That is a joke, a sick one.
It is not my job to determine foreign polivy for the U.S. I merely point out his widely publicized big advance in U.S. policy is an abject failure. Why do you think any other approach from them will succeed?
What? You gain legitimacy through respecting and upholding the rules of the institutions you head as the hegemony, through implementing and then being the model for how you wish others to act. A hegemonic power needs to move with legitimacy, or it risks coalitions against it forming. Old HST didn't account for ideas like soft power or legitimacy, but it's becoming evident that hard power doesn't provide legitimacy in international eyes. If that's the case, the invasion of Iraq would have been seen as legitimate, since it accomplished its goals, but this is not the case obviously.
Bush engaged in a war without UN approval, I don't know what you're talking about. Congress can't provide legitimacy, it's a domestic institution. Legitimacy comes from a recognition of the other actors to acquiesce to your norms and values that is NATURAL.
The idea that primacy = hegemony needs to be killed. This is why you can't see the true nature of legitimacy and its uses for a hegemon. It seems counterintuitive to give up some autonomous policy making abilities, but if it ensures that the institutions that America controls and shapes endure, then it will overall provide us with more legitimacy and hegemonic rule.
Here the issue of legitimacy should be obvious. If we were to attack Iran without warning, without attempting to engage in diplomacy, and without sanctions, it would be a repeat of Iraq. Now we can move forward with legitimacy in any of the following actions:
1. Tougher sanctions. After resisting diplomatic talks and reneging on their promise with Russia, Iran has lost a bunch of their own legitimacy. In addition, Russia and China refusing to initiate tougher sanctions will infringe on their own legitimacy now that America has taken the correct steps in attempting to disband Iran's nuclear program. They recognize how detrimental this can be and thus will likely support all but the toughest sanctions (one's which would affect their developing economies. Don't expect Obama to be able to take Chinese and Russian national interest away entirely, harming Iran's oil and energy exports would be detrimental to their economies).
2. Precision strikes. Once again, we now have the legitimacy to say that we've exhausted diplomatic options, and soon, if increased sanctions prove to be negligible, this will only add credence to an Israeli or American airstrike. This would have been seen as reactionary and oppressive if executed by the Bush administration. Why? It's not because the policies would be any different, but the Bush Administration would have been acting without legitimacy and international consensus.
3. An actual invasion. This is highly unlikely and not necessary, but IF the situation escalates to this level, we once again avoid the Iraq situation by acting with increased legitimacy.
I'm sure you probably won't even read all of this so I'll just stop wasting my time. Nonetheless, it's apparent to me that the key failures of the Bush Doctrine was not necessarily its policies, but its procedure that resulted in the lost legitimacy that the current administration must rekindle if America will continue to lead on the international stage.
