This is an issue that's worried him a lot lately as he's written about it often. He doesn't like the process by which Obama is asking for authorization for action against ISIS.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/13/morning-plum-american-public-appears-ready-for-some-more-war/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/11/obamas-war-authorization-request-is-way-too-broad-and-the-damage-has-already-been-done/
It's a strange thing, actually, because Obama is asking for permission to do things he's already doing and the skeptiicism of what he's doing in some ways comes more from his own party.
People have complained in the past that he has no grand, unifying Obama Doctrine-since the Monroe Doctrine, the feeling is that the President must always have a grand military doctrine. That he doesn't hasn't seemed to me to be a problem-to take things on a case to case basis seems to make a good deal of sense.
The one really predictable aspect of Obama's foreign policy is that no matter what he does he will be criticized. The Right will think he isn't doing enough, the Left that he's doing too much, and the Center-a la David Brooks and Bob Woodward-will claim he isn't being Presidential enough.
The GOP will complain he isn't doing enough but if he does something they'll say it;s the wrong something. Waldman voices concerns but doesn't offer any proposals on what Obama should do either. He seems to worry that Obama will/is doing too much and that if the GOP wins in 2016 they will do much too much. My worry may be less here as I don't think the GOP will win the White House in 2016.
Here Waldman is very provocative and makes some good points:
"It would be nice if we could look at each new development in this conflict and make a rational assessment of what it actually changes, how it affects the United States, and what we should do, or not do, in response. But brutality overwhelms rationality, just as ISIS intends. A couple of hundred thousand Americans die every year from preventable medical errors and the response from the government amounts to “Gee, that’s too bad,” but all it takes is a few videos of brutal executions 6,000 miles away to spur a wholesale reexamination of American foreign policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/16/get-ready-for-the-return-of-the-global-war-on-terror/
He's right in a way but this will strike many as kind of cold. I certainly agree about medical errors-I know more than a few people personally, who went to the hospital for seemingly routine procedures yet the next thing you heard they had died suddenly. My Mother is also a nurse-as is my aunt and cousin, I've got lots of nurses in my family-so I have no doubt about this.
The government should stop just saying it's too bad and do something. However, what about ISIS? It's terrible when a loved one dies, no matter how, but a medical error is still not as appalling as a televised beheading in impact.
I don't think you can only measure the threat in terms of the exact number of Americans dead-ever day we seem to be hearing about an ISIS action somewhere these days the latest being in Denmark.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/europe/denmark-attack-jihadi-problem/
In places like Jordan and Egypt the responses have much rougher than anything we would order. As to American hostages, it might be worth asking whether or not we should rethink our policy of not paying ransoms-as it would save a few lives. It's thought that this would embolden ISIS but would it?
"To date, ISIS has killed four Americans, a horrible tragedy for those people and their families. But since the idea of the group’s threat to America is at this point entirely hypothetical, we should be as specific as we can when we talk about that threat. Do we think they’re going to try to hijack planes or send agents here to set off bombs? And if so, what do we need to do to counter those threats that we aren’t already doing? If we’re going to expand our military involvement in the Middle East, is there a way to do it that won’t create more problems than it solves?"
I just don't know how specific you can be in this kind of situation. There is virtue in being specific but one of the drawbacks is you limit your options and sometimes you don't know what options you will or will not need before hand.
So it's hard to say what should happen exactly. Even for myself-I usually try to take a position-I'm not sure what should be done. I mean the GOP is too quick to declare martial law but the Left is often too quick to refuse to do anything.
I get that there's this romantic idea that the President has arrogated the power to declare war form Congress-I mean the office of the President going back many years to Woodrow Wilson.
However, when you see how polarized Congress is these days, it's obvious it can't agree to what day it is much less matters of war and peace.
All I can say with confidence here is that there are no easy answers and anyone-on the Right or Left-who says otherwise are oversimplifying things.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/13/morning-plum-american-public-appears-ready-for-some-more-war/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/11/obamas-war-authorization-request-is-way-too-broad-and-the-damage-has-already-been-done/
It's a strange thing, actually, because Obama is asking for permission to do things he's already doing and the skeptiicism of what he's doing in some ways comes more from his own party.
People have complained in the past that he has no grand, unifying Obama Doctrine-since the Monroe Doctrine, the feeling is that the President must always have a grand military doctrine. That he doesn't hasn't seemed to me to be a problem-to take things on a case to case basis seems to make a good deal of sense.
The one really predictable aspect of Obama's foreign policy is that no matter what he does he will be criticized. The Right will think he isn't doing enough, the Left that he's doing too much, and the Center-a la David Brooks and Bob Woodward-will claim he isn't being Presidential enough.
The GOP will complain he isn't doing enough but if he does something they'll say it;s the wrong something. Waldman voices concerns but doesn't offer any proposals on what Obama should do either. He seems to worry that Obama will/is doing too much and that if the GOP wins in 2016 they will do much too much. My worry may be less here as I don't think the GOP will win the White House in 2016.
Here Waldman is very provocative and makes some good points:
"It would be nice if we could look at each new development in this conflict and make a rational assessment of what it actually changes, how it affects the United States, and what we should do, or not do, in response. But brutality overwhelms rationality, just as ISIS intends. A couple of hundred thousand Americans die every year from preventable medical errors and the response from the government amounts to “Gee, that’s too bad,” but all it takes is a few videos of brutal executions 6,000 miles away to spur a wholesale reexamination of American foreign policy."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/02/16/get-ready-for-the-return-of-the-global-war-on-terror/
He's right in a way but this will strike many as kind of cold. I certainly agree about medical errors-I know more than a few people personally, who went to the hospital for seemingly routine procedures yet the next thing you heard they had died suddenly. My Mother is also a nurse-as is my aunt and cousin, I've got lots of nurses in my family-so I have no doubt about this.
The government should stop just saying it's too bad and do something. However, what about ISIS? It's terrible when a loved one dies, no matter how, but a medical error is still not as appalling as a televised beheading in impact.
I don't think you can only measure the threat in terms of the exact number of Americans dead-ever day we seem to be hearing about an ISIS action somewhere these days the latest being in Denmark.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/16/europe/denmark-attack-jihadi-problem/
In places like Jordan and Egypt the responses have much rougher than anything we would order. As to American hostages, it might be worth asking whether or not we should rethink our policy of not paying ransoms-as it would save a few lives. It's thought that this would embolden ISIS but would it?
"To date, ISIS has killed four Americans, a horrible tragedy for those people and their families. But since the idea of the group’s threat to America is at this point entirely hypothetical, we should be as specific as we can when we talk about that threat. Do we think they’re going to try to hijack planes or send agents here to set off bombs? And if so, what do we need to do to counter those threats that we aren’t already doing? If we’re going to expand our military involvement in the Middle East, is there a way to do it that won’t create more problems than it solves?"
I just don't know how specific you can be in this kind of situation. There is virtue in being specific but one of the drawbacks is you limit your options and sometimes you don't know what options you will or will not need before hand.
So it's hard to say what should happen exactly. Even for myself-I usually try to take a position-I'm not sure what should be done. I mean the GOP is too quick to declare martial law but the Left is often too quick to refuse to do anything.
I get that there's this romantic idea that the President has arrogated the power to declare war form Congress-I mean the office of the President going back many years to Woodrow Wilson.
However, when you see how polarized Congress is these days, it's obvious it can't agree to what day it is much less matters of war and peace.
All I can say with confidence here is that there are no easy answers and anyone-on the Right or Left-who says otherwise are oversimplifying things.
No comments:
Post a Comment