Reading
Reading
Posted on Sep 9, 2019
James Mattis’s Blistering Criticism of Obama | National Review
1.5K
89
20
27
27
0
You would think from the coverage and reviews of the book that Mattis wrote only about President Trump. Not so. Yet another way the press manipulates public opinion is by failing to mention facts that don't fit their narrative (which is in line with the Democratic party)
James Mattis’s Blistering Criticism of Obama | National Review
Posted from nationalreview.com
Barack Obama
Foreign Policy
Reading
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
9
9
0
I don't need Mattis to tell me that foreign policy under Obama was a shit show. I had to operate in that environment, and for the life of me, I can't figure out where the man was trying to take us.
Get out of Iraq? A campaign promise, kept. I can't fault him for wanting to leave, but I can for how we left. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. What I can't excuse is repeated downplaying of ISIS (the "JV Team") as it conquered vast swaths of territory, then negligible response to the security problems that presented. That was a gong show.
Then there is Libya, which we destabilized and fostered regime change with no plan for the aftermath in exactly the same manner then Senator Obama criticized Bush for doing in Iraq. This was a completely unforced error. He then compounded that error by shipping Libyan weapons to surrogates in Syria... who promptly started using them to behave badly, some even joining ISIS. Libya is every bit as bad as Syria is even today, and it is ongoing. And don't even get me started on Benghazi.
Then there is Syria, which the Obama Administration couldn't decide if it was even a problem for us (spoiler alert, it was and is) and then compounded their non-engagement with unenforced red lines and feeble engagement. I can understand being a bit gun-shy after lousing up Libya, but Syria is a direct consequence of lousing up Libya and Iraq. His fecklessness there was complicit in well over a million dead and geopolitical consequences that continue today. And that weak response was a greenlight for...
Russia annexing the Crimea and invading Eastern Ukraine. Oh and shooting down a civilian jetliner. That little gong show continues on as a bloody stalemate, and Obama seemed all too eager to punt that problem to his successor, despite having two years left in office at the time of Crimea's conquest.
And then we have the Iran and Cuba deals, which I will lump together because both give the appearance of being rushed to completion in order to cement some form of legacy. The legacy of both is that both continue to be malign actors. Cuba in Venezuela (and elsewhere) and Iran in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere.
Obama might me the most f'd up President in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs, and that is saying something after George W Bush.
Get out of Iraq? A campaign promise, kept. I can't fault him for wanting to leave, but I can for how we left. Then again, hindsight is 20/20. What I can't excuse is repeated downplaying of ISIS (the "JV Team") as it conquered vast swaths of territory, then negligible response to the security problems that presented. That was a gong show.
Then there is Libya, which we destabilized and fostered regime change with no plan for the aftermath in exactly the same manner then Senator Obama criticized Bush for doing in Iraq. This was a completely unforced error. He then compounded that error by shipping Libyan weapons to surrogates in Syria... who promptly started using them to behave badly, some even joining ISIS. Libya is every bit as bad as Syria is even today, and it is ongoing. And don't even get me started on Benghazi.
Then there is Syria, which the Obama Administration couldn't decide if it was even a problem for us (spoiler alert, it was and is) and then compounded their non-engagement with unenforced red lines and feeble engagement. I can understand being a bit gun-shy after lousing up Libya, but Syria is a direct consequence of lousing up Libya and Iraq. His fecklessness there was complicit in well over a million dead and geopolitical consequences that continue today. And that weak response was a greenlight for...
Russia annexing the Crimea and invading Eastern Ukraine. Oh and shooting down a civilian jetliner. That little gong show continues on as a bloody stalemate, and Obama seemed all too eager to punt that problem to his successor, despite having two years left in office at the time of Crimea's conquest.
And then we have the Iran and Cuba deals, which I will lump together because both give the appearance of being rushed to completion in order to cement some form of legacy. The legacy of both is that both continue to be malign actors. Cuba in Venezuela (and elsewhere) and Iran in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere.
Obama might me the most f'd up President in my lifetime when it comes to foreign affairs, and that is saying something after George W Bush.
(9)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
To you, 1SG (Join to see), a toast for such a detailed and emphatic treatise of the mishandled occurences of President Obama in the Middle East... Outstanding!
(4)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SFC Travis Streeter - I have to be cautious about commenting on overall policy about the current President, as I am still serving.
It seems that President Trump has two guiding principles - avoiding entangling the US in conflicts and leveraging the overwhelming economic power of the United States to affect policy and behaviors of adversaries, rivals, and friends around the world. This has thus far been a mixed bag, with new trade agreements forged with Mexico, Canada, S Korea, Japan, and some other minor countries, and acrimony and confrontation with others, chiefly China. Economic pressure has been effective at affecting Russia, Syria, Iran, and N. Korea. Whether that translates to something more lasting and tangible remains to be seen. Venezuela policy was an abject failure so far. Maduro is stronger than ever, and now he has stronger ties to Russia and Cuba to boot. I think that will have lasting consequences.
Militarily, the Trump Administration has been effective, in defeating ISIS. Afghanistan remains an issue that bumps along indeterminately, with recent attempts to have peace talks scuttled.
I think it is too early to really have too much perspective on the big stuff. It will have to play out a bit more before we can call wins and loses.
It seems that President Trump has two guiding principles - avoiding entangling the US in conflicts and leveraging the overwhelming economic power of the United States to affect policy and behaviors of adversaries, rivals, and friends around the world. This has thus far been a mixed bag, with new trade agreements forged with Mexico, Canada, S Korea, Japan, and some other minor countries, and acrimony and confrontation with others, chiefly China. Economic pressure has been effective at affecting Russia, Syria, Iran, and N. Korea. Whether that translates to something more lasting and tangible remains to be seen. Venezuela policy was an abject failure so far. Maduro is stronger than ever, and now he has stronger ties to Russia and Cuba to boot. I think that will have lasting consequences.
Militarily, the Trump Administration has been effective, in defeating ISIS. Afghanistan remains an issue that bumps along indeterminately, with recent attempts to have peace talks scuttled.
I think it is too early to really have too much perspective on the big stuff. It will have to play out a bit more before we can call wins and loses.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
SSG Carlos Madden
Jim Mattis: 'Nations With Allies Thrive, Nations Without Allies Wither'
In an interview with NPR, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis stresses the importance of allies and he also criticizes shifting U.S. policy aims during the wars of the past 18 years.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
"I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."
And yet Obama is mentioned 5 times and Trump is mentioned 11 times. What exactly was NPR covering?
And yet Obama is mentioned 5 times and Trump is mentioned 11 times. What exactly was NPR covering?
(2)
(0)
SSG Carlos Madden
CMSgt (Join to see) - Haha. "Trump" is mentioned 11 times including captions in photos. It's not like every time "Trump" is mentioned it's negative or that mentions of each President is somehow indicative of what they're covering or how they feel about them.
(2)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
I appreciate you taking the time to link the NPR interview. I listened to the interview and not once was Obama mentioned (Biden was). The majority of the interview involved Steve Inskeep repeatedly trying to intice Mattis’s to discuss Trump. To be fair Trump is our current president and therefore relevant, but it was apparent Inskeep (NPR) was focused on Trump and not the book and certainly not Obama. I mean look at the title they choose to run with: Jim Mattis: 'Nations With Allies Thrive, Nations Without Allies Wither'.
While you are correct, NPR did cover Mattis, they did not begin to cover what was pointed out in the Nationreview which was my original observation.
While you are correct, NPR did cover Mattis, they did not begin to cover what was pointed out in the Nationreview which was my original observation.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google