I posted on the subject of Obama's domestic legacy yesterday and today I turn, with even more uncertainty, to his foreign policy. I stress the uncertainty because I have read enough history books to know that the complexity of foreign affairs is of such magnitude as to frequently fool the active participants themselves, let alone passing commentators like myself. Even so, certain specific acts of foreign policy have been made by Obama and with the preceding caveat in mind I think we are free to comment.
First, there is his policy 'south of the border' in which the main move has been to bring to an end the deep freeze in American-Cuba relations. I am happy to be contradicted by those with greater knowledge (plenty of them!) but it seems to me to have been a sensible move. The Castro crime family is reaching its end and even were it to continue in some other guise I can see no advantage in the continuation of a 'cold war' that serves no useful purpose. If the President was to freeze relations with every cruel and crooked tyrant in the world then the State Department could be cut by 90% - yes, I know, not entirely a bad thing! The sad fact is that Cuba, like Venezuela and others will continue on the path of Marxist socialism which, of course, is merely a cloak for power-mad regimes to keep control, but in the end their people will erupt. By maintaining 'friendly' relations, at least the people will not blame the Americans for their plight.
Next, God help me, I move to the Middle East. The entire region is a fester-pot of incredible complexity in which it is impossible to pick sides, or at least winning sides. At least, and very sensibly, Obama has kept American boots off the ground and has mainly confined himself to using stand-off air power mainly against IS which, in contrast to other factions is a clear and obvious menace to the West. In addition he has aided other factions to fight IS but probably he realises that in the end there can be no certainty as to who comes out on top and what their nature will be. In about a hundred years the books will come out to explain it all but in the meantime I think he is right to keep America at a distance.
Finally, on to the real menace in world affairs - China! There is no doubt that sooner or later China will move to demonstrate its very real power. Probably they will begin by enforcing their claim on jurisdiction over the South China Sea. This absolutely and definitely has to be resisted even to the point of war - in my opinion speaking as an ex-Corporal! This will be a problem not for Obama but for his successor. Unfortunately, he or she(!) will already be on a back-foot because the Philippines under the leadership of another mouth-dribbling thug has decided to take a violently anti-American stance. No doubt Chinese gold played its part in that particular volte-face and we can expect similar 'persuasion' to be applied to other nations in the region. It may well be that the next American President will have to resort to economic 'warfare' against China before they send in the carriers. Chine's economy is brittle to say the least and it will be a tempting target.
So, all in all, I think Obama's 'do little' policy has been about right and definitely preferable to some previous Presidents. What follows, I cannot say, but I tremble, sir, I tremble!
Good gods man, you've had some sort of reality seizure. Fix yourself a toddy and lie down. It will pass.
I'll hazard a different guess about China. For better or worse Chinese and American economic fates have been intertwined, and we count on them to keep some control over North Korea. One upside to having sent China manufacturing jobs is that we will continue to ratchet down from nuclear or any other military standoff. There will be lots of eye gouging, including over the South China Sea, but major policy will probably not change much on either side.
Posted by: Bob | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 01:11
I agree, Bob, on the interdependence (to a degree) of the Sino-American economies and as I indicated in my post, the Chinese leadership will be extremely reluctant to see a sharp downturn for an aspiring Chinese proletariat which is experiencing wealth beyond their dreams. However, do not under-estimate the drive and the stupidity of ultra-nationalism - just consider Hitler, the Kaiser, Napoleon and so on 'ad nauseum'!
Posted by: David Duff | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 09:07
Damn Duffers before reading your glowing report on Obama's foreign policy I was ready to castigate every single foreign policy of his. I love to hate him as you probably know. Now at least not so much for his foreign policy as your analysis has done much to change my mind. Well at least his domestic policies and his anti British actions (BP and Churchill's bust[his dad was a Mau Mau or some such I believe]) are something that I can perpetuate my hatred of him. I agree with Bob on China and it appears you do also with some reservation.
Posted by: Antisthenes | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 11:17
One thing (among many) is very soon to be a major major (and yep, 'Catch 22) problem can be described in a word - well maybe two - Erdogan primarily and Turkey generally!
I expect that November 8th there'll be something similar to an earthquake ... no, no, not the US elections. Syrian government troops with Russian "help" make the decisive move on the western half of Syria - the stated goal having (according to US media *experts) to do with Aleppo - but the actuality will be consolidating Assad's control to the outskirts of Raqqa.
There is a strong likelihood there'll be some sort of "mix-up" with Turkey which, as Turkey is NATO's eastern bulwark means mucho "gnashing of teeth and rending of garments" in capitals west of the Aegean and north of the Caucuses.
Too, there's soon to be another major major owing to Erdogan's designs on the US ally "Kurdistan" from Mosul and toward the same Syrian area of Raqqa which is really gonna put Obama's ME Strategic Legacy under the ... well I was gonna say "microscope" but ... oh well.
Posted by: JK | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 11:43
JK, Your takes on Syria and Turkey are fairly convincing. There's also potential for other mischief by the Russians. Forget Trump partisanship, the Fancy Bear techniques will probably be used in a lot of places and ways:
Why Vladimir Putin’s Russia Is Backing Donald Trump
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-hillary-clinton-united-states-europe-516895
Posted by: Bob | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 15:21
Just so Bob &
https://20committee.com/2016/11/03/media-bites-on-trumps-kremlin-ties-but-clintons-are-long-standing-and-deep/
Tell you the truth Bob, I'm not so troubled with Vlad so much as I am Erdogan primarily and Saudi Arabia generally. Not so much Iran either except for the Shi'a militias being so ... uhm, well there's a Hillary problem all tied up in that too and I realize how cliche' is, "its complicated" but, I've stuff to do this CST pm business hours ... anyway just for now; the militias being subject to temptation perhaps?
And the above Combined with what I been going on and on about the last 60 or so days (you don't get my email service Bob tut tut) concerning the Greater Red Sea not so particularly for purposes hereon as Yemen is very particularly - the Saudis have been trying to drag us [the US] in to the little picnic they started up March 2015, ...
Well Bob, its complicated and me 'n you well, we're thankfully just two votes cancelling each other out!
Posted by: JK | Friday, 04 November 2016 at 21:00
JK, the article mentions places other than the US, including GB and the ME. Forget Trump, the GRU is going to be a lot of trouble: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fancy_Bear
Posted by: Bob | Saturday, 05 November 2016 at 00:41