12-31-2015, 01:49 PM
(12-31-2015, 11:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I don't think he was "protecting" Obama as much as he was trying to illustrate the fact that he has indeed engaged in acts of war hence "not seeking peace". His defenders would actually be trying to downplay all of that.
These debates are actually quite humorous and pointless. Both President Obama and President Bush were quite different from candidate Obama and candidate Bush.
I maintain that foreign policy is largely dictated by the career staffers. Like Obama said, it's different when you're actually sitting in the chair [and career policy experts begin educating and advising you]. And 9/11 dramatically changed Bush's outlook and approach, understandably.
And it makes sense if you actually think about it. We cannot have effective foreign policy [OK, maybe effective is a poor choice] if you are changing positions every 4-8 years. The "bad actors" are playing the long game, and a POTUS in their 4-8 years can only move the needle a little one way or the other, which is why it's the career staffers really shaping the long-term trends.
We still live in fear of the belief being isolationist allowed WWII to happen. But the world is a very different place now - radicals and nuclear proliferation are threats, Russia and China are not (other than economically, for the latter).
