Peter1469
12-25-2015, 01:08 PM
Slate brings a dismal context to Obama's foreign policy (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2015/12/president_obama_s_foreign_policy_legacy_is_hanging _in_the_balance.html) achievements / failures. Slate.... :wink: Et' tu (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Et_tu,_Brute%3F), Slate?
The president has some good and some bad in the world of foreign policy. But according to Brutus Slate the bad news is tangible and real while the good news is "provisional."
As 2015 comes to an end, President Obama’s foreign policy is either crumbling amid disaster or beaming on a victory lap. The case for the latter view: the Iran nuclear deal, the opening to Cuba, the climate accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the rebuilding of alliances across Asia. The case for the former: the rise of ISIS, the shattering of Iraq and Syria, and the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.
The problem with the president’s list of triumphs is that they’re provisional, while the failures are all too tangible and threatening. The potential for peace, prosperity, and global improvement, arising from his diplomatic achievements, is considerable, even transformative; but the results aren’t yet in—no one can foresee whether Iran will abide by the deal, Cuba will evolve toward democracy, the world’s nations will meet the warming targets, or the TPP will be ratified. By contrast, the Middle East is in flames, a million refugees are flooding into Europe, Americans are fearful, and the prospects for a swift, stable settlement in Syria—military, political, and humanitarian—seem dim.
President Obama sees his current poor ratings in polls as stemming from a failure to communicate. Aides say that he plans to spend more time next year explaining his policies and describing what he has been doing both to defeat ISIS abroad and to stop acts of terrorism at home.
Messaging is part of Obama’s problem—a puzzling fact, given how eloquently and persuasively he’s gone before the nation to discuss the complexities of race, faith, and gun violence. Maybe it’s because America has been dealing with those issues since its inception, whereas it has only recently confronted foreign terrorists and hasn’t engaged in a serious conversation about their implications.
The president has some good and some bad in the world of foreign policy. But according to Brutus Slate the bad news is tangible and real while the good news is "provisional."
As 2015 comes to an end, President Obama’s foreign policy is either crumbling amid disaster or beaming on a victory lap. The case for the latter view: the Iran nuclear deal, the opening to Cuba, the climate accord, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the rebuilding of alliances across Asia. The case for the former: the rise of ISIS, the shattering of Iraq and Syria, and the attacks in Paris and San Bernardino.
The problem with the president’s list of triumphs is that they’re provisional, while the failures are all too tangible and threatening. The potential for peace, prosperity, and global improvement, arising from his diplomatic achievements, is considerable, even transformative; but the results aren’t yet in—no one can foresee whether Iran will abide by the deal, Cuba will evolve toward democracy, the world’s nations will meet the warming targets, or the TPP will be ratified. By contrast, the Middle East is in flames, a million refugees are flooding into Europe, Americans are fearful, and the prospects for a swift, stable settlement in Syria—military, political, and humanitarian—seem dim.
President Obama sees his current poor ratings in polls as stemming from a failure to communicate. Aides say that he plans to spend more time next year explaining his policies and describing what he has been doing both to defeat ISIS abroad and to stop acts of terrorism at home.
Messaging is part of Obama’s problem—a puzzling fact, given how eloquently and persuasively he’s gone before the nation to discuss the complexities of race, faith, and gun violence. Maybe it’s because America has been dealing with those issues since its inception, whereas it has only recently confronted foreign terrorists and hasn’t engaged in a serious conversation about their implications.