News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Obama's Foreign Policy in the Second Term - Continuity or Change?  (Read 1916 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
This follows on from a discussion with colleagues today, where we were discussing the possible ramifications of Obama's re-election for the rest of the world.

I think that it's fair to say that his foreign policy had been marked, so far, by his desire for the United States to take more of a back seat in tackling international crises, such as the Libyan uprising, and the current conflict Syria, whilst maintaining some areas of foreign policy which some had hoped he might change, such as the use of Drones in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The question is, will these trends continue in his second term, or will he try to get the United States more involved in the Middle East once more, in an attempt to broker some kind of peace deal, and/or perhaps take a more prominent role in dealing with Syria, and restraining Israel in relation to Iran?

I suspect that, at least for the rest of this year, we're not going to see a great deal of change, but that he will be forced to become more engaged with the problems in the Middle East, because of the increasing instability there.  What are your thoughts?
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente

Offline Sir_Godspeed

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2070
  • Country: no
  • "Bees. My God" was an obscure Batman quote.
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy in the Second Term - Continuity or Change?
« Reply #1 on: November 7, 2012, 01:15:02 PM »
Isn't the situation with regards to a possible US or Nato-intervention in Syria hamstrung by Russia? I was under the impression that they were the ones that had separate interests there.

Offline Irisado

  • A Light in The Grim-Darkness ~ Guns Don't Kill People, Copyright Stats Do | Farseer | Reporting Live! from the Crime Scene | Somewhat behind the times
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11480
  • Country: gb
  • Soñando debajo del arco iris
  • Armies: Administrators must not play 40K
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy in the Second Term - Continuity or Change?
« Reply #2 on: November 7, 2012, 01:30:59 PM »
Isn't the situation with regards to a possible US or Nato-intervention in Syria hamstrung by Russia? I was under the impression that they were the ones that had separate interests there.

Absolutely, but from what I've understood of Obama's policy, he's very reluctant for the United States to intervene in Syria directly anyway, and certainly David Cameron has been far more vocal on the subject in recent times (as he was over Libya).

Note that I'm not saying that there should be an intervention, rather I'm just highlighting that the US has adopted a more low key approach to interventions, thus far, under Obama.
You haunt my in-box like an ex-girl friend could only dream of.

The Forum Rules - Please Read and Remember Them.

Soñando con una playa donde brilla el sol, un arco iris ilumina el cielo, y el mar espejea iridescentemente


Offline augustmanifesto

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 772
  • Country: 00
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy in the Second Term - Continuity or Change?
« Reply #4 on: December 8, 2012, 10:59:31 PM »
This is an interesting question. I think it's premature to think about the structure of second term policy (beyond it's broad contours, e.g. strategic rebalancing (the new term for the pivot)) until two things happen. 

(1) top cabinet posts have to be settled with a new Sec Def (Panetta is surely going and we'll know the replacement in the next week and a half or so), Secretary of State (Clinton is leaving) , and CIA Director. Also, there will be high turnover senior staffs in national security organizations, especially in the National security council. These personalities will play a key role in driving policy decision for the second term. No major new decisions will be made without them.

(2) The state of play on the fiscal cliff has to run its course in the near term. With the threat of sequestration looming (including potential $550 billion cuts to defense organizations over the next decade) no new major decision will be made. We should have an idea of how this will shake out as soon as the end of this week,  though likely a bit later.

With both of these issues addressed, there will be enough stability for the administration to start making decisions. And depending on how these issues shape up -- who's in, who's out, what the deficit deal looks like -- we'll have a better idea of the constraints that will factor on policy making.

That said, the overall parameters  or inclinations that will set the agenda for decisions are fairly clear. There will be to deepend and better define strategic re balancing (I agree with the poster above). Obamas first trip after realiction was to ASEAN/Thailand/Burma/Cambodia on the heels of Panetta and Clinton -- pretty clear signal if there was any doubts.  There will be a particular question, I think, on US economic engagement in Asia and US power in SE Asia. US military response to China is pretty much locked in at this point with Air-Sea Battle(budgets will be a big factor here).

The top legal advisor to DoD recently has made remarks about conceptualizing the end of the war on terrorism/ the expiration of the Authoriization on the Use of Military Force v. al Qaeda and affiliates, which I understand to be pretty representative of advanced  thinking in the administration. It's also my understanding that in connection with this, the administration is taking oversight and procedures governing drones more seriously (the white house got spooked by having to prepare briefing materials for a potential in coming Romney administration and realized he had not thought about this at all; also, the administration is institutionalizing its targeted killings approach with its "disposition Matrix" to facilitate inter agency counter terrorism initiatives, a trend that is likely to continue).

The final piece is what happens in the world. If Assad uses chemical weapons, the United States has now committed to act, though Obama has not defined action in this regard. The other immediate question is Iranian negations, nuclear program and whether Israel will strike this coming summer.

As the above develop, we can start to answer the question as we go :)

apologies for being a bit rushed and lack of hyperlinks -- I trust your google fu is up to the task pending your interest.

Best,

August

join 40k0 on facebook!

Quote
Biff Puzzled his brains. He thunk fast. The Emp was the Emp, natch. Techs worshiped the Emp. Even Scum swore by the Emp...The Emp was megabossgod. Yet who was the Emp? Where was the Emp?
Everwhere. Nowhere
Somewhere.
Not Here...
So maybe nowhere near.
Maybe the Emp was further away than Biff could imagine. And even more mega.

Offline Tyranid_Wannabe

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1042
  • Country: 00
  • Es ist ein schönes Schiff
Re: Obama's Foreign Policy in the Second Term - Continuity or Change?
« Reply #5 on: January 17, 2013, 05:02:54 AM »
I would also add that Obama has also been trying to get more 'allies' involved in issues around the world rather than charging America straight in. The intervention by Britain and France (with support from the USA) in Libya would be the classic example. More recently the 'islamist' rising in Mali in which France and a coalition of African nations plus the Mali government will seem to be doing most of the 'grunt' work whilst the USA only provides support and training. I would argue this approach is much more effective in both cost terms and international reputation for the USA as other nations are now expected to contribute a lot more to actions the USA wants to take. A more multinational approach I believe is delivering stronger results for America over the more unilateral approach. 

Heed my wisdom, ignore my ignorance

 


Powered by EzPortal