Glorifying maybe is a strong word, but assuming war crimes as a constant of American history basically, we can appreciate the good things he did, specially in the context of bush before him and trump after him. Yes, it’s praising someone for not shitting his pants, but we are at that level unfortunately.
I mean, Obama did shit his pants, hard. He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden. America was going to have to reckon with the rot at the heart of its society sooner or later, but that rot was rapidly metastatizing fast through the War on Terror, and Obama had a golden opportunity to stop that but he didn’t. Compared to this one gigantic failure, all his successes (and most of his other failures) are footnotes. I view him the same as Biden: Someone who would’ve been a good or good-ish president in saner times, but who was woefully inadequate for the hour. The consequences of his failure weren’t as immediate as Biden’s so it’s harder to notice, but Obama shitting his pants is why we’re living through Trump 2 right now.
Youre right in that war crimes are a constant in american history, but America desperately needed Obama to be the peace president he’d said he’d be.
He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden.
In what way did you want him to ‘end’ the ‘War on Terror’, itself an immensely nebulous term for a broad range of foreign policy issues regarding non-state actors?
Perhaps nonintervention against ISIS? Or giving Afghanistan over to the Taliban ten years ahead of time? What form of ‘ending’ the War on Terror are we looking at? What ‘golden opportunity’ did he have?
Obama was an insufficient solution to America’s post-Bush problems. But the urge to counter the hagiography of some liberals about Obama with a broad-spectrum condemnation of the Obama’s administration’s policies is not really a reasonable response.
You replied to me in another comment asking how Obama was a step towards fascism, so consider this a response to that too.
In what way did you want him to ‘end’ the ‘War on Terror’, itself an immensely nebulous term for a broad range of foreign policy issues regarding non-state actors?
Stop fighting and bombing people in the Middle East for the sake of American imperialist ambitions, undo authoritarian post-9/11 legislation (see: ICE), return American society and politics to normalcy and not contribute to the expansion of executive power.
Perhaps nonintervention against ISIS? Or giving Afghanistan over to the Taliban ten years ahead of time?
Anti-ISIS intervention is more complicated, not the least because it started more than two full years after the death of Bin Laden, but Afghanistan? Absolutely, unequivocally yes. Afghanistan was never America’s to “give over” to anyone.
What ‘golden opportunity’ did he have?
Again, the death of Bin Laden. There was absolutely no reason for the war in Afghanistan to turn into an anti-Taliban crusade; he absolutely could and should have said “our job here is done” and left. Not doing so, alongside his expansion of the war on terror into new fronts, protected fascism in America from what should’ve been a leftward swing following Bush’s presidency.
Obama was an insufficient solution to America’s post-Bush problems. But the urge to counter the hagiography of some liberals about Obama with a broad-spectrum condemnation of the Obama’s administration’s policies is not really a reasonable response.
Insufficient is an understatement. American fascism (what will go on to become MAGA) grew through two main vectors: war and economic uncertainty. Obama did basically nothing to address the former and only took halfhearted measures to address the latter. He did some good things, but in the face of what he paved the way for, his accomplishments are about as important as whatever Hindenburg was up to before appointing Hitler as chancellor.
Stop fighting and bombing people in the Middle East for the sake of American imperialist ambitions,
Again, I asked for specifics, not generic descriptions which are passed around between people with a poor understanding of US foreign policy. What ‘fighting and bombing people in the Middle East’ are we talking about, if not ISIS?
You… you do realize that the President doesn’t have the power to do that unilaterally, right?
return American society and politics to normalcy
The same American society and politics which was spiraling into chaos over having a dreaded Black man as president? Goodness me, why didn’t Obama just make society and politics normal again??
and not contribute to the expansion of executive power.
This is a legitimate criticism.
Anti-ISIS intervention is more complicated, not the least because it started more than two full years after the death of Bin Laden, but Afghanistan? Absolutely, unequivocally yes. Afghanistan was never America’s to “give over” to anyone.
So with the government of Afghanistan specifically requesting that we not leave and let the country fall to foreign-funded fighters who wanted to impose a brutal authoritarian regime which was promising such delightful things as banning elections, women’s education, and speaking in public, that the US, morally, should have pulled out anyway against the will of Afghanistan because [checks notes] we are Bad Camp and Isolationism is the only route, even for ongoing issues.
As Ukraine is not our’s to ‘give over’ to anyone, should we cut aid to them as well? After all, it would be terrible if we were meddling in things that didn’t involve us again.
Again, the death of Bin Laden. There was absolutely no reason for the war in Afghanistan to turn into an anti-Taliban crusade;
“To turn into”
Bruh, are you being serious?
Do you not remember the Afghanistan War at all?
he absolutely could and should have said “our job here is done” and left.
So your argument is that America has no duty to assist countries after invading them; that after an invasion, the correct response is not to attempt to ensure stability by reinforcing a democratically elected government, but instead hand over all locals who helped or were indifferent to us to reactionary paramilitaries so they can be tortured to death and their families brutalized with them?
For that fucking matter, do you understand the power that the US President has with regards to wars? Executive power makes forcing a war relatively easy, but wars are approved and directed in great detail by legislation from Congress.
Not doing so, alongside his expansion of the war on terror into new fronts,
What new fronts were those, again?
American fascism (what will go on to become MAGA) grew through two main vectors: war and economic uncertainty. Obama did basically nothing to address the former and only took halfhearted measures to address the latter.
Insufficiency in opposition is a far fucking cry from a step towards towards fascism.
He did some good things, but in the face of what he paved the way for, his accomplishments are about as important as whatever Hindenburg was up to before appointing Hitler as chancellor.
That’s a grotesque comparison without merit. If you want to make comparisons to Weimar Germany, Marx or Muller would be more correct.
I don’t give a damn about arguing Obama’s “good things”, as those wouldn’t wash away the bad anyway; my point is that playing the mirror image of liberals who put on nostalgia glasses for Obama is not really a reasonable alternative. My argument is against incorrect condemnations of Obama’s policy on the grounds that the condemnations are incorrect, not that Obama deserves a C instead of an F on his report card, or that Obama did Really Great Work, Honest elsewhere.
To preface, I’m trying to make the argument that Obama continuing (and in some cases expanding) American operations in the Middle East contributed to fascism in America, not trying to pass moral judgement on him, so I’m going to keep my response to morality-based arguments short. Let me know if you want me a longer response to something.
What ‘fighting and bombing people in the Middle East’ are we talking about, if not ISIS?
Well aside from the obvious Afghanistan, you have Libya, Somalia and other places where America is/was conducting so-called counterterrorism operations. If Obama had stopped these conflicts, it’d have been possible to make a decision on fighting ISIS (which America started doing way after the death of Bin Laden) with less war on terror baggage.
You… you do realize that the President doesn’t have the power to do that unilaterally, right?
Half the things I mentioned aren’t strictly within the preview of the president. However, Obama was also the head of the majority party in Congress and came at the head of a hard leftward swing after Bush. He could’ve likely made significant progress on this front if he wanted. At the very least, he had a massive podium from which he could’ve pushed for de-Bushification.
The same American society and politics which was spiraling into chaos over having a dreaded Black man as president? Goodness me, why didn’t Obama just make society and politics normal again??
I think it’s obvious that this is not what I was talking about. Black man as president fever and war fever were separate phenomena, and while there was very little Obama could’ve done about the former short of ceasing to exist (and probably even then), there was a lot he could’ve done about the former, at least on the blue side of the political spectrum.
So with the government of Afghanistan specifically requesting that we not leave…
Making an exception here, though I probably shouldn’t.
The so-caled government of Afghanistan was better described as the American-installed occupation government, and here’s the thing: The people of Afghanistan were never going to accept an occupation government; as long as the American-installed government was fighting on behalf of and the Taliban were fighting against America, there was only one way this was going to end short of straight up American colonial rule. It’s not pretty, but what we’re seeing now is the start of the painful and sometimes bloody process of Afghans forging their own path forward, and within the context of that process the only thing American presence did was make the Taiban that much stronger by giving them very impressive and very real anti-imperial credentials. When the people of Afghanistan get rid of the Taliban, they’ll have done it in spite of, not because of, American interference. Hell, what America turned into its so-called democratic government was the North Afghanistan Alliance, an organic anti-Taliban resistance organization; now 25 years later that doesn’t exist and Taliban rule is unchallenged. Okay rant over, back on topic.
As Ukraine is not our’s to ‘give over’ to anyone, should we cut aid to them as well?
Nowhere does my argument imply that given that America isn’t at war with Russia, probably for the good of everyone involved.
So your argument is that America has no duty to assist countries after invading them…
See the bit on Afghanistan.
Do you not remember the Afghanistan War at all?
Nope. If it was an anti-Taliban crusade from the start, then that was a futile endeavor from the start and never should’ve continued as long as it did and the point stands anyway.
What new fronts were those, again?
Libya and Yemen?
Insufficiency in opposition is a far fucking cry from a step towards towards fascism.
He took the momentum against the factors that were building up fascism in the US (I focused on the war on terror here, but economic and cultural reasons were obviously just as important) and smothered it via his inaction. He was not just insufficient; in the areas that mattered, he did either nothing or basically nothing. My condemnation of his administration is based on the fact that he was fundamentally barking up the wrong tree while intentionally ignoring the right tree, effectively providing cover for the right from the left. He was a step towards fascism in the same away that throwing away your life jacket is a step towards sinking.
That’s a grotesque comparison without merit. If you want to make comparisons to Weimar Germany, Marx or Muller would be more correct.
It’s admittedly a very loose comparison, but he was a political leader whose career (I’m predicting) becomes historically irrelevant due to his failure to stop fascism.
Well aside from the obvious Afghanistan, you have Libya, Somalia and other places where America is/was conducting so-called counterterrorism operations.
Libya was not part of the War on Terror and American involvement was minimal. I guess unless your position is that the UN can go fuck itself.
Somalia you’re looking at minimal involvement at the behest of the Somali government, the UN, AND the African Union, overwhelmingly not until 2015 and 2016. At some point, what you’re arguing for isn’t “Respect national sovereignty” but “National sovereignty does not grant the right to request help from Bad Camp”
If Obama had stopped these conflicts, it’d have been possible to make a decision on fighting ISIS (which America started doing way after the death of Bin Laden) with less war on terror baggage.
Would it? What arguments made here would suddenly disappear if Obama had reduced our involvement in Somalia but fought ISIS anyway? What arguments would even be weakened?
Half the things I mentioned aren’t strictly within the preview of the president. However, Obama was also the head of the majority party in Congress and came at the head of a hard leftward swing after Bush. He could’ve likely made significant progress on this front if he wanted.
That’s not a realistic assessment of US politics in 2009. Not even close. Fuck’s sake, have you seen the Dem party today, wherein not only are the average ghouls more left-amiable than they used to be (damnation by faint praise, mind), but with the Blue Dogs almost entirely massacred and tossed out of the party? You’re saying that Obama, who struggled to pass the landmark legislation he campaigned on, could easily have made ‘significant progress’ on moving the country in some vague leftward direction when his own party was already balking at the very moderate proposals he was making away from right-wing shitheaddery? Not to mention the absolute opposition of the entirety of the GOP, which was unprecedented.
The so-caled government of Afghanistan was better described as the American-installed occupation government
Jesus fucking Christ, what?
The people of Afghanistan were never going to accept an occupation government
Oh, cool, so they haven’t accepted the Taliban, the occupation government of Pakistan, right?
Oh, ‘anti-imperialism’ only counts against Bad Camp?
This utterly blinkered ‘analysis’ on the left is utter dogshit with no respect for the history of Afghanistan or its current society.
as long as the American-installed government was fighting on behalf of and the Taliban were fighting against America, there was only one way this was going to end short of straight up American colonial rule. It’s not pretty, but what we’re seeing now is the start of the painful and sometimes bloody process of Afghans forging their own path forward and within the context of that process the only thing American presence did was make the Taiban that much stronger by giving them very impressive and very real anti-imperial credentials.
What the fuck.
No. We’re fucking done here. I don’t play games with Taliban apologists.
Ok, so let me appreciate him for shitting his pants less than the guys before and after him. Yes, he didn’t stop it, arguably accelerated a bit, but the other guys where pedal to the metal while punching you in the face. Obamacare was bad, but it was better than injecting bleach. Droning weddings was bad, but better than ethnic cleansing. Not prosecuting Cheney was bad, but better than selling pardons for 2M a pop. You get the idea.
In the land of the blind, the one eyed is king…
Maybe that’s true, but even so that’s no excuse to glorify him. Obama was a step towards, not away from, fascism, and a decisive one at that.
Glorifying maybe is a strong word, but assuming war crimes as a constant of American history basically, we can appreciate the good things he did, specially in the context of bush before him and trump after him. Yes, it’s praising someone for not shitting his pants, but we are at that level unfortunately.
I mean, Obama did shit his pants, hard. He did do some good things, but he failed the test given to him by history same as Biden by not ending the War on Terror after the death of Bin Laden. America was going to have to reckon with the rot at the heart of its society sooner or later, but that rot was rapidly metastatizing fast through the War on Terror, and Obama had a golden opportunity to stop that but he didn’t. Compared to this one gigantic failure, all his successes (and most of his other failures) are footnotes. I view him the same as Biden: Someone who would’ve been a good or good-ish president in saner times, but who was woefully inadequate for the hour. The consequences of his failure weren’t as immediate as Biden’s so it’s harder to notice, but Obama shitting his pants is why we’re living through Trump 2 right now.
Youre right in that war crimes are a constant in american history, but America desperately needed Obama to be the peace president he’d said he’d be.
In what way did you want him to ‘end’ the ‘War on Terror’, itself an immensely nebulous term for a broad range of foreign policy issues regarding non-state actors?
Perhaps nonintervention against ISIS? Or giving Afghanistan over to the Taliban ten years ahead of time? What form of ‘ending’ the War on Terror are we looking at? What ‘golden opportunity’ did he have?
Obama was an insufficient solution to America’s post-Bush problems. But the urge to counter the hagiography of some liberals about Obama with a broad-spectrum condemnation of the Obama’s administration’s policies is not really a reasonable response.
You replied to me in another comment asking how Obama was a step towards fascism, so consider this a response to that too.
Stop fighting and bombing people in the Middle East for the sake of American imperialist ambitions, undo authoritarian post-9/11 legislation (see: ICE), return American society and politics to normalcy and not contribute to the expansion of executive power.
Anti-ISIS intervention is more complicated, not the least because it started more than two full years after the death of Bin Laden, but Afghanistan? Absolutely, unequivocally yes. Afghanistan was never America’s to “give over” to anyone.
Again, the death of Bin Laden. There was absolutely no reason for the war in Afghanistan to turn into an anti-Taliban crusade; he absolutely could and should have said “our job here is done” and left. Not doing so, alongside his expansion of the war on terror into new fronts, protected fascism in America from what should’ve been a leftward swing following Bush’s presidency.
Insufficient is an understatement. American fascism (what will go on to become MAGA) grew through two main vectors: war and economic uncertainty. Obama did basically nothing to address the former and only took halfhearted measures to address the latter. He did some good things, but in the face of what he paved the way for, his accomplishments are about as important as whatever Hindenburg was up to before appointing Hitler as chancellor.
Again, I asked for specifics, not generic descriptions which are passed around between people with a poor understanding of US foreign policy. What ‘fighting and bombing people in the Middle East’ are we talking about, if not ISIS?
You… you do realize that the President doesn’t have the power to do that unilaterally, right?
The same American society and politics which was spiraling into chaos over having a dreaded Black man as president? Goodness me, why didn’t Obama just make society and politics normal again??
This is a legitimate criticism.
So with the government of Afghanistan specifically requesting that we not leave and let the country fall to foreign-funded fighters who wanted to impose a brutal authoritarian regime which was promising such delightful things as banning elections, women’s education, and speaking in public, that the US, morally, should have pulled out anyway against the will of Afghanistan because [checks notes] we are Bad Camp and Isolationism is the only route, even for ongoing issues.
As Ukraine is not our’s to ‘give over’ to anyone, should we cut aid to them as well? After all, it would be terrible if we were meddling in things that didn’t involve us again.
“To turn into”
Bruh, are you being serious?
Do you not remember the Afghanistan War at all?
So your argument is that America has no duty to assist countries after invading them; that after an invasion, the correct response is not to attempt to ensure stability by reinforcing a democratically elected government, but instead hand over all locals who helped or were indifferent to us to reactionary paramilitaries so they can be tortured to death and their families brutalized with them?
For that fucking matter, do you understand the power that the US President has with regards to wars? Executive power makes forcing a war relatively easy, but wars are approved and directed in great detail by legislation from Congress.
What new fronts were those, again?
Insufficiency in opposition is a far fucking cry from a step towards towards fascism.
That’s a grotesque comparison without merit. If you want to make comparisons to Weimar Germany, Marx or Muller would be more correct.
I don’t give a damn about arguing Obama’s “good things”, as those wouldn’t wash away the bad anyway; my point is that playing the mirror image of liberals who put on nostalgia glasses for Obama is not really a reasonable alternative. My argument is against incorrect condemnations of Obama’s policy on the grounds that the condemnations are incorrect, not that Obama deserves a C instead of an F on his report card, or that Obama did Really Great Work, Honest elsewhere.
To preface, I’m trying to make the argument that Obama continuing (and in some cases expanding) American operations in the Middle East contributed to fascism in America, not trying to pass moral judgement on him, so I’m going to keep my response to morality-based arguments short. Let me know if you want me a longer response to something.
Well aside from the obvious Afghanistan, you have Libya, Somalia and other places where America is/was conducting so-called counterterrorism operations. If Obama had stopped these conflicts, it’d have been possible to make a decision on fighting ISIS (which America started doing way after the death of Bin Laden) with less war on terror baggage.
Half the things I mentioned aren’t strictly within the preview of the president. However, Obama was also the head of the majority party in Congress and came at the head of a hard leftward swing after Bush. He could’ve likely made significant progress on this front if he wanted. At the very least, he had a massive podium from which he could’ve pushed for de-Bushification.
I think it’s obvious that this is not what I was talking about. Black man as president fever and war fever were separate phenomena, and while there was very little Obama could’ve done about the former short of ceasing to exist (and probably even then), there was a lot he could’ve done about the former, at least on the blue side of the political spectrum.
Making an exception here, though I probably shouldn’t.
The so-caled government of Afghanistan was better described as the American-installed occupation government, and here’s the thing: The people of Afghanistan were never going to accept an occupation government; as long as the American-installed government was fighting on behalf of and the Taliban were fighting against America, there was only one way this was going to end short of straight up American colonial rule. It’s not pretty, but what we’re seeing now is the start of the painful and sometimes bloody process of Afghans forging their own path forward, and within the context of that process the only thing American presence did was make the Taiban that much stronger by giving them very impressive and very real anti-imperial credentials. When the people of Afghanistan get rid of the Taliban, they’ll have done it in spite of, not because of, American interference. Hell, what America turned into its so-called democratic government was the North Afghanistan Alliance, an organic anti-Taliban resistance organization; now 25 years later that doesn’t exist and Taliban rule is unchallenged. Okay rant over, back on topic.
Nowhere does my argument imply that given that America isn’t at war with Russia, probably for the good of everyone involved.
See the bit on Afghanistan.
Nope. If it was an anti-Taliban crusade from the start, then that was a futile endeavor from the start and never should’ve continued as long as it did and the point stands anyway.
Libya and Yemen?
He took the momentum against the factors that were building up fascism in the US (I focused on the war on terror here, but economic and cultural reasons were obviously just as important) and smothered it via his inaction. He was not just insufficient; in the areas that mattered, he did either nothing or basically nothing. My condemnation of his administration is based on the fact that he was fundamentally barking up the wrong tree while intentionally ignoring the right tree, effectively providing cover for the right from the left. He was a step towards fascism in the same away that throwing away your life jacket is a step towards sinking.
It’s admittedly a very loose comparison, but he was a political leader whose career (I’m predicting) becomes historically irrelevant due to his failure to stop fascism.
Libya was not part of the War on Terror and American involvement was minimal. I guess unless your position is that the UN can go fuck itself.
Somalia you’re looking at minimal involvement at the behest of the Somali government, the UN, AND the African Union, overwhelmingly not until 2015 and 2016. At some point, what you’re arguing for isn’t “Respect national sovereignty” but “National sovereignty does not grant the right to request help from Bad Camp”
Would it? What arguments made here would suddenly disappear if Obama had reduced our involvement in Somalia but fought ISIS anyway? What arguments would even be weakened?
That’s not a realistic assessment of US politics in 2009. Not even close. Fuck’s sake, have you seen the Dem party today, wherein not only are the average ghouls more left-amiable than they used to be (damnation by faint praise, mind), but with the Blue Dogs almost entirely massacred and tossed out of the party? You’re saying that Obama, who struggled to pass the landmark legislation he campaigned on, could easily have made ‘significant progress’ on moving the country in some vague leftward direction when his own party was already balking at the very moderate proposals he was making away from right-wing shitheaddery? Not to mention the absolute opposition of the entirety of the GOP, which was unprecedented.
Jesus fucking Christ, what?
Oh, cool, so they haven’t accepted the Taliban, the occupation government of Pakistan, right?
Oh, ‘anti-imperialism’ only counts against Bad Camp?
This utterly blinkered ‘analysis’ on the left is utter dogshit with no respect for the history of Afghanistan or its current society.
What the fuck.
No. We’re fucking done here. I don’t play games with Taliban apologists.
Ok, so let me appreciate him for shitting his pants less than the guys before and after him. Yes, he didn’t stop it, arguably accelerated a bit, but the other guys where pedal to the metal while punching you in the face. Obamacare was bad, but it was better than injecting bleach. Droning weddings was bad, but better than ethnic cleansing. Not prosecuting Cheney was bad, but better than selling pardons for 2M a pop. You get the idea.
How was he a step towards fascism?
I bet you were a genocide Joe voter.
Well I’m not American so voting for anyone would’ve been a pretty egregious case of election fraud, but why so?
So your opinion is irrelevant until you give your country of origin so we can all know the shithole you’ve created for yourself.
My shithole is run by a military dictatorship that took power in a coup when I was an elementary schooler, happy now?
Go back to hexbear you fascist cuck.