Obama's surrender at West Point

[The Brain]

Yes let's take our opinions from two liberal papers and a Murdoch rag.

[alfred russel]

I don't quite get what he has done wrong. I understand that people who want to bomb China and Russia are disappointed, but otherwise he seems okay.

I'd say that, for me, there are two big problems.  First, he walked into office knowing that one of the main faults of his predecessor was falling in love with the gadgets and shortcuts to getting desired results, no matter the cost in constitutional erosion.  He even articulated the problem well.  He then fell in love with the very same things, and became the opposite of the "open and honest" chief executive he promised to be.  I know that some of that was probably inevitable, once he really understood the stakes and the alternatives, but he still talks the talk.  Second, he was shit at getting actual legislation passed (yeah, I know he had Reid and Pelosi as anchors, but still...) even when he had majorities and even a supermajority in the Senate.

Some of his policies have been bad, but that i don't hold against him as much; I have thought every president has had some bad policies.  What I hold against him is that he is one of the smartest presidents we have ever had, and has failed to use any of those smarts.

I was really thinking in terms of international policies, not domestic.

Internationally, it seems it is easy to identify some mistakes. Syria's red line for instance. But I don't think any of those really do any meaningful damage to the US. Probably the biggest change his administration has brought in terms of international relations is that the US is now much more popular than it was under Bush. Obama may be the best presidential ambassador we have ever had.

[crazy canuck]

Obama had an international policy?

It is true that Obama was much more popular initially.  But much like his Nobel prize he didnt actually do anything to earn that.  And as time went by he still didnt.

[Jacob]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

[grumbler]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

Invisible pivots are the best kind.  They sound decisive without changing anything.

[alfred russel]

Obama had an international policy?

Can speaking in platitudes and not doing much be considered a policy? In any case, it is working.

It is true that Obama was much more popular initially.  But much like his Nobel prize he didnt actually do anything to earn that.  And as time went by he still didnt.

He is still wildly popular, at least in comparison to the previous president.

[Ed Anger]

I like his shooting browns with hellfires from Drones.

[Jacob]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

Invisible pivots are the best kind.  They sound decisive without changing anything.

Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?

[grumbler]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

Invisible pivots are the best kind.  They sound decisive without changing anything.

Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?

I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical.  The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.

[crazy canuck]

He is still wildly popular, at least in comparison to the previous president.

If you set the bar low enough anyone can be great.

[Jacob]

I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical.  The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.

darn it 

[CountDeMoney]

I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical.  The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.

darn it 

I disagree with Admiral Grumblermoto;  there's a distinct difference between business as usual, and a specific series of policy initiatives designed to enhance, reinforce and escalate such business, both for our allies' consumption as well as our adversaries.

[Jacob]

I disagree with Admiral Grumblermoto;  there's a distinct difference between business as usual, and a specific series of policy initiatives designed to enhance, reinforce and escalate such business, both for our allies' consumption as well as our adversaries.

I'd like to hear about that, if you don't mind. I'll be honest and say that most of what I've heard about the pivot is incidental PR, so I don't know how much it's flim-flam (as grumbler alleges) and how much substance there is.

[citizen k]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

Invisible pivots are the best kind.  They sound decisive without changing anything.

Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?

I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical.  The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.

There have been some actions that reflect the Pacific shift.

Manila Looks to Subic Bay to Counter Chinese Moves in Region
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984

Pentagon seeks return to long-abandoned military port in Vietnam
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html

US Marine Force in Darwin, Australia Boosts To 1,000 Next Year; Rise To MEU Force Proceeds
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/

the depth and significance of the U.S. strategic relationship with the city-state now exceeds that of formal allies such as Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is now the key logistics and maintenance hub for Navy and Air Force operations in the South China Sea, and is the critical gateway for the U.S. presence into the eastern Indian Ocean. For its part, the Singapore government looks to its security relationship with the United States as a critical force for regional stability.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483

[grumbler]

Obama's pivot towards the Pacific and Asia seems pretty reasonable to me.

Invisible pivots are the best kind.  They sound decisive without changing anything.

Are you implying that the pivot is primarily rhetorical rather than material?

I am saying that it is entirely rhetorical.  The Obama Administration's policies in Asia-Pacific have been a continuation of previous US policy, not a shift.

There have been some actions that reflect the Pacific shift.

Manila Looks to Subic Bay to Counter Chinese Moves in Region
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324665604579078833308333984

Pentagon seeks return to long-abandoned military port in Vietnam
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/pentagon-cam-ranh-bay-vietnam.html

US Marine Force in Darwin, Australia Boosts To 1,000 Next Year; Rise To MEU Force Proceeds
http://breakingdefense.com/2013/07/us-marine-force-in-darwin-australia-boosts-to-1000-next-year-boost-to-meu-force-proceeds/

the depth and significance of the U.S. strategic relationship with the city-state now exceeds that of formal allies such as Thailand and the Philippines. Singapore is now the key logistics and maintenance hub for Navy and Air Force operations in the South China Sea, and is the critical gateway for the U.S. presence into the eastern Indian Ocean. For its part, the Singapore government looks to its security relationship with the United States as a critical force for regional stability.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-bases-the-asia-pacific-strategic-asset-or-10483

Those are almost all continuations of previous US policy:

From the LA Times article:

U.S. warships have called regularly at other Vietnamese ports since the guided missile frigate Vandergrift made a port call in Ho Chi Minh City in November 2003.

Obama wasn't present in 2003

The Darwin force is new, but 2200 troops doesn't represent a national "pivot."  There are that many Marines taking a dump at any moment in Camp Lejune.

The Singapore base was established in 1992, coincident with the US withdrawal from Subic Bay.

The WSJ article is not visible to me, but the US has been visiting Subic Bay since the visiting forces agreement was signed in 1999.  An increased presence there isn't a major shift.  A carrier battle group there would be a major shift.  But here, again, it was the Bush administration that shifted a carrier battle group to the Pacific.  That's more of a pivot than just saying the word "pivot."