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.
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.
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.
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.