Obama foreign policy condundrum

[Wickian]

So this is an article from around 10 days ago:

By Thomas Gibbons-Neff June 27

The Obama administration asked Congress on Thursday to authorize $500 million to provide U.S. military training and equipment to “moderate” Syrian rebels, a move that will undoubtedly edge the U.S. closer to direct involvement in the Syrian civil war.

link

Alright, Obama wants to support the rebels who recently declared the new Islamic state by giving them $500 million to train them. Then today I read this:

"Anyone calling for regime change in Syria is frankly blind to the past decade; and the collapse of eastern Syria, and growth of Jihadistan, leading to 30 to 50 suicide attacks a month in Iraq," one senior Obama administration official who works on Iraq policy told Rogin.

He really needs to make a definitive plan.

[Space Commander Travis]

i think the biggest conundrum about the O's foreign policy is whether he does in fact have one. Although to be entirely fair remember that it's the Neoncons who are steering the ship behind the scenes, and in the pursuit of their long term schemes they're quite happy to exploit anyone that comes in useful. Remember how (even before Neconism proper began) the CIA backed the Mujahadeen when they were the Good Guys fighting the Reds.

[Yamato]

i think the biggest conundrum about the O's foreign policy is whether he does in fact have one. Although to be entirely fair remember that it's the Neoncons who are steering the ship behind the scenes, and in the pursuit of their long term schemes they're quite happy to exploit anyone that comes in useful. Remember how (even before Neconism proper began) the CIA backed the Mujahadeen when they were the Good Guys fighting the Reds.

Admiral Rhubarb, what would Obama's best policy be?

[Space Commander Travis]

Admiral Rhubarb, what would Obama's best policy be?

To get one.

Actually I don't know if it would do any good if he did adopt a clear and firm policy (certainly if it was one that went contrary to what those who are actually steering the ship want); they'd just be able to block it and isolate him quite effortlessly as they've done before. If he did refuse to get involved any more in Iraq, and Maliki was overthrown, I think that'd be quite satisfactory to the Neocons, since Assad would look much less secure and Iran would very likely get involved, and I think that's what they really want. So perhaps what he should do would be to defy the Necocons and cooperate with Iran and shore up Maliki, for now at any rate, until a more competent successor can be put in place, in the interests of stability, but I don't think that's what they really want. Certainly not if Iran is involved.

[Frank Merton]

Yea the way pundits go about their business (as we see above) if an official announces a clear policy and then has to change it, he is forced to eat his words or admit mistake. I think it is often better to form a policy but not announce it as much as possible and keep one's head down and shift and flow with events. Of course it is better to try to take control of events, but that requires an investment Obama by nature would not make and probably would not be allowed to make anyway. The American armed forces have been weakened too much during his tenure.

[Yamato]

To get one.

Actually I don't know if it would do any good if he did adopt a clear and firm policy (certainly if it was one that went contrary to what those who are actually steering the ship want); they'd just be able to block it and isolate him quite effortlessly as they've done before. If he did refuse to get involved any more in Iraq, and Maliki was overthrown, I think that'd be quite satisfactory to the Neocons, since Assad would look much less secure and Iran would very likely get involved, and I think that's what they really want. So perhaps what he should do would be to defy the Necocons and cooperate with Iran and shore up Maliki, for now at any rate, until a more competent successor can be put in place, in the interests of stability, but I don't think that's what they really want. Certainly not if Iran is involved.

So the best policy is to save Maliki because of what the neocons think?

Neocons are incompetent fools; who cares how satisfied they are? So what you're saying is, they're going to politicize Maliki's downfall in Iraq and blame it on Obama so Hillary Clinton won't win the Presidential election in 2016? What should neocons have to do with Obama's foreign policy? Opposing political groups is an omnipresent part of govt no matter who's in charge but why would we ever base a policy decision on it?

[Space Commander Travis]

So the best policy is to save Maliki because of what the neocons think?

Neocons are incompetent fools; who cares how satisfied they are? So what you're saying is, they're going to politicize Maliki's downfall in Iraq and blame it on Obama so Hillary Clinton won't win the Presidential election in 2016? What should neocons have to do with Obama's foreign policy? Opposing political groups is an omnipresent part of govt no matter who's in charge but why would we ever base a policy decision on it?

Would it be a good idea to have an ultra hardline caliphate in Iraq and, quite possibly, Syria? The course of action outlined above wouldn't be what the neocons want, since to them, as we know, Iran is as much if not more of a threat, and similarly they're only too keen to get rid of Assad.