Yeah and I would also add a big culprit is former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki, who on trumped up charges went after the former Vice President of Iraq and other sectarian policies. He was very divisive, so much so that after general elections, despite his party winning most seats, the president dismissed Maliki and brought Haidar al-Abadi to form the new government. Which he did.
Putting aside the invasion and everything, Maliki was largely responsible for the down turn in security in Iraq. I don’t think President Obama should be blamed for this. Maliki more so than Chalabi who never took power in Iraq, this allowed ISIS to take advantage in Sunni areas.
This is the modern age, this answer is no excuse. Russia has no right to to determine Ukraine’s future. Who cares about historical reasons! Does Britain have a right to determine India’s future, heck it was historic for Britain to colonize India?!
Russians can think all they want, the Southwest IS part of the U.S, Ukraine is NOT part of Russia:smack:!
Russia thinks Ukraine belongs to them, well they are delusional and need to get with the times.
Oh and the FACT is Russia has violated the 1994 treaty in which it pledged to respect Ukraine’s territory!
Back to Obama, he is not to be blamed for this situation at all. Nations have a right to join NATO if they wish. I don’t see how this is to be placed a stain on Obama’s legacy.
Encouraging it or not, Russia only has aright to go if it faced a threat. Ukraine signing a deal is no threat to Russia except its interests and Putin’s grand idea of forming are placement to the former USSR. The neighboring Baltics are members, last I checked nothing horrible happened to Russia.
Russia had not right to go into and support separatists in Ukraine, no need to whitewash anything.
I agree. It is indeed unfortunate that Obama was unable to undo all of the Bush tax cuts that allowed the deficit to stay as large as it has. It’s almost as if Republicans would rather have crashed the economy than cooperate with him.
For Libya the military aspect and NATO mission was a success. NATO degrade the Gaddafi regime’s military and the rebels successfully took advantage and stalled Gaddafi and went into Tripoli. Then Gaddafi was gone.
The instability after in Libya should not take away from the fact that the NATO/rebel mission achieved it’s mission and goals.
For the most part Obama’s legacy will be good, domestically and foreign wise. Like all presidents there will be short comings and mistakes. Also some things will be hard to tell immediately, it takes time to really assess the long term.
I think who succeeds him will also matter. If the GOP takes total control in 2016, it will be seen as a repudiation, and the GOP will probably roll back pretty much everything he did.
The key similarity is that US-led intervention turned both places from rogue/semi-rogue states to failed states. In the case of Libya that may have been the outcome no matter what but that’s basically unknowable.
Russia has no right (legal or moral) to its intervention in Ukraine.
Russia’s intervention in the Ukraine was largely provoked by Western meddling in Ukraine’s internal affairs and by eastward expansion of NATO.
No whitewashing of Russia’s actions is necessary. My observation has nothing to do with the morality of the issue, but whether it serves US intferests to get involved in a pissing match in which Russia has a significant perceived interest and the US really does not.
Well, there’s a difference: In Libya there was a purely homegrown rebellion and the U.S. intervened just enough to keep it alive. No such thing in Iraq. Therefore, in Libya, the U.S. got stuck in no expensive bloody postwar occupation quagmire. So if Obama blundered there, his blunder was not anywhere near as serious as W’s. Besides, Libya might be a failed state now, but does anybody, in Libya or out of it, seriously wish Gaddafi had won that war?
Undoubtedly true. The Iraq war actively harmed US interests. The intervention in Libya was, at worst, a philanthropic project that ended up doing more harm than good to Libya, but didn’t really affect US interests one way or another; at best, it was a philanthropic project that despite its imperfect outcome did more good than harm to Libya. This is all debatable, and I think hinges on what would have happened in Libya without the intervention.
Possibly Gaddafi was gearing up to commit genocide in Benghazi; possibly not. Gaddafi was a bastard and he certainly had his comeupance when he was roughed up and unceremoniously shot. Is the median Libyan person today better off than in the Gaddafi days? I don’t know, but based on what reading I’ve done I’d say no.
Not to Republicans. His Presidency is over, so it is completely off limits to even speak about. He could have signed an Executive Order to nuke Canada and sold Hawaii and California to the Mexicans for $250 and a case of bibles, and to the Pubs it wouldn’t be fair to even mention it.
The cognitive dissonance, I think, has proven too much to bear for Republicans who foisted George W. Bush on this country. The myth of the surge, according to which Bush actually “won” the Iraq war until Obama snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and gave us ISIS, has gone a long way to alleviating this problem. As for Katrina, apparently local Democratic politicians who rejected Bush’s attempts at a federal response are to blame… well, according to my father-in-law anyway.
These rationalizations will be enough to sustain Bush’s legacy among those Republicans who voted for him. But his long-term prospects for historical validation seem rather dim.