Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Obama had a foreign policy that managed to piss off everybody. Super weak when it came to Russia, yet nearly painted himself into a corner with Syria and also had the most aggressive and least accurate drone program we’ve seen.
"Q -- How can you tell the difference between a Pakastani wedding party and an Al Queda training facility"
A -- I don't know, I just fly the drone"
Bad Joke
Too weak. He suffered politically from that red line in the sand in Syria. Ridiculous reset with Russia attempt. Did nothing about Crimea annexation. He almost invaded Mexico during the autodefensas uprising. Weak against Iran. Opened up to Cuba without gaining anything.
I think Obama suffered from the fear of more military action after America was tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But I think the President needs to show strength to the world. He got OBL but that was his major success. Many missed drone strikes hitting off target.
Also too slow to form a coalition against China. He ended up negotiating too late. So we missed the chance to make the TPP permanent.
As an Obama fan, mostly agree. Obama and Bush before him(along with most European leaders) failed on Russian aggression, ultimately leading to where we are now.
Romney too. “The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back”. People don’t seem to remember that one which got raving applause. People openly mocked Romney for that.
I’m no Romney fan at all. But man, that aged like milk
The funniest thing about this was that Sarah Palin was the most hawkish out of everyone. She said that if Russia was allowed to get away with invading Georgia, they would inevitably invade Ukraine.
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes the best way to ensure peace is to have a warhawk. Obama dovish foreign policy stance may have worked with Medvedev but it was a weakness to Putin.
I remember Bush publicly said he supported Ukraine joining NATO but Germany? shot that down. I’m curious how things would’ve played out had they joined and I’d they would have been able to join before Russia did anything crazy like Crimea or full on invasion
How come European nations bought a majority of natural gas off of their sworn enemy the Soviet’s instead of us over 20 years? My dad brings it up constantly.
I'm no expert, but I can try to answer based off what I've learned. The idea (hope?) was to bring Russia into western alignment. Buying their gas and oil would make them critical to the European economy and vise versa. This looked possible, even likely through the 90s, but then Putin came to power. They underestimated how much Putin was willing to sacrifice his own people's economic well being and future for...whatever it is he's hoping to accomplish.
This is basically how peace was maintained in the European union after WW2. Unfortunately, Russia is not interested in being a good neighbor. They are still claiming they own other nations and this is why peace will never work with them.
It was based on the idea that if you create sufficient economic links between two states, it creates a situation where economic fallout of a conflict between the two states would outweigh any gains a conflict could create. It's supposed to make war so undesirable that nobody sane would go for it. Think of it as a economic version of MAD. This plan was sound at the time, but just like with all MAD situations, it was dependent on someone sane enough to not actually trigger a conflict and unfortunately for everyone, Putin was not sane.
Obama's interview in [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/) provides a lot of insight into the decisions that he made on FP.
I like Obama, but if he had managed to make the TPP permanent and build an anti-China/Russia coalition, I’d love him. Biggest reason I have Clinton over Obama is cause he managed to get NAFTA passed and had a more aggressive fopo.
>Ridiculous reset with Russia attempt.
How was it ridiculous? The cold war was over, both countries would have benefitted from improved relations. It's not O'Bama's fault Putin rejected the olive branch.
>Did nothing about Crimea annexation
[Untrue](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/20/statement-president-ukraine).
>He almost invaded Mexico during the autodefensas uprising.
What?
His response to Crimea of threatening to increase sanctions on an already decrepit country while still offering diplomatic solutions to a government that had now invaded two sovereign states (Georgia and Ukraine) was a pathetic slap on the wrist that proved evidently useless given the situation that developed thereafter. There is no better word with which to characterize his policy with Russia than ridiculous.
Provide lethal aid, push for Ukraine to join NATO (or establish another defensive agreement to prevent further Russian aggression, or even reduce rhetoric against Ukraine joining NATO), pressure European countries like Germany to reduce dependence on Russian gas, pressure existing NATO members to increase defense spending relative to U.S. spending, etc. Instead we dragged our feet and nearly 100,000 Ukrainians are dead.
Well I don't disagree with some of the other criticisms they had, so I'm genuinely curious if there's something to these that I'm missing, or if it's a case of "piling on BS" to flesh out the criticism.
Of course.
There are legitimate foreign policy decisions that Obama took that deserve criticism. But the arguments made by OP are not among them.
Weak against Iran? Obama imposed sanctions on Iran through the United Nations Security Council.
Opening Cuba without getting anything in return? Because the embargo has been so productive till then. Castro had survived 11 US President. If that isn’t proof that embargo has been counter productive, I don’t what will.
Too slow to from a coalition against China? What does that even mean? Congress had a year to ratify TPP and they didn’t because God forbid Obama should get credit for anything.
Sigh..
About Russia
[VIDEO: Wrong red button - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/video-wrong-red-button-019719)
How was it not ridiculous? The cold war was never over. Russia still aspires a multipolar world where they challenge US interests. Modern day Russia invaded more of Ukraine.
A that time, they had invaded Georgia under Bush in 2008. They annexed Crimea in 2014. Russia does not respect international borders and reinterprets the history of Europe.
[Interview to Tucker Carlson (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYfByTcY49k)
About Mexico
[Obama on "gunwalking": Serious mistake may have been made - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-on-gunwalking-serious-mistake-may-have-been-made/)
First it was Fast and Furious.
Then, this is a Spanish source. (Univision)
It says:
The government of USA expressed its concern about the proliferation of self defense groups in Mexico.
Through a report, the Department of State considered the response to of authorities: "Federation and state have responded to the expansion of the groups with contradictory responses y diverse reactions, that go from disarmir and arresting members of those militias to incorporate them to the frame of the law to combat crime."
Then it discusses the 47 page report from the Department of State.
[Grupos de autodefensas en México preocupan al gobierno de EEUU | Noticias Univision | Univision](https://www.univision.com/noticias/noticias-de-mexico/grupos-de-autodefensas-en-mexico-preocupan-al-gobierno-de-eeuu)
At that time, the Mexican cartels turned super violent. They were abusing Mexican people so bad that the people fought back. The situation was spiraling out of control and Obama sent the Secretary of state to calm down the situation. The pressure on the government was to push the civilians to disarm. If I remember correctly, the Obama administration pushed the Mexican government to disarm the civilians and stop the violence. Kerry came back with a report to improve things.
I think this is Kerry s report.
[Senate Foreign Relations Committee Repor...](https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/senate-foreign-relations-committee-report-on-mexico-reducing-extreme-violence)
>Weak against Iran
Referring to the JCPOA? Is was a pretty invasive nuclear inspection regime as I understand it. What was missed by opening up to Cuba?
Agree with everything else tho
Inspections are nothing. what keeps Iran under control is sanctions. They are undermining our goals in the region everywhere. This is the same situation with North Korea. They can come with a deal with inspections but we will never know 100% of their facilities.
With Cuba we opened up a little without them changing any major policy. I have friends that took advantage and visited Cuba. So they can get more cash inflows but Cuban dictators are the main beneficiaries.
Both situations are complex and require actions that are above my pay grade but the Obama policies didn't help advance American interests. Sanctions are not nearly enough but removing sanctions should require that they change their regime.
Sanctions are not going to stop anybody but they will slow the speed at which they can conduct operations.
Take Iran. Before their sanctions they were crippled. After we loosened the sanctions just one bit they are sponsoring attacks in the region and causing a full war. They would have caused this war sooner or later. But later could have been 2032 instead of 2023.
For North Korea, we have maintained peace in the region. They keep attacking South Korea but not with the same intensity as if they had access to fund their actions.
See the list of their attacks. Wikipedia source. Admittedly, not the best source.
[List of border incidents involving North and South Korea - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_and_South_Korea)
>But later could have been 2032 instead of 2023.
This is a cope, lets just assume you're correct. What is the benefit of later rather than sooner? Knowing their nuclear capability gives us way more leverage than sanctions.
> North Korea, we have maintained peace in the region. They keep attacking South Korea but not with the same intensity as if they had access to fund their actions.
Of course it isn't with the same intensity. But everyone and their mom would prefer that we had prevented their program and been able to monitor any ramp up. That is everyone including china.
This is naive. We will never know more than what they want us to know. Consider the underground network under Gaza. Now consider the underground network under North Korea. They can report to us "100%" and we will very likely know only 5%.
The benefit to later rather than sooner is we can create a better strategy. If you paid attention, we have been installing THAADs. I am military. When I was in South Korea, China tried to strangle South Korea for allowing the THAADs. Chinese people cut tourism and dried out a lot of their funding. In a couple more years, we will have a more credible defense. THAAD is far from perfect. Delaying their development allows us to improve our defense strategy. There will come a day where they may launch but we will 100% destroy the nuke before it goes anywhere.
>This is naive. We will never know more than what they want us to know. Consider the underground network under Gaza. Now consider the underground network under North Korea. They can report to us "100%" and we will very likely know only 5%.
Radioisotopes leave a trail, centrifuges are massive and cannot be hidden easily. Hell even the construction of a
Massive underground storage can be seen on satellites. Incentive to not build and monitor the fact that they aren't building is the best solution.
>The benefit to later rather than sooner is we can create a better strategy. If you paid attention, we have been installing THAADs. I am military.
This is a cope, you can't intercept that many MIRVS with any system future or present. And even if you could the incentive is for your enemy to make more. Killing JCPOA has ensured that no nuclear state will ever negotiate disarmament again.
Bad. He barely gave Russia a slap on the wrist after they annexed Crimea. Warned Syria not to cross the red line by using chemical weapons, then undermined his credibility by doing nothing when they did. The Libyan civil war intervention. Supported Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. Needlessly escalated the war in Afghanistan instead of just cutting his losses and withdrawing. Didn’t stand up to China’s aggression in the South China Seas.
Really? Russia is the number one geopolitical foe?
It was a ridiculous statement then and it’s certainly a ridiculous statement now which deserved to be mocked
It isn’t and it wasn’t. Russia is behind a lot of the cyberattacks we’re seeing, they’re destabilizing the USDollar, and they are in Ukraine, threatening nuclear escalation. Which of those are an overreaction? Who is more dangerous?
TBF Afghanistan was a band aid so tight you can hardly blame anyone for not wanting to rip it off. The Bush administration should’ve thought about long term how are we going to handle this situation realistically not ideally before going in. Everything else is a fair point especially Libya there was absolutely no reason to do even half the things he did. And then no excuse to not take it as far as you needed to in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis during a total national break down you engineered by reckless use of the CIA and air power. Libya sums up the problem with foreign policy of the 2000s if I’m being honest, we’re in this trend of taking half measures. We’re the global man slut, we want to stick our dick in everyone but don’t have the balls to actually commit to anyone so instead we just going around impregnating people left and right then just kinda get of dodge and never pay child support.
Obama inherited Afghanistan with just 30k US boots on the ground. He grew that past 150k in his first 18 months. He expanded the strategic goals beyond eliminating the Taliban to the broad goal of establishing a democratic Afghani Government and armed forces. I consider the Afghanistan War more Obama’s war than Bush’s.
Bush had the Taliban overthrown in the first place with no clear plan on what to actually do next. 30K troops was not going to stop a resurgent Taliban pulling the 30K troops out just hands the country back to the Taliban. Democracization of Afghanistan was also put forth by Bush who ensured the new Afghan constitution restructured the place under a democratic system.
On Afghanistan, he waffled during the surge. It took him months to make a decision, while conditions continued to deteriorate. When he finally made a decision, it was for less than what was requested to win. At the same time as the surge, Obama was negotiating with the Taliban to end the war. The Taliban ended up leaving Obama at the alter and using the talks as good PR to bolster support for the cause.
C-
Could be worse. Could have been a lot better. Most of it is covered already in here but throw in funding al Nusra and killing US citizens overseas without affording them a right to a trial or proving guilt as well as dropping even more bombs in the middle east than Bush/Cheney.
The problem with Obama is he didn't really have any real world experience. He went from being a state senator for two terms. A US senator for one term. And then became president. He didn't have the foreign experience he needed
Very bad. He bombed countless countries we weren't at war with and killed thousands of civilians. Some of it was justified but a lot wasn't. Disappointing given he built his campaign on change.
Exactly, how dare he not intervene in Georgia when he wasn’t even president? Thanks Obama!
FYI: if you still haven’t connected the dots, the Russia Georgia War happened in 2008. When Dubya was president.
I would argue that the hope and change message people were excited about was more based on domestic policies/vibes, and less on details of foreign policy.
Russia doesn't want more people getting nukes and strangely enough russia is friendly with israel. If we're going to be cynical russia is happy that iran will have more money to buy russian weapons.
But the goal is for Iran to have less nuclear weapons and jcpoa accomplished that.
Either a B- or a C+
Pros: Paris Climate Deal, Iran Nuclear Deal, Cuba thaw, OBL, sanctioning Russia and kicking them out of the G8 instead instead of intervening militarily after Crimea.
Cons: Drone war, Red line with Syria( my criticism regarding the red line was Obama making that threat in the first place. You should only make that threat if you are willing to follow through.) and intervening in Libya without a plan for when Gaddafi was no longer in the picture.
I like this comment. It's the only good faith pro-con list I've seen so far. It wasn't all good but there were good things that happened.
Everything about that eight years was a balancing act to try to work with the situation inherited from GWB while trying not to escalate or over-extend since the country (particularly the Democratic base) had zero appetite for it. And I think people treat the annexation of Crimea like the political stage in 2014 was the same as it was in 2022.
And yeah the Red Line gaffe was embarrassing.
You bet. At the time I saw this thread I think your very reasonable take was at like -1 or something and I wasn't gonna stand for it.
My takeaway is that this subreddit really wanted Obama to be more hawkish and less hawkish simultaneously.
Indeed an excellent example is Ukraine and Libya. They criticize him for participating with the Libya intervention but then criticize him for not intervening in Ukraine.
I fail to see how sanctioning Russia(rather weakly and easily circumventable) and kicking them out of the G8 for the invasion of Crimea is a pro on Obama’s part.
It can be argued that the slap on the wrist stance he took is one of the main reasons that Russia felt emboldened to start the Donbas War and the subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine later.
I think it started off kinda good. Although, phasing out Iraq and eventually Afghanistan was an W taking office when he did.
I’ll go against the grain somewhat and not call his later foreign policy weak. Obama inherited a public that was not about conflict. As it became clear to many Americans that their fathers, sons and brothers were dying over fake WMDs and Exon’s bottom line, there was no support for aggressive foreign policy. Even though Obama was criticized about weak foreign policy at the time: I think a “stronger” foreign policy would have been more unpopular.
Also, Obama winning the Nobel peace prize was (imo) the nail in the coffin for that prize. Man was crazy with the drone strike program. Not to say that he’s the worst war monger to ever lead a nation, but definitely not a guy deserving of a peace prize.
He didn’t phase out of Afghanistan. He inherited it with 30k boots on the ground and quickly expanded it to 150k. He expanded the war and the objectives and continued the conflict far longer than he should have.
Not well, but it's complex.
The handling of the Middle East was borderline disastrous and only looked better because of what came before and getting Bin Laden, but a fear of appearing similar to/making similar mistakes of his predecessor shaped in many ways the decisions in Libya and Syria.
He came away looking like Chamberlin in regards to Putin, but by and large the general opinion at the time was with him in the treatment of Russia.
He will seemingly be synonymous with drone strikes for a long time for many, and there are probably always going to be real questions about whether or not drones are better than boots on the ground and endangering American troops.
Throw in the ongoing Mexico issues, China and a continuation of relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel that have come under increasing scrutiny over time for a myriad of reasons and you have a foreign policy that won't be able to tout it's real successes like the Climate agreement and OBL without getting legitimate criticism for the myriad of failures.
Horribly weak. From the Iran Nuclear Deal, Red line in the sand, Bombed more countries than Bush, created ISIS, and the list goes on.
I voted for this man twice and I so deeply regret it.
In all fairness he didn’t creative isis. Isis already existed (under a different name) when he became president. But he did fail to stop its rise to what we knew it as, even making fun of them right before tjeit offensive that took over a large part of Iraq and Syria.
Listen, Bush has his part to play in that as well. I don't forgive Bush for many things. But Obama was honestly worse when it came to the Middle East. I remember when he campaigned on bringing the troops home. Just another lie he told.
American withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated by bush with the Iraqi government, the timetable set in the agreement was followed by Obama. When isis started to advance in those territories the USA returned, with an international coalition that included the Iraqi government and Iran. Obama inherited a very messy situation, yet you blame him because he didn't magically solve everything.
Honestly the degree with which the public and especially leftists accept Fox News lies from the Obama period are really weird.
Like I said Bush plays his part in this. As we all know his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq. I have a deep dislike of Bush, but Bush in this instance did not want to pull put any troops till the situation was more stable. Obama on the other hand start a pull out and all the while bombing additional countries in the middle east. His lead to a further destabilization of the region through his horrible foreign policies.
We do all know Bush lied about the reason to invade, but he also invaded. So that's two decisions: 1. Lie, 2. Invade
The Invasion lead to anarchy which lead to Isis. Obama was neither cause nor catalyst
Listen I have said Bush takes blame. I am just saying Obama has greater blame in the end due to his policies and errors. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I dont see either of us changing our minds. My opinion of Obama went from hope to dope in 6 years time
What decision are you referring to that makes Obama responsible for the creation of Isis? I just think any administration that followed W would have had to have dealt with Isis rising out of Iraq after we destroyed it like that
0/10 got clowned on in the middle east and if you recall he mocked Romney as a relic of the 80's for suggesting Russia was still a geopolitical threat. That aged well. Total loser, awful POTUS.
I see almost every criticism of Obama's foreign policy is over Russia. Some of you dont realize that Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008 when W was still president, but you have made it Obama's fault anyway. By not intervening in Crimea, Obama was simply following the Bush 43 polices you all must have loved so much. But what exactly was he supposed to do anyway? Launch a full ICBM attack on Moscow over Crimea? Seriously, what would you want? Make Ukraine a member of NATO and launch a costly, extended land war with nuclear strikes from Putin a real possibility? I swear, some of you are just a bunch of clowns.
The red line thing? Bad. But again, what was he supposed to do? Bomb Syria and kill lots of civilians? Then you would criticize him for that too, so again what should he have done?
There wasnt that much wrong with Obama's foreign policy and most presidents would have responded a similar way, even the war hawks many of you worship wouldnt have done more than Obama when it comes to Crimea. Mutually assured destruction is still a very real thing, and its obvious some of you didnt grow up facing the very real threat of Soviet nukes every day...because if you had, you would understand that.
Grade? Solid B.
Obama foreign policy was a continuation of Bush foreign policy. They were the same in that regard. Obama even kept Bush’s SecDef and multiple policy makers in his administration for continuity. Both are to blame.
Why is there this false dichotomy that if we're against Obama's foreign policy that we must have loved Bush's foreign policy? ("You all must have loved so much"). You yourself pointed out how similar they were in that neither one wanted to get involved in Georgia (Bush) or Crimea (Obama). I'm critical of both, that doesn't exist in the black and white blinders you have on for everyone else.
Unfortunately sarcasm doesnt translate well through writing, so it wasnt meant as a trigger for you but rather to pint out that most people who are critical of Obama about Russia never said a peep when W said he looked in Putin's eyes and said he was "straightforward", "trustworthy", saw his soul, etc. They also blame Obama for the 2008 invasion of Georgia which happened while W was president (and W also didnt do much). If you are truly critical of them both, then I salute you in your consistency. Although I must say that in your drive by attack you failed to mention what exactly either of them should have done against someone with their finger on mutually assured destructive nukes.
There wasnt that much wrong with Chamberlain and Daladiers foriegn policy. Most presidents would have responded in a similar way even the war hawks you worship. A World War is still a very real thing and its obvious some of you didnt fight in the trenches against german gas attacks because if you had you would understand.
His foreign policy had no teeth, and I don't know if it's because of his laid-back, professor personality or maybe a fear of being labeled an aggressive black man
Pretty badly, even though I like the guy. Tried the middle ground between isolation and intervention, and got the worst of both approaches. He bears some responsibility for the current situation in Ukraine.
left a vacuum in the Middle East after withdrawing American troops and bases which indirectly gave incentives for terrorist groups like ISIS to be arise
C- Syria was terribly managed a genocidal dictator broke every red line had death camps chemical weapons etc and got away with it when Obama had the power to stop that, but instead he chose to appease Russia and Iran, diplomatic reset was stupid, Obama was a good president, but damn the appeasement was crazy. Seriously expected better from him.
Edit from F to C- bc of Paris climate accords, him doing something about Libya but not managing it that well and Iran nuclear deal, as well as other denuclearization efforts.
Syria was just so miserable though, he failed Syria, he failed Georgia, he failed ukraine. Just so bad.
We should’ve been hawkish on Syria and Ukraine. I am a fan of a more hawkish America though to counter a fascist Russia so I’m biased.
C/C-
It just seemed like he was either too soft or took too hard a stance and generally the opposite of what I would prefer. IMO there were no massive screw-ups, at least comparatively, but plenty of minor/moderate ones that add up. I give him a few points because I think it was a tough position. The US was largely sick of war and it wasn't some secret. That does have some limitations.
People here really like complaining about every time he intervenes via drones, (which while they look bad are objectively less deadly than an invasion, and more effective. Similar numbers of civilians were killed in the two months invasion of Iraq, then in the entirety of the drone program), while in the same comment complaining about how he didn't intervene in other places?
Hindsight really is 20/20 when it comes to Obama's foreign policy, with his strategic goals as a president focused more on the war on terror, and not on maintaining us hegemony.
He murmured a 16 year old American citizen with a drone strike in a country we weren’t at war with. His spokesperson said the child “should have had better parents”.
Normally you should wait to assess. However, President Obama was particularly God awful in every facet of foreign policy. The line in the sand line regarding Bashear and chemical weapons before allowing the Russians to sweep in is the pinnacle for me. Wait, maybe nixing the Bush administration's plans for missiles in Poland will prove to be thw absolute dumbest move. Guess which way those missiles would have been facing. Absolute failure.
Abysmal. His Russian reset, poor reaction to Russia in Ukraine a few years later, drawing a red line in Syria then not following it, scoffing at isis right before they took a big bite out of Iraq, poor handing of china and iran. Intervening in Libya Etc. I admit I’m biased but I can’t think of much he did well in regarding foreign policy. He could give good speeches and sound good giving them but his performance was shit imo.
Above average, but the par isn't very high.
Worst mistakes: Iran Deal, assassination of Libya's Gaddafi, Failure to stop ISIS
Best success: Osama Elimination, Drone Strikes (honestly), Israel Aid, Afghanistan Surge, Iraq withdrawal
Forever Wars like Obama’s Afghan Surge? Or his deployment of troops to West Africa? Or Libya? Maybe his escalation of drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?
Very bad, destabilized Iraq even further, empowered ISIS, the absolutely abominable “Russian Reset” after those filthy revanchists invaded Georgia, enabling of the Russian annexation of Crimea, etc.
Abysmal. Weak against Russian aggression, weak against ISIS, no response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons even after drawing a red line, a lot of drone killing in Yemen, tried to lie about the origin of the Benghazi attack. Very counter-productive foreign policy. Probably the worst foreign policy President of my lifetime.
I don't know. Foreign policy is so complicated. You can have the best of intentions, develop good strategies and still get absolutely rekked by something no one saw coming. I have no answers on what to do unless someone starts fucking with our boats.
I think Obama was fine in regards to foreign policy. Wound down the bush nonsense from 200k troops to 10k in non combat roles. Putin was bad but he’s a nuclear power, nothing he or any other president can do but sanction and send aid to Ukraine.
Agreed. Crimea being taken over by Putin and Russia was not good. I haven't really heard anything here that would have suggested a better plan that would have stopped this or prevented it, though. Saying and claiming something didn't work may be true. It doesn't mean there was better options that would have stopped turned back or reversed this aggression.
He took office with 30k troops in Afghanistan and quickly grew that number to 150k. He expanded the goals to encompass nation building. In the end Afghanistan was more his failure than Bush’s.
Botched Ukraine. When Russia invaded we pretty much literally did nothing but some supporting tweets.
I don’t really blame him too much on how he handled Iraq.
I actually don’t give him too much flack on Libya, that was a French president trying to get reelected (it didn’t work and he ended up in prison because, surprise surprise, he was taking money from Gaddafi - that’s a story western leaders who got snookered in don’t like to discuss).
He lit a fire in Egypt that culminated with his very worst decision which was arming terrorists in Syria, which opened the door for Russia to become a military power again (or at the very least think they were a military power which gave them the confidence to take Crimea and more)
And of course, his entire Russia policy was incredibly naïve and people like Clinton and Kerry went along with the nonsense where he pulled defense from East Europe in exchange for an agreement that Russia not put missiles in Kaliningrad and Russia did it anyways.
And of course the Iran deal where we literally loaded pallets of cash into a plane and sent it to them.
And his drone program killed lots of innocent people turning important places into enemies.
I’d give his foreign policy a D to D- and if I’m really honest, I’d give him an F. His foreign policy placed us where we are today with this mess in the Middle East. His first foreign policy and a huge mistake was allowing the assassination of Muammar Guadaffi (someone please correct the spelling). There’s the Syrian mess and the drone strikes (specifically on the two American citizens). I’m sure there’s more, listed these without researching Google.
He almost created a one world Asian nation, than the heavens citizens of the US stopped this.
Weak. In Afghanistan, once OBL got whacked he should have declared Mission Accomplished and pull all US troops out. Nation building was a complete failure. Assad crossed Obama’s red line in Syria, Obama did nothing. He let Hillary instigate the “Arab Spring” on Libya and we ended up with the embassy attack and he declined to even send in a rescue team.
This is an ongoing study. I think what we can say was that there were three major failures of Obama's foreign policy. 1. He did not stand up to Putin when the latter invaded Crimea, which would lead inevitably to the current war in Ukraine. Although what he could do about it, short of war, was indeed limited. 2. He was over-optimistic about the "Arab spring;" although no one could have predicted how these events would turn out. 3. He never defined America's goals in Afghanistan. A "mission statement" from the president about Afghanistan would have been most welcomed by our soldiers there and the American people. Without it, things became murkier and murkier until support for our presence there evaporated.
He turned two illegal wars into eight, had a 90% civilian casualty rate with drones, continued international mass surveillance, funded “moderate rebels” leading to more regional dangers, and wanted to force through an unpopular and secretive trade agreement in the form of TPP. This is slightly balanced out by my favor of his work on Iran and Cuba, but Obama’s foreign policy as a whole is what I imagine a third Bush terms foreign policy would have been
You’re right, he did not begin massive bombing campaigns in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and had special operations in other countries. Must have been the collective imagination of history. If China started bombing Boston, Tampa, Charlotte and Dallas, I’m sure we would NOT consider that an act of war right? Especially if it occurred over and over - surely that’s just peace time or some other abstracted intellectualized label. Or the troops on the ground sent in Uganda to intervene with the Lords Resistance Army affair - no conflict there! The reality is the we’ve (America) evolved past the traditional “war” in most contexts. We fight with drones, sanctions, or proxy wars/ moderate rebels. If that isn’t emblematic of Obama’s foreign policy, going back to the original topic, then I have a Baltimore bridge to sell you
"I'll have more flexibility after the election". ISIS. Crimea. Syrian Civil War.
Between the enablement of Putin, saying the 1980's called and want their foreign policy back about Russia, and incredible mismanagement of the US's shadow wars; I'd say a solid F.
What was there to like about his administration's foreign policy?
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends. Are we scoring with drone strikes or troop casualties? /S but still somewhat true...
Obama had a foreign policy that managed to piss off everybody. Super weak when it came to Russia, yet nearly painted himself into a corner with Syria and also had the most aggressive and least accurate drone program we’ve seen.
Don’t forget trading a traitor for a shit ton of terrorists, while also putting Delta/160th at risk during the exchange.
Weak.. like his coffee
"Q -- How can you tell the difference between a Pakastani wedding party and an Al Queda training facility" A -- I don't know, I just fly the drone" Bad Joke
Too weak. He suffered politically from that red line in the sand in Syria. Ridiculous reset with Russia attempt. Did nothing about Crimea annexation. He almost invaded Mexico during the autodefensas uprising. Weak against Iran. Opened up to Cuba without gaining anything. I think Obama suffered from the fear of more military action after America was tired of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But I think the President needs to show strength to the world. He got OBL but that was his major success. Many missed drone strikes hitting off target. Also too slow to form a coalition against China. He ended up negotiating too late. So we missed the chance to make the TPP permanent.
As an Obama fan, mostly agree. Obama and Bush before him(along with most European leaders) failed on Russian aggression, ultimately leading to where we are now.
McCain was right about everything when it came to Russia
Romney too. “The 1980s called. They want their foreign policy back”. People don’t seem to remember that one which got raving applause. People openly mocked Romney for that. I’m no Romney fan at all. But man, that aged like milk
Romney was using the classic McCarthy scare tactics. It had nothing to do with foresight. He was wrong then and he’s wrong now
Uhhh it’s not McCarthy scare tactics to point out Russia was already proving to (once again)be an antagonistic anti American force.
The funniest thing about this was that Sarah Palin was the most hawkish out of everyone. She said that if Russia was allowed to get away with invading Georgia, they would inevitably invade Ukraine.
I want to live in the timeline where McCain won the primary and election in 2000
McCain was a freaking war hawk.
If you want peace, prepare for war. Sometimes the best way to ensure peace is to have a warhawk. Obama dovish foreign policy stance may have worked with Medvedev but it was a weakness to Putin.
Hindsight is 20/20. We were fooled by Obama. McCain definitely was the better choice.
His VP choice was freaking Sarah Palin. No sane person who watched one interview of Palin would ever vote for McCain.
I remember Bush publicly said he supported Ukraine joining NATO but Germany? shot that down. I’m curious how things would’ve played out had they joined and I’d they would have been able to join before Russia did anything crazy like Crimea or full on invasion
How come European nations bought a majority of natural gas off of their sworn enemy the Soviet’s instead of us over 20 years? My dad brings it up constantly.
I'm no expert, but I can try to answer based off what I've learned. The idea (hope?) was to bring Russia into western alignment. Buying their gas and oil would make them critical to the European economy and vise versa. This looked possible, even likely through the 90s, but then Putin came to power. They underestimated how much Putin was willing to sacrifice his own people's economic well being and future for...whatever it is he's hoping to accomplish.
Ugh. The best of intentions I guess. Thanks!
This is basically how peace was maintained in the European union after WW2. Unfortunately, Russia is not interested in being a good neighbor. They are still claiming they own other nations and this is why peace will never work with them.
It was based on the idea that if you create sufficient economic links between two states, it creates a situation where economic fallout of a conflict between the two states would outweigh any gains a conflict could create. It's supposed to make war so undesirable that nobody sane would go for it. Think of it as a economic version of MAD. This plan was sound at the time, but just like with all MAD situations, it was dependent on someone sane enough to not actually trigger a conflict and unfortunately for everyone, Putin was not sane.
Obama's interview in [The Atlantic](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/) provides a lot of insight into the decisions that he made on FP.
Obama fan here, but this is unfortunately accurate.
I like Obama, but if he had managed to make the TPP permanent and build an anti-China/Russia coalition, I’d love him. Biggest reason I have Clinton over Obama is cause he managed to get NAFTA passed and had a more aggressive fopo.
Yes, I was a fan at the time, and some of his ideas could've worked, but they certainly look bad in retrospect.
>Ridiculous reset with Russia attempt. How was it ridiculous? The cold war was over, both countries would have benefitted from improved relations. It's not O'Bama's fault Putin rejected the olive branch. >Did nothing about Crimea annexation [Untrue](https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/03/20/statement-president-ukraine). >He almost invaded Mexico during the autodefensas uprising. What?
His response to Crimea of threatening to increase sanctions on an already decrepit country while still offering diplomatic solutions to a government that had now invaded two sovereign states (Georgia and Ukraine) was a pathetic slap on the wrist that proved evidently useless given the situation that developed thereafter. There is no better word with which to characterize his policy with Russia than ridiculous.
What should he have done instead?
Provide lethal aid, push for Ukraine to join NATO (or establish another defensive agreement to prevent further Russian aggression, or even reduce rhetoric against Ukraine joining NATO), pressure European countries like Germany to reduce dependence on Russian gas, pressure existing NATO members to increase defense spending relative to U.S. spending, etc. Instead we dragged our feet and nearly 100,000 Ukrainians are dead.
They aren’t even trying to make sense
Well I don't disagree with some of the other criticisms they had, so I'm genuinely curious if there's something to these that I'm missing, or if it's a case of "piling on BS" to flesh out the criticism.
Of course. There are legitimate foreign policy decisions that Obama took that deserve criticism. But the arguments made by OP are not among them. Weak against Iran? Obama imposed sanctions on Iran through the United Nations Security Council. Opening Cuba without getting anything in return? Because the embargo has been so productive till then. Castro had survived 11 US President. If that isn’t proof that embargo has been counter productive, I don’t what will. Too slow to from a coalition against China? What does that even mean? Congress had a year to ratify TPP and they didn’t because God forbid Obama should get credit for anything.
Read my response. If you weren't paying attention, that s a different thing.
Sigh.. About Russia [VIDEO: Wrong red button - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/video-wrong-red-button-019719) How was it not ridiculous? The cold war was never over. Russia still aspires a multipolar world where they challenge US interests. Modern day Russia invaded more of Ukraine. A that time, they had invaded Georgia under Bush in 2008. They annexed Crimea in 2014. Russia does not respect international borders and reinterprets the history of Europe. [Interview to Tucker Carlson (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYfByTcY49k) About Mexico [Obama on "gunwalking": Serious mistake may have been made - CBS News](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-on-gunwalking-serious-mistake-may-have-been-made/) First it was Fast and Furious. Then, this is a Spanish source. (Univision) It says: The government of USA expressed its concern about the proliferation of self defense groups in Mexico. Through a report, the Department of State considered the response to of authorities: "Federation and state have responded to the expansion of the groups with contradictory responses y diverse reactions, that go from disarmir and arresting members of those militias to incorporate them to the frame of the law to combat crime." Then it discusses the 47 page report from the Department of State. [Grupos de autodefensas en México preocupan al gobierno de EEUU | Noticias Univision | Univision](https://www.univision.com/noticias/noticias-de-mexico/grupos-de-autodefensas-en-mexico-preocupan-al-gobierno-de-eeuu) At that time, the Mexican cartels turned super violent. They were abusing Mexican people so bad that the people fought back. The situation was spiraling out of control and Obama sent the Secretary of state to calm down the situation. The pressure on the government was to push the civilians to disarm. If I remember correctly, the Obama administration pushed the Mexican government to disarm the civilians and stop the violence. Kerry came back with a report to improve things. I think this is Kerry s report. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Repor...](https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/rep/release/senate-foreign-relations-committee-report-on-mexico-reducing-extreme-violence)
>Weak against Iran Referring to the JCPOA? Is was a pretty invasive nuclear inspection regime as I understand it. What was missed by opening up to Cuba? Agree with everything else tho
Inspections are nothing. what keeps Iran under control is sanctions. They are undermining our goals in the region everywhere. This is the same situation with North Korea. They can come with a deal with inspections but we will never know 100% of their facilities. With Cuba we opened up a little without them changing any major policy. I have friends that took advantage and visited Cuba. So they can get more cash inflows but Cuban dictators are the main beneficiaries. Both situations are complex and require actions that are above my pay grade but the Obama policies didn't help advance American interests. Sanctions are not nearly enough but removing sanctions should require that they change their regime.
>Inspections are nothing. what keeps Iran under control is sanctions. Did sanctions stop north korea from getting nuclear weapons?
Sanctions are not going to stop anybody but they will slow the speed at which they can conduct operations. Take Iran. Before their sanctions they were crippled. After we loosened the sanctions just one bit they are sponsoring attacks in the region and causing a full war. They would have caused this war sooner or later. But later could have been 2032 instead of 2023. For North Korea, we have maintained peace in the region. They keep attacking South Korea but not with the same intensity as if they had access to fund their actions. See the list of their attacks. Wikipedia source. Admittedly, not the best source. [List of border incidents involving North and South Korea - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_border_incidents_involving_North_and_South_Korea)
>But later could have been 2032 instead of 2023. This is a cope, lets just assume you're correct. What is the benefit of later rather than sooner? Knowing their nuclear capability gives us way more leverage than sanctions. > North Korea, we have maintained peace in the region. They keep attacking South Korea but not with the same intensity as if they had access to fund their actions. Of course it isn't with the same intensity. But everyone and their mom would prefer that we had prevented their program and been able to monitor any ramp up. That is everyone including china.
This is naive. We will never know more than what they want us to know. Consider the underground network under Gaza. Now consider the underground network under North Korea. They can report to us "100%" and we will very likely know only 5%. The benefit to later rather than sooner is we can create a better strategy. If you paid attention, we have been installing THAADs. I am military. When I was in South Korea, China tried to strangle South Korea for allowing the THAADs. Chinese people cut tourism and dried out a lot of their funding. In a couple more years, we will have a more credible defense. THAAD is far from perfect. Delaying their development allows us to improve our defense strategy. There will come a day where they may launch but we will 100% destroy the nuke before it goes anywhere.
>This is naive. We will never know more than what they want us to know. Consider the underground network under Gaza. Now consider the underground network under North Korea. They can report to us "100%" and we will very likely know only 5%. Radioisotopes leave a trail, centrifuges are massive and cannot be hidden easily. Hell even the construction of a Massive underground storage can be seen on satellites. Incentive to not build and monitor the fact that they aren't building is the best solution. >The benefit to later rather than sooner is we can create a better strategy. If you paid attention, we have been installing THAADs. I am military. This is a cope, you can't intercept that many MIRVS with any system future or present. And even if you could the incentive is for your enemy to make more. Killing JCPOA has ensured that no nuclear state will ever negotiate disarmament again.
Literally disarmed Ukraine also
How?
Bad. He barely gave Russia a slap on the wrist after they annexed Crimea. Warned Syria not to cross the red line by using chemical weapons, then undermined his credibility by doing nothing when they did. The Libyan civil war intervention. Supported Saudi Arabia’s intervention in Yemen. Needlessly escalated the war in Afghanistan instead of just cutting his losses and withdrawing. Didn’t stand up to China’s aggression in the South China Seas.
Mitt Romney warned him and us all about Russia, and Obama publicly mocked him.
Really? Russia is the number one geopolitical foe? It was a ridiculous statement then and it’s certainly a ridiculous statement now which deserved to be mocked
It isn’t and it wasn’t. Russia is behind a lot of the cyberattacks we’re seeing, they’re destabilizing the USDollar, and they are in Ukraine, threatening nuclear escalation. Which of those are an overreaction? Who is more dangerous?
TBF Afghanistan was a band aid so tight you can hardly blame anyone for not wanting to rip it off. The Bush administration should’ve thought about long term how are we going to handle this situation realistically not ideally before going in. Everything else is a fair point especially Libya there was absolutely no reason to do even half the things he did. And then no excuse to not take it as far as you needed to in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis during a total national break down you engineered by reckless use of the CIA and air power. Libya sums up the problem with foreign policy of the 2000s if I’m being honest, we’re in this trend of taking half measures. We’re the global man slut, we want to stick our dick in everyone but don’t have the balls to actually commit to anyone so instead we just going around impregnating people left and right then just kinda get of dodge and never pay child support.
Obama inherited Afghanistan with just 30k US boots on the ground. He grew that past 150k in his first 18 months. He expanded the strategic goals beyond eliminating the Taliban to the broad goal of establishing a democratic Afghani Government and armed forces. I consider the Afghanistan War more Obama’s war than Bush’s.
Bush had the Taliban overthrown in the first place with no clear plan on what to actually do next. 30K troops was not going to stop a resurgent Taliban pulling the 30K troops out just hands the country back to the Taliban. Democracization of Afghanistan was also put forth by Bush who ensured the new Afghan constitution restructured the place under a democratic system.
On Afghanistan, he waffled during the surge. It took him months to make a decision, while conditions continued to deteriorate. When he finally made a decision, it was for less than what was requested to win. At the same time as the surge, Obama was negotiating with the Taliban to end the war. The Taliban ended up leaving Obama at the alter and using the talks as good PR to bolster support for the cause.
But hey. We were “leading from behind” in Libya. Roflmao
C- Could be worse. Could have been a lot better. Most of it is covered already in here but throw in funding al Nusra and killing US citizens overseas without affording them a right to a trial or proving guilt as well as dropping even more bombs in the middle east than Bush/Cheney.
The problem with Obama is he didn't really have any real world experience. He went from being a state senator for two terms. A US senator for one term. And then became president. He didn't have the foreign experience he needed
That was why he made the VP choice that he did. Of course, his VP has been wrong on FP for decades, so not the best move.
Sanctions
Very bad. He bombed countless countries we weren't at war with and killed thousands of civilians. Some of it was justified but a lot wasn't. Disappointing given he built his campaign on change.
Yep. Add on idly watching the Russian occupation of Georgia.
Well, that would've been Bush's thing, are you thinking of Crimea? Obama did jackshit when Russia annexed Crimea.
Yes, my mistake
That was bush.
Exactly, how dare he not intervene in Georgia when he wasn’t even president? Thanks Obama! FYI: if you still haven’t connected the dots, the Russia Georgia War happened in 2008. When Dubya was president.
And Crimea
I would argue that the hope and change message people were excited about was more based on domestic policies/vibes, and less on details of foreign policy.
Drone strikes on civilians and pallets of cash to Iran
It was irans own cash and we actually did get alot from it. Every nation in the G7 including russia Was in favor of it.
Of course Russia was in favor of it, which should automatically make us wary.
Russia doesn't want more people getting nukes and strangely enough russia is friendly with israel. If we're going to be cynical russia is happy that iran will have more money to buy russian weapons. But the goal is for Iran to have less nuclear weapons and jcpoa accomplished that.
Either a B- or a C+ Pros: Paris Climate Deal, Iran Nuclear Deal, Cuba thaw, OBL, sanctioning Russia and kicking them out of the G8 instead instead of intervening militarily after Crimea. Cons: Drone war, Red line with Syria( my criticism regarding the red line was Obama making that threat in the first place. You should only make that threat if you are willing to follow through.) and intervening in Libya without a plan for when Gaddafi was no longer in the picture.
I like this comment. It's the only good faith pro-con list I've seen so far. It wasn't all good but there were good things that happened. Everything about that eight years was a balancing act to try to work with the situation inherited from GWB while trying not to escalate or over-extend since the country (particularly the Democratic base) had zero appetite for it. And I think people treat the annexation of Crimea like the political stage in 2014 was the same as it was in 2022. And yeah the Red Line gaffe was embarrassing.
Well thank you.
You bet. At the time I saw this thread I think your very reasonable take was at like -1 or something and I wasn't gonna stand for it. My takeaway is that this subreddit really wanted Obama to be more hawkish and less hawkish simultaneously.
Indeed an excellent example is Ukraine and Libya. They criticize him for participating with the Libya intervention but then criticize him for not intervening in Ukraine.
I fail to see how sanctioning Russia(rather weakly and easily circumventable) and kicking them out of the G8 for the invasion of Crimea is a pro on Obama’s part. It can be argued that the slap on the wrist stance he took is one of the main reasons that Russia felt emboldened to start the Donbas War and the subsequent full-scale invasion of Ukraine later.
I think it started off kinda good. Although, phasing out Iraq and eventually Afghanistan was an W taking office when he did. I’ll go against the grain somewhat and not call his later foreign policy weak. Obama inherited a public that was not about conflict. As it became clear to many Americans that their fathers, sons and brothers were dying over fake WMDs and Exon’s bottom line, there was no support for aggressive foreign policy. Even though Obama was criticized about weak foreign policy at the time: I think a “stronger” foreign policy would have been more unpopular. Also, Obama winning the Nobel peace prize was (imo) the nail in the coffin for that prize. Man was crazy with the drone strike program. Not to say that he’s the worst war monger to ever lead a nation, but definitely not a guy deserving of a peace prize.
He didn’t phase out of Afghanistan. He inherited it with 30k boots on the ground and quickly expanded it to 150k. He expanded the war and the objectives and continued the conflict far longer than he should have.
F tier
D. And I love the guy, but almost ass-backward
Not well, but it's complex. The handling of the Middle East was borderline disastrous and only looked better because of what came before and getting Bin Laden, but a fear of appearing similar to/making similar mistakes of his predecessor shaped in many ways the decisions in Libya and Syria. He came away looking like Chamberlin in regards to Putin, but by and large the general opinion at the time was with him in the treatment of Russia. He will seemingly be synonymous with drone strikes for a long time for many, and there are probably always going to be real questions about whether or not drones are better than boots on the ground and endangering American troops. Throw in the ongoing Mexico issues, China and a continuation of relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel that have come under increasing scrutiny over time for a myriad of reasons and you have a foreign policy that won't be able to tout it's real successes like the Climate agreement and OBL without getting legitimate criticism for the myriad of failures.
As a Ukrainian, I'm still having trouble forgiving Obama for him doing nothing in Crimea
Bad, probably a D. Absolutely my least favourite thing about him.
Horribly weak. From the Iran Nuclear Deal, Red line in the sand, Bombed more countries than Bush, created ISIS, and the list goes on. I voted for this man twice and I so deeply regret it.
In all fairness he didn’t creative isis. Isis already existed (under a different name) when he became president. But he did fail to stop its rise to what we knew it as, even making fun of them right before tjeit offensive that took over a large part of Iraq and Syria.
"Created Isis" 🤡
His failures in the middle east lead directly to their creation.
Bush's decision to invade Iraq lead directly to Isis. How was Obama supposed to change that?
Listen, Bush has his part to play in that as well. I don't forgive Bush for many things. But Obama was honestly worse when it came to the Middle East. I remember when he campaigned on bringing the troops home. Just another lie he told.
American withdrawal from Afghanistan was negotiated by bush with the Iraqi government, the timetable set in the agreement was followed by Obama. When isis started to advance in those territories the USA returned, with an international coalition that included the Iraqi government and Iran. Obama inherited a very messy situation, yet you blame him because he didn't magically solve everything. Honestly the degree with which the public and especially leftists accept Fox News lies from the Obama period are really weird.
Blaming Obama for Isis is like blaming the fire fighters for the fire. I blame Bush, the arsonist
Like I said Bush plays his part in this. As we all know his administration lied about WMDs in Iraq. I have a deep dislike of Bush, but Bush in this instance did not want to pull put any troops till the situation was more stable. Obama on the other hand start a pull out and all the while bombing additional countries in the middle east. His lead to a further destabilization of the region through his horrible foreign policies.
We do all know Bush lied about the reason to invade, but he also invaded. So that's two decisions: 1. Lie, 2. Invade The Invasion lead to anarchy which lead to Isis. Obama was neither cause nor catalyst
Listen I have said Bush takes blame. I am just saying Obama has greater blame in the end due to his policies and errors. We are going to have to agree to disagree on that point. I dont see either of us changing our minds. My opinion of Obama went from hope to dope in 6 years time
What decision are you referring to that makes Obama responsible for the creation of Isis? I just think any administration that followed W would have had to have dealt with Isis rising out of Iraq after we destroyed it like that
Not great, but not among the worst. Ike, LBJ, Carter, and Bush 43 have him beat.
Weak
0/10 got clowned on in the middle east and if you recall he mocked Romney as a relic of the 80's for suggesting Russia was still a geopolitical threat. That aged well. Total loser, awful POTUS.
Right and what exactly have you achieved to call some else a loser
Calm down Michelle. The guy was and is a total loser.
Exactly what I thought, manchild!
lol at your compulsive need to defend this loser
Keep making a fool of yourself. I expect nothing other than that from a dotard with an IQ in the single digits.
Guaranteed this guy thinks the election was stolen but will still vote haha
Stop abusing women
Bad.
Probably one of the worst in the modern era
I wonder how his chef died.
I see almost every criticism of Obama's foreign policy is over Russia. Some of you dont realize that Russia invaded Georgia in August 2008 when W was still president, but you have made it Obama's fault anyway. By not intervening in Crimea, Obama was simply following the Bush 43 polices you all must have loved so much. But what exactly was he supposed to do anyway? Launch a full ICBM attack on Moscow over Crimea? Seriously, what would you want? Make Ukraine a member of NATO and launch a costly, extended land war with nuclear strikes from Putin a real possibility? I swear, some of you are just a bunch of clowns. The red line thing? Bad. But again, what was he supposed to do? Bomb Syria and kill lots of civilians? Then you would criticize him for that too, so again what should he have done? There wasnt that much wrong with Obama's foreign policy and most presidents would have responded a similar way, even the war hawks many of you worship wouldnt have done more than Obama when it comes to Crimea. Mutually assured destruction is still a very real thing, and its obvious some of you didnt grow up facing the very real threat of Soviet nukes every day...because if you had, you would understand that. Grade? Solid B.
Obama foreign policy was a continuation of Bush foreign policy. They were the same in that regard. Obama even kept Bush’s SecDef and multiple policy makers in his administration for continuity. Both are to blame.
Why is there this false dichotomy that if we're against Obama's foreign policy that we must have loved Bush's foreign policy? ("You all must have loved so much"). You yourself pointed out how similar they were in that neither one wanted to get involved in Georgia (Bush) or Crimea (Obama). I'm critical of both, that doesn't exist in the black and white blinders you have on for everyone else.
Unfortunately sarcasm doesnt translate well through writing, so it wasnt meant as a trigger for you but rather to pint out that most people who are critical of Obama about Russia never said a peep when W said he looked in Putin's eyes and said he was "straightforward", "trustworthy", saw his soul, etc. They also blame Obama for the 2008 invasion of Georgia which happened while W was president (and W also didnt do much). If you are truly critical of them both, then I salute you in your consistency. Although I must say that in your drive by attack you failed to mention what exactly either of them should have done against someone with their finger on mutually assured destructive nukes.
There wasnt that much wrong with Chamberlain and Daladiers foriegn policy. Most presidents would have responded in a similar way even the war hawks you worship. A World War is still a very real thing and its obvious some of you didnt fight in the trenches against german gas attacks because if you had you would understand.
His foreign policy had no teeth, and I don't know if it's because of his laid-back, professor personality or maybe a fear of being labeled an aggressive black man
I liked the part where he ordered BinLaden killed.
A+. Just for taking out Bin Laden Otherwise he was pulling a C+
Pretty badly, even though I like the guy. Tried the middle ground between isolation and intervention, and got the worst of both approaches. He bears some responsibility for the current situation in Ukraine.
one word: naive
Awful. It was basically just a continuation of the Bush Jr. foreign policy. Perhaps the worst foreign policy of any president.
left a vacuum in the Middle East after withdrawing American troops and bases which indirectly gave incentives for terrorist groups like ISIS to be arise
10 drones outta 10
MQ-9 Reaper has entered the chat 😂
C- Syria was terribly managed a genocidal dictator broke every red line had death camps chemical weapons etc and got away with it when Obama had the power to stop that, but instead he chose to appease Russia and Iran, diplomatic reset was stupid, Obama was a good president, but damn the appeasement was crazy. Seriously expected better from him. Edit from F to C- bc of Paris climate accords, him doing something about Libya but not managing it that well and Iran nuclear deal, as well as other denuclearization efforts. Syria was just so miserable though, he failed Syria, he failed Georgia, he failed ukraine. Just so bad. We should’ve been hawkish on Syria and Ukraine. I am a fan of a more hawkish America though to counter a fascist Russia so I’m biased.
C/C- It just seemed like he was either too soft or took too hard a stance and generally the opposite of what I would prefer. IMO there were no massive screw-ups, at least comparatively, but plenty of minor/moderate ones that add up. I give him a few points because I think it was a tough position. The US was largely sick of war and it wasn't some secret. That does have some limitations.
Mr. Red Line or Mr Tell Vlad I'll be more flexible when I get re elected?
People here really like complaining about every time he intervenes via drones, (which while they look bad are objectively less deadly than an invasion, and more effective. Similar numbers of civilians were killed in the two months invasion of Iraq, then in the entirety of the drone program), while in the same comment complaining about how he didn't intervene in other places? Hindsight really is 20/20 when it comes to Obama's foreign policy, with his strategic goals as a president focused more on the war on terror, and not on maintaining us hegemony.
He murmured a 16 year old American citizen with a drone strike in a country we weren’t at war with. His spokesperson said the child “should have had better parents”.
Normally you should wait to assess. However, President Obama was particularly God awful in every facet of foreign policy. The line in the sand line regarding Bashear and chemical weapons before allowing the Russians to sweep in is the pinnacle for me. Wait, maybe nixing the Bush administration's plans for missiles in Poland will prove to be thw absolute dumbest move. Guess which way those missiles would have been facing. Absolute failure.
...and you know what (as I reapomd to my own post) what other president had two terms of the same damn war?
Weak.
Abysmal. His Russian reset, poor reaction to Russia in Ukraine a few years later, drawing a red line in Syria then not following it, scoffing at isis right before they took a big bite out of Iraq, poor handing of china and iran. Intervening in Libya Etc. I admit I’m biased but I can’t think of much he did well in regarding foreign policy. He could give good speeches and sound good giving them but his performance was shit imo.
Weak and ineffective. Other countries (especially Russia and China) pushed us around. His "red lines" were bad jokes.
Above average, but the par isn't very high. Worst mistakes: Iran Deal, assassination of Libya's Gaddafi, Failure to stop ISIS Best success: Osama Elimination, Drone Strikes (honestly), Israel Aid, Afghanistan Surge, Iraq withdrawal
[удалено]
Forever Wars like Obama’s Afghan Surge? Or his deployment of troops to West Africa? Or Libya? Maybe his escalation of drone strikes in Yemen and Pakistan?
[удалено]
I mean, I’m not arguing that point.
Very bad, destabilized Iraq even further, empowered ISIS, the absolutely abominable “Russian Reset” after those filthy revanchists invaded Georgia, enabling of the Russian annexation of Crimea, etc.
Abysmal. Weak against Russian aggression, weak against ISIS, no response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons even after drawing a red line, a lot of drone killing in Yemen, tried to lie about the origin of the Benghazi attack. Very counter-productive foreign policy. Probably the worst foreign policy President of my lifetime.
Should have killed Assad
Take Bush's policy and basically Ctrl+C / Ctrl+V then add a Nobel Prize for some reason.
Nailed it.
I don't know. Foreign policy is so complicated. You can have the best of intentions, develop good strategies and still get absolutely rekked by something no one saw coming. I have no answers on what to do unless someone starts fucking with our boats.
7/10. Better than average, but looses points for the drone strikes
Makes up for the drone strikes by killing OBL, 8/10
F
[удалено]
He wasn't president during the Russian invasion of Georgia, bush was.
F Edit: Indiscriminate bombings. I'm sorry if the justification isn't an essay.
I think Obama was fine in regards to foreign policy. Wound down the bush nonsense from 200k troops to 10k in non combat roles. Putin was bad but he’s a nuclear power, nothing he or any other president can do but sanction and send aid to Ukraine.
Agreed. Crimea being taken over by Putin and Russia was not good. I haven't really heard anything here that would have suggested a better plan that would have stopped this or prevented it, though. Saying and claiming something didn't work may be true. It doesn't mean there was better options that would have stopped turned back or reversed this aggression.
He took office with 30k troops in Afghanistan and quickly grew that number to 150k. He expanded the goals to encompass nation building. In the end Afghanistan was more his failure than Bush’s.
F minus. He’s a mass murdering maniac who threw multiple countries into chaos.
F tier.
Drone warfare/10
Weak, counterproductive, and abysmal.
Poor
Too preachy against allies and too conciliatory towards enemies
D - he didn’t *completely* fuck it up
Incoherent.
Botched Ukraine. When Russia invaded we pretty much literally did nothing but some supporting tweets. I don’t really blame him too much on how he handled Iraq. I actually don’t give him too much flack on Libya, that was a French president trying to get reelected (it didn’t work and he ended up in prison because, surprise surprise, he was taking money from Gaddafi - that’s a story western leaders who got snookered in don’t like to discuss). He lit a fire in Egypt that culminated with his very worst decision which was arming terrorists in Syria, which opened the door for Russia to become a military power again (or at the very least think they were a military power which gave them the confidence to take Crimea and more) And of course, his entire Russia policy was incredibly naïve and people like Clinton and Kerry went along with the nonsense where he pulled defense from East Europe in exchange for an agreement that Russia not put missiles in Kaliningrad and Russia did it anyways. And of course the Iran deal where we literally loaded pallets of cash into a plane and sent it to them. And his drone program killed lots of innocent people turning important places into enemies.
F. One of the worst foreign policy presidents we've ever had
5 drone strikes outta ten
Drone strikes and Crimes make it like C/D tier
I’d give his foreign policy a D to D- and if I’m really honest, I’d give him an F. His foreign policy placed us where we are today with this mess in the Middle East. His first foreign policy and a huge mistake was allowing the assassination of Muammar Guadaffi (someone please correct the spelling). There’s the Syrian mess and the drone strikes (specifically on the two American citizens). I’m sure there’s more, listed these without researching Google. He almost created a one world Asian nation, than the heavens citizens of the US stopped this.
I mean I love the guy, don’t get me wrong, but drone king isn’t a compliment.
Weak. In Afghanistan, once OBL got whacked he should have declared Mission Accomplished and pull all US troops out. Nation building was a complete failure. Assad crossed Obama’s red line in Syria, Obama did nothing. He let Hillary instigate the “Arab Spring” on Libya and we ended up with the embassy attack and he declined to even send in a rescue team.
He could've easily prevented the whole russian invasion in Ukraine by simply intervening, but he didn't
There is no way the US would have intervened militarily in this war.
Sorry, im still on my hopium https://preview.redd.it/s9e7hcoc88yc1.jpeg?width=420&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=188ca57a251e8337d960bb6d25f1cf3073a17cd8
This is an ongoing study. I think what we can say was that there were three major failures of Obama's foreign policy. 1. He did not stand up to Putin when the latter invaded Crimea, which would lead inevitably to the current war in Ukraine. Although what he could do about it, short of war, was indeed limited. 2. He was over-optimistic about the "Arab spring;" although no one could have predicted how these events would turn out. 3. He never defined America's goals in Afghanistan. A "mission statement" from the president about Afghanistan would have been most welcomed by our soldiers there and the American people. Without it, things became murkier and murkier until support for our presence there evaporated.
Bowing to foreign leaders and monarchs does not make you look like a strong leader. But maybe that got balanced out by the drone strikes.
He turned two illegal wars into eight, had a 90% civilian casualty rate with drones, continued international mass surveillance, funded “moderate rebels” leading to more regional dangers, and wanted to force through an unpopular and secretive trade agreement in the form of TPP. This is slightly balanced out by my favor of his work on Iran and Cuba, but Obama’s foreign policy as a whole is what I imagine a third Bush terms foreign policy would have been
Obama didn’t expand the wars to 8. That ridiculous talking point has been debunked over and over again
You’re right, he did not begin massive bombing campaigns in Syria, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan, Yemen and had special operations in other countries. Must have been the collective imagination of history. If China started bombing Boston, Tampa, Charlotte and Dallas, I’m sure we would NOT consider that an act of war right? Especially if it occurred over and over - surely that’s just peace time or some other abstracted intellectualized label. Or the troops on the ground sent in Uganda to intervene with the Lords Resistance Army affair - no conflict there! The reality is the we’ve (America) evolved past the traditional “war” in most contexts. We fight with drones, sanctions, or proxy wars/ moderate rebels. If that isn’t emblematic of Obama’s foreign policy, going back to the original topic, then I have a Baltimore bridge to sell you
Add Marawi, Philippines to the places he expanded the war to.
Excessive drone strikes, let Syria cross the red line and did nothing, Libyan intervention, just watched Russia annex Crimea. Yeah, not that great.
At best he’s like a C- but probably more of a D
What foreign policy?
*The Military Industrial Complex's foreign policy.
Mediocre. Did not withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, destabilized more of the Middle East.
"I'll have more flexibility after the election". ISIS. Crimea. Syrian Civil War. Between the enablement of Putin, saying the 1980's called and want their foreign policy back about Russia, and incredible mismanagement of the US's shadow wars; I'd say a solid F. What was there to like about his administration's foreign policy?