I generally agree with Mr. Bacevich on foreign affairs; however, to argue that Obama didn't perform up to standard is a false equivalencey at best, and at worst a gross mischaracterisation of circumstance. To be fair, Obama entered office with his furture far more constrained than any previous President in US history: His foreign policy was set by the previous - blunder prone administration. An administration that essentially made the wrong decision on every policy conceivable; an adminstration that was soley focussed on "transformation" in their own right (no pun intended).
That aside, his role was doubly and uprecedently constrained by the having the unbelievable bad luck to be the only president in history to have both a domestic induced financial crisis - with global proportions- to deal with while simultaneously dealing with two full blown foreign wars and several smaller conflicts at the same time. This was also compuounded by a congress hell bent on obstructing him in an unprecedented manner. Frankly in the context of his domestic and foreign affairs reality, he's done surprisingly well. The Right's paragon of virtue, Reagan did the same thing Cheney/Bush administration did - transformative foreign policy while ruining the domestic economy. This ruined Bush Sr. and yet Obama managed to survive exponentially more damaged foreign and domestic realities.
Anyone foolish enough to have thought he would be truly transformative like some kind of black jesus, clearly shouldn't be a commenter on these issues. His only course of direction possible was to try and recover, not transform US policy. He had no chance to try anything transformative because he and his administration was constrained by historical forces beyond anyone's control. America is NOT exceptional, but rather quintessentially imperial - just like every other empire and as such is a very difficult "ship of state" to turn within an 8 year (really 6 at best) term.
In contrast, the next president will be given an economy that is relatively healthy and with no major wars to contend with just like every other president in US history.
I think Mr. Bacevich's argument is really about the transformative period of the Baby Boomer decline in power. Obama isn't one, but the remenants of the Boomer disaster which are desperately trying to extract maximum benefits from a system that they benefitted greatly from, which is perpetuating and extending the very problems that he was discussing. I agree; the Boomers have screwed us for too long for their own self-serving and greedy benefit. That demographic shift will truly be the transformative moment that we all hope for.
As the Onion posted when Obama won, "Black man given nation's worst job".
Historically speaking, I suspect that Obama will be remembered by most americans as an exceptional president, and even more likely an exceptional ex-president - more so than any modern president. His moment to be truly unconstrained will prove his transformative potential Mr. Bacevich.
The view I take of this is that yes it was an opportunistic assassination and nobody will really protest, but the broader strategy is to maintain a general stalemate with enough fighting to keep Israel out of direct fire.
Its a foolish short term plan, utilized many times by external powers - always with disastrous long term repercussions.
What does Israel think will happen when the fighting finally ends? Heavily armed decentralized groups of fighters will inevitably turn their attention to Israel.
Seems everyone is doing exactly what Rove is intending: even here, nobody has mentioned that this is simply a classic Rove pre-election tactic. The goal is to get the rumour out there, to seed the idea in people's minds for later during the election. Facts dont matter because people won't remember anything but that they heard something about her having brain damage. He did the same thing to McCain.
It's basic black propaganda.
I generally agree with Mr. Bacevich on foreign affairs; however, to argue that Obama didn't perform up to standard is a false equivalencey at best, and at worst a gross mischaracterisation of circumstance. To be fair, Obama entered office with his furture far more constrained than any previous President in US history: His foreign policy was set by the previous - blunder prone administration. An administration that essentially made the wrong decision on every policy conceivable; an adminstration that was soley focussed on "transformation" in their own right (no pun intended).
That aside, his role was doubly and uprecedently constrained by the having the unbelievable bad luck to be the only president in history to have both a domestic induced financial crisis - with global proportions- to deal with while simultaneously dealing with two full blown foreign wars and several smaller conflicts at the same time. This was also compuounded by a congress hell bent on obstructing him in an unprecedented manner. Frankly in the context of his domestic and foreign affairs reality, he's done surprisingly well. The Right's paragon of virtue, Reagan did the same thing Cheney/Bush administration did - transformative foreign policy while ruining the domestic economy. This ruined Bush Sr. and yet Obama managed to survive exponentially more damaged foreign and domestic realities.
Anyone foolish enough to have thought he would be truly transformative like some kind of black jesus, clearly shouldn't be a commenter on these issues. His only course of direction possible was to try and recover, not transform US policy. He had no chance to try anything transformative because he and his administration was constrained by historical forces beyond anyone's control. America is NOT exceptional, but rather quintessentially imperial - just like every other empire and as such is a very difficult "ship of state" to turn within an 8 year (really 6 at best) term.
In contrast, the next president will be given an economy that is relatively healthy and with no major wars to contend with just like every other president in US history.
I think Mr. Bacevich's argument is really about the transformative period of the Baby Boomer decline in power. Obama isn't one, but the remenants of the Boomer disaster which are desperately trying to extract maximum benefits from a system that they benefitted greatly from, which is perpetuating and extending the very problems that he was discussing. I agree; the Boomers have screwed us for too long for their own self-serving and greedy benefit. That demographic shift will truly be the transformative moment that we all hope for.
As the Onion posted when Obama won, "Black man given nation's worst job".
Historically speaking, I suspect that Obama will be remembered by most americans as an exceptional president, and even more likely an exceptional ex-president - more so than any modern president. His moment to be truly unconstrained will prove his transformative potential Mr. Bacevich.
The view I take of this is that yes it was an opportunistic assassination and nobody will really protest, but the broader strategy is to maintain a general stalemate with enough fighting to keep Israel out of direct fire.
Its a foolish short term plan, utilized many times by external powers - always with disastrous long term repercussions.
What does Israel think will happen when the fighting finally ends? Heavily armed decentralized groups of fighters will inevitably turn their attention to Israel.
Seems everyone is doing exactly what Rove is intending: even here, nobody has mentioned that this is simply a classic Rove pre-election tactic. The goal is to get the rumour out there, to seed the idea in people's minds for later during the election. Facts dont matter because people won't remember anything but that they heard something about her having brain damage. He did the same thing to McCain.
It's basic black propaganda.