EA CO AS wrote:
Obama not only didn't learn from Bush's mistakes, he went on to make the same mistake twice over; a non-secular Middle Eastern despot, when overthrown, leaves a vacuum for secular Middle Eastern fundamentalist groups to rise up and create chaos. Bush found that out once Hussein was out of power, and Obama followed suit in Libya, Syria, and even Egypt to some extent.
You're clearly referencing the Arab Spring that affected many Arab countries. Let's break down each one:
I find it interesting that conservatives were all too eager to blame Obama for action they themselves wanted and didn't credit him for. We had calls from GOP circles on how the US MUST intervene in Libya and remove Gaddafi. Obama, reluctantly, agrees to participate in a coalition where European powers would lead while the US provided support. We then had GOP folks criticizing him for "leading from behind" and showing "weak leadership". Gaddafi is captured and killed and NTC troops manage to get the country under their control; the GOP goes head over heels praising European powers for their efforts while not giving Obama any credit. All hell breaks lose after Benghazi, and it's Obama's fault (not the European powers') that Libya is how it is.
When will conservatives get their story straight then? Could Libya have been better planned? Possibly, but the justification for the mission involved no troops on the ground, as authorized by the UNSC, so it was either air support or a stalemate where Gaddafi probably would have gotten his way.
A country ruled by Hosni Mubarak for nearly 30 years and where people were clearly displeased with his government. So if you're faced with a situation where you want to improve your standing in the world, do you:
a. support an autocratic ruler and his regime?
b. purposely overthrow the leader of an ally country?
c. remain neutral and let things play out?
We've seen each of these play out:
a. Iran...and look where that got us.
b. Not happened, but that would probably make other allied countries nervous at the thought they too could be removed.
c. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. With Tunisia, this played out well; with Egypt, not so much.
A country ruled by the Al-Assad clan for over 45 years, where people also started expressing discontent with the government. Al-Assad, being a bit of a thorn on the US side of things, was probably a good target for removal (especially when its people wanted his removal anyway). The problem is that the opposition was completely fractured so which faction of the opposition merited support from the West? THAT was the Achilles heel of supporting Syrian rebels. There was no way to know that a few would take advantage of the situation, ally themselves with Al-Qaeda and other factions, and claim land in the name of ISIS. So now the Syrian Civil War is at a stalemate; government and opposition battling against ISIS but also against each other. And as long as Russia is involved, supporting the Syrian government, there's nothing that can happen. So how would YOU solve the situation?
a. Let Russia handle things in Syria?
b. Maintain the status quo until ISIS is defeated?
c. Send troops and take control of Syria?
You pretty much know how each one will play out:
a. Trump favors this approach, though his favoring of Russia everywhere is eyebrow raising. Whereas Obama would be faulted for weak leadership and allowing Russia to overpower the US, it seems conservatives have no qualms if Trump called the shots with this one.
b. Currently the course of action. ISIS is defeated which would allow Syrian factions to negotiate an end to conflict.
c. Great! Iraq War part 3. Deficit? Who cares? Just cut social programs and cut taxes!