What is similar now and then, is that the wonderful clear inspiring speeches are simply not given coverage. With Obama, it is very interesting because in 2007 and 2008, they WERE shown and were seen for what they were. If I wanted to be cynical, it is almost like the media WANTED the Kennedy/Kerry part of the party to win in 2008 -- and then be seen as pie in the sky ineffective.
They KNEW that the incoming President faced the foreign policy implosion of the Middle East. There was no sustainability to keeping large numbers of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, they were already in trouble before the election. By September 2008, they knew the financial system was in grave danger as well.
Obama has improved our position and this can be seen by the polls showing most of the world is happier with us. In addition, although the media taunted Obama and especially Kerry saying that they could not get a coalition even as good as GWB's - the coalition is equal or better than GHWB's and Obama got a UN resolution that was I think unanimous. (W refused to return to the UN - instead going with Blair and the Spanish PM to the Canary Islands to announce that they were united on Iraq. ) Yet the coverage of the building of the coalition, the UN sessions and the changes that really occurred in the Iraqi government have gotten very little coverage -- and have interested few here on DU or DK.
Not to mention, the help the US gave in brokering the Afghani elections got almost no coverage at all. Even using google, what I saw were some articles on Kerry's surprise trip to Afghanistan with the comment that it was helpless and Afghanistan was going off the cliff, then stories that JK did broker an agreement that the WP pundit's claimed would fail, then articles that Kerry's agreement was failing, then articles that Afghanistan had formed a government - where some failed to mention Washington's help. In reality, if Afghanistan does not become a total failed state -- that agreement is why.
In reality, isn't it a stronger, more sustainable position to have the UN and the region working with us and the ground fighting being done by people in the affected area than the US leading a western coalition (mostly of colonial powers) that is attacking all the big targets (shock and awe) or surging to win more areas - that only fall to same people we fought after we leave? Yet the media sees victories in the bombs and destruction -- and sees the careful, tentative nation and community building, which will almost certainly not lead to governments that we would call models of western democracy as ultimately failures.
Then look at Russia/Ukraine, the media and DU/Dkos completely bought how strong Putin was. Even though, the ruble has lost over one third of its value and they have repeated lied to the world -- only to later do things that proved they really were lying. Is this really what they define as strength? This was a tricky position for the US and the west. Russia has for decades been paranoid and seen the need for a buffer of states that they control as their neighbors. However those peoples have a right to decide their own policies and destinies. The west could not ignore Russia annexing parts of the Ukraine, but there certainly was no role that a military piece (even arming the Ukrainians) made sense here. The economic tools used have had an effect - but they have not yet really pushed Putin to change his objectives here. However, it is really hard to argue that a different policy would have led to a better result.
I suspect that history will judge Obama's foreign policy better than the current pundits do.
= new reply since forum marked as read
