Pre-conditions and trend.

Bush’s post-9/11 foreign affairs, especially OIF, upheld the fundamental principles of American leadership of the free world. The same kind that framed your service in Germany and mine in Korea.

Whereas Obama’s foreign affairs, deviating from Bush, have been effectively a (deliberate?) sabotage of American leadership of the free world.

In terms of effect, what is Obama’s foreign affairs trending towards?

The answer is Obama has set up the pre-conditions for alt-Right, Russian-approved American “neo-isolationism”.

Distinguishing Bush’s from Obama’s foreign affairs would be an indicator that Trump meant to re-right the course by fixing the damage to American leadership engineered by Obama.

Instead, by conflating Bush and Obama’s foreign affairs, it appears that Trump means to use the damage to American leadership engineered by Obama as a jumping off point to further the shift away from American leadership of the free world.

Of course, predictive analysis of Trump’s foreign policy outlook is with a big grain of salt due to his ambiguous, cursory, shifting rhetoric.

Yes, his announced foreign policies are a mishmash of mercantilism, neo-isolationism, and “Bomb ’em.” But how are any of those a continuation of the One-derboy’s? Even if you want to put a nice face on them and call his foreign policy of the Realist School, that’s certainly not Barry O’s. Saying that the Iran deal is “the worst deal in American history” is not following Obama.

Sorry, the argument that Trump’s foreign policies are a follow-on to Obama’s is just fetched too far for me.

Recall Obama’s passive-aggressive approach to the SOFA negotiation with Iraq where he made a show of upholding the American interest but constantly ‘negotiated’ in a way seemingly designed for Iraqi rejection. Eg, capping troop levels too low to maintain the vital, painstakingly developed US role in Iraq versus political cost, and rejecting an executive immunity guarantee, yet the post-2011 US troop deployment to Iraq has relied on an even weaker diplomatic immunity assurance.

As Neo has often posted, the Obama ‘doctrine’ has been to side with autocratic regimes antithetical to the US – from Latin America to the Middle East – and renege, limit, and/or withhold/withdraw a sufficient degree and kind of American intervention to match means to ends for American national-security commitments.

Whereas, suspiciously, in the instances that Obama has intervened (eg, Libya) or ostensibly continued an intervention (eg, Afghanistan), his decisions and adjustments seem to be, in Army speak, (deliberately?) setting up the mission for failure.

Post-OIF Iraq is a case in point. First, Obama prematurely disengaged from Iraq. Then, as the situation (as expected and predicted) worsened under regional and internal pressure sans American protection, Obama reneged on the SFA (distinct from SOFA) in the window the US could have readily recovered the situation. But then, as the situation worsened beyond a ready recovery, Obama then began a ‘mission creep’ with Iraq that, as critics like WaPo’s Fred Hiatt have noticed, has maintained a suspiciously consistent ‘too little, too late’ pace with the situation. Eg, the same US action taken with Iraq in 2015 could have turned the tide in the 2013 situation, but was insufficient by 2015. Obama’s consistent ‘too little, too late’ pace with the situation is reminiscent of the passive-aggressive to the SOFA negotiation with apparent US action, but closer scrutiny shows that the US action is seemingly (deliberately?) set up for failure.

How does that tie into Trump as an Obama 3rd term?

The effect of the passive-aggressive Obama ‘doctrine’ and deviation from Bush has been to degrade American international relationships and devalue/discredit American leadership abroad, thus paving the way for a Trump isolationist turn that builds on Obama’s embrace of autocratic regimes, breaks already weakened international relationships, and further recoils American leadership begun by Obama’s creative destruction.

Note that instead highlighting the deviation of Obama from Bush and advocating to re-credit American leadership of the free world, Trump has disingenuously conflated Bush and Obama’s foreign affairs in a suspiciously consistent manner to Russian propaganda.

This might help you get to bed earlier, or at least head off that dreaded Second Wind that keeps us up until all hours. A free widget called “f-lux,” which shifts the color spectrum of your computer screen to sort better with the nighttime. It’s freeware, and was linked from a New York Times article.

https://justgetflux.com/

They have downloads for PC’s, the Mac, and various I-gadgets.

I noticed the effect immediately I installed it….. zzzzzz

Many, including Gov Jindal, amongst the latest, are now telling us to back Trump to stop the evil Clinton.”

Not surprising – “The capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.”

This goes to why ‘hostile takeover’ is a better characterization of the Trump phenomenon than ‘burn it down’.

This also goes to why the reflex by some conservatives to work within the parameters of the GOP is insufficient. The GOP, like Jindal, will react to the market. Right now, the market inefficiency is being exploited by the Trump phenomenon. Therefore, while conservatives can work for the GOP, limiting their efforts to the GOP is a formula that risks unethical compromise and (further) practical marginalization.

To compete for their preferred social condition versus the socially dominant Left and striving insurgent alt-Right, conservatives need to establish their own social activist movement and embark on a Gramscian long march that’s distinct from the GOP.

@Ann – Interesting, as I’ve come to notice that about the Atlantic lately.

I hope what you say is true. It fits in line with this progressive-critical op-ed article from NYT…
“… maybe we progressives could take a brief break from attacking the other side and more broadly incorporate values that we supposedly cherish – like diversity – in our own dominion.”…
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/opinion/sunday/a-confession-of-liberal-intolerance.html?ref=opinion
.

@FOAF – one does not have to trust everything in every publication one reads, but it is important to get info from perspectives outside our own bubble of self confirming echos.

We also have to keep in mind that not everything a progressive tells us is false, and that maybe a good part of what we are hearing in “conservative” media has its own false narrative.

That last part is particularly jarringly apparent this year, with so many “conservatives” or GOP “supporters” either backing Trump, or, now, capitulating to Trump, despite all they’ve said was important all these years.

Many, including Gov Jindal, amongst the latest, are now telling us to back Trump to stop the evil Clinton.

The problem with that argument is that it presupposes that all evil exclusively comes from the left.

Now, that’s interesting. I wonder why that happened, and what it means, if anything.