What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Obama Doctrine: A Recipe for Failure Overseas (1 Viewer)

I can be more specific about Reagan's role, and this is off the top of my head:

SDI

Increased military spending

Grenada and the end of detente and the notion of containment

Speech to dissidents at Berlin Wall

The unbridled hubris of declaring that communism would inherently fail, a postulation much derided by critics at the time

Other than Walsea and Gorbachev, what other statesman could have possibly influenced world events as much as Reagan, given as much criticism as Reagan got in the West?

And can YOU give consensus about politically elected leaders who determined the outcome of the Cold War among leaders not within the Bloc?
OK that's what I figured. It's always comes down to the same old arguments: increased military spending (including SDI) plus his speech at the Berlin Wall. I just don't find this to be compelling. I can't see how anyone could find it compelling unless they're simply looking to congratulate Reagan. Sorry but there it is. The Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989 was one of the world's greatest monolithic empires, ruling over a vast area of land. It was always paranoid about new weapons and technology and continually sought to outspend the west. It was also always paranoid and suspicious of all U.S. Presidents and believed that they all desired the Soviets' immediate destruction. Given these facts I can't believe that the actions and speeches by Reagan in question would have made any difference at all.

 
I can be more specific about Reagan's role, and this is off the top of my head:

SDI

Increased military spending

Grenada and the end of detente and the notion of containment

Speech to dissidents at Berlin Wall

The unbridled hubris of declaring that communism would inherently fail, a postulation much derided by critics at the time

Other than Walsea and Gorbachev, what other statesman could have possibly influenced world events as much as Reagan, given as much criticism as Reagan got in the West?

And can YOU give consensus about politically elected leaders who determined the outcome of the Cold War among leaders not within the Bloc?
OK that's what I figured. It's always comes down to the same old arguments: increased military spending (including SDI) plus his speech at the Berlin Wall. I just don't find this to be compelling. I can't see how anyone could find it compelling unless they're simply looking to congratulate Reagan. Sorry but there it is.The Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989 was one of the world's greatest monolithic empires, ruling over a vast area of land. It was always paranoid about new weapons and technology and continually sought to outspend the west. It was also always paranoid and suspicious of all U.S. Presidents and believed that they all desired the Soviets' immediate destruction. Given these facts I can't believe that the actions and speeches by Reagan in question would have made any difference at all.
You said nothing about Grenada and the willingness to fight the Brezhnev doctrine, nor do you give enough weight to a counterbalance and non-capitulatory president of the other superpower, nor do you give any weight to the effect of statesmanship and belief in an utter rot of another system, which is of course unquantifiable but also meaningful.

 
You also brought up "Grenada and the end of Detente". Not sure how the two are connected. Certainly Reagan didn't end Detente; his agreement in Iceland represented probably the ultimate act of Detente by a US President. But what did Greneda have to do with anything? Do you seriously believe that, in the throes of economic and social crisis, the Russians paid any attention at all to Grenada?

 
You also brought up "Grenada and the end of Detente". Not sure how the two are connected. Certainly Reagan didn't end Detente; his agreement in Iceland represented probably the ultimate act of Detente by a US President. But what did Greneda have to do with anything? Do you seriously believe that, in the throes of economic and social crisis, the Russians paid any attention at all to Grenada?
Reagan didn't end detente, but he certainly nudged it. Any assertion to the contrary is completely incorrect and not factual. We can google "Reagan, detente" if you'd like; that won't end well. For you.

Yes, I think the Soviets paid major attention to Grenada. There. I can be as declaratory as you can.

 
I can be more specific about Reagan's role, and this is off the top of my head:

SDI

Increased military spending

Grenada and the end of detente and the notion of containment

Speech to dissidents at Berlin Wall

The unbridled hubris of declaring that communism would inherently fail, a postulation much derided by critics at the time

Other than Walsea and Gorbachev, what other statesman could have possibly influenced world events as much as Reagan, given as much criticism as Reagan got in the West?

And can YOU give consensus about politically elected leaders who determined the outcome of the Cold War among leaders not within the Bloc?
OK that's what I figured. It's always comes down to the same old arguments: increased military spending (including SDI) plus his speech at the Berlin Wall. I just don't find this to be compelling. I can't see how anyone could find it compelling unless they're simply looking to congratulate Reagan. Sorry but there it is.The Soviet Union between 1945 and 1989 was one of the world's greatest monolithic empires, ruling over a vast area of land. It was always paranoid about new weapons and technology and continually sought to outspend the west. It was also always paranoid and suspicious of all U.S. Presidents and believed that they all desired the Soviets' immediate destruction. Given these facts I can't believe that the actions and speeches by Reagan in question would have made any difference at all.
You said nothing about Grenada and the willingness to fight the Brezhnev doctrine, nor do you give enough weight to a counterbalance and non-capitulatory president of the other superpower, nor do you give any weight to the effect of statesmanship and belief in an utter rot of another system, which is of course unquantifiable but also meaningful.
Yeah I guess I don't give any weight to any of that. The last part is important. I believe that Reagan was a great statesman; one of our best ever. But playing a role in bringing down the Soviet Empire? I don't see it. In 1920, another great statesman, Winston Churchill, predicted that the Soviet Union would one day collapse. He was correct, but it took 70 more years. Reagan pretty much copied Churchill and like him had no idea when it would happen or exactly why it would happen. But Reagan was right as well.
 
You also brought up "Grenada and the end of Detente". Not sure how the two are connected. Certainly Reagan didn't end Detente; his agreement in Iceland represented probably the ultimate act of Detente by a US President. But what did Greneda have to do with anything? Do you seriously believe that, in the throes of economic and social crisis, the Russians paid any attention at all to Grenada?
Reagan didn't end detente, but he certainly nudged it. Any assertion to the contrary is completely incorrect and not factual. We can google "Reagan, detente" if you'd like; that won't end well. For you.

Yes, I think the Soviets paid major attention to Grenada. There. I can be as declaratory as you can.
OK. Guess we just disagree pretty strongly then.
 
I can be more specific about Reagan's role, and this is off the top of my head:

SDI

Increased military spending

Grenada and the end of detente and the notion of containment

Speech to dissidents at Berlin Wall

The unbridled hubris of declaring that communism would inherently fail, a postulation much derided by critics at the time

Other than Walsea and Gorbachev, what other statesman could have possibly influenced world events as much as Reagan, given as much criticism as Reagan got in the West?

And can YOU give consensus about politically elected leaders who determined the outcome of the Cold War among leaders not within the Bloc?
- SDI - waste of money that wasn't a major reason why the Soviet Union collapsed

- Carter proposed a 5% increase in defense spending to Reagan's 7%

- Carter was the first to warn Grenada about trading with Cuba

- Reagan's speech was not the reason the wall was taken down (Hungary and Czechoslovakia effectively destroyed its purpose by allowing East Germans to escape).

- Plenty of people knew the Soviet Union was headed for collapse, but yes, Reagan did announce it publicly.

Had Carter or anyone else been President the Soviet Union would still have collapsed as long as Gorbachev had been President of the Soviet Union.

 
Ineresting article from Norman Podhoretz about containment, detente, and Reagan's rise to power.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1985-02-01/first-term-reagan-road-d-tente
Interesting is not the correct word. It's a fascinating piece of historical revisionism by one of the neocons most responsible for our invasion of Iraq. Containment, as devised by Georhe Kennan and enacted by Harry Truman, won us the Cold War. The support of Greece, the Marshall Plan, the Berlin Airlift- those represented the crucial turning point our struggle against the Soviet Union. By the time Reagan came to power they were already defeated, and well on their way to total collapse.

 
Ineresting article from Norman Podhoretz about containment, detente, and Reagan's rise to power.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1985-02-01/first-term-reagan-road-d-tente
Reagan's confidence and optimism was desperately needed at that time; it doesn't mean he did anything to bring down the Soviet Union.

For decades the media was at fault for selling fear of the economic power of the USSR to the American public when it was actually an economic mess doomed to failure.

 
The Failing SystemFrom the mid-1970s to the eve of Gorbachev's assumption of party leadership in the spring of 1985, the CIA portrayed a Soviet Union plagued by a deteriorating economy and intensifying societal problems. CIA products described the growing political tensions resulting from these failures, the prospect that sooner or later a Soviet leadership would be forced to confront these issues, and the uncertainty over what form this confrontation would take.

These products include the unclassified testimony from each of DCI Admiral Stansfield Turner's annual appearances before the JEC from 1977 through 1980 (Appendix A, references 1-4)--part of the "annual public reports" cited by the HPSCI Review Committee. Turner's testimony and the written submissions for these hearings described a "bleak" Soviet economy for which continued decline through most of the 1980s was "inevitable." The hearing reports include:

  • CIA descriptions of how badly Soviet economic performance lagged behind that of the West and the prospect that Soviet leaders would be forced to confront growing conflicts between civilian and military uses of resources and investment.
  • CIA assessments that the Brezhnev leadership recognized the potential for larger political repercussions from the economic failure; that the Brezhnev regime (and possibly even an initial successor) was nonetheless likely to attempt to muddle through rather than confront the politically difficult choices necessary to deal with the decline; that muddling through was not a viable option for the longer term; and that by the mid-1980s the economic picture "might look so dismal" that a post-Brezhnev leadership might coalesce behind policies that could include "structural reforms."
Other unclassified CIA publications disseminated in 1977 and 1980 (Appendix A, references 5 and 6) presented the same picture of a deteriorating economy that ultimately could provoke more radical policies.
 
Ineresting article from Norman Podhoretz about containment, detente, and Reagan's rise to power.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/1985-02-01/first-term-reagan-road-d-tente
Reagan's confidence and optimism was desperately needed at that time; it doesn't mean he did anything to bring down the Soviet Union.

For decades the media was at fault for selling fear of the economic power of the USSR to the American public when it was actually an economic mess doomed to failure.
The Failing SystemFrom the mid-1970s to the eve of Gorbachev's assumption of party leadership in the spring of 1985, the CIA portrayed a Soviet Union plagued by a deteriorating economy and intensifying societal problems. CIA products described the growing political tensions resulting from these failures, the prospect that sooner or later a Soviet leadership would be forced to confront these issues, and the uncertainty over what form this confrontation would take.

These products include the unclassified testimony from each of DCI Admiral Stansfield Turner's annual appearances before the JEC from 1977 through 1980 (Appendix A, references 1-4)--part of the "annual public reports" cited by the HPSCI Review Committee. Turner's testimony and the written submissions for these hearings described a "bleak" Soviet economy for which continued decline through most of the 1980s was "inevitable." The hearing reports include:

  • CIA descriptions of how badly Soviet economic performance lagged behind that of the West and the prospect that Soviet leaders would be forced to confront growing conflicts between civilian and military uses of resources and investment.
  • CIA assessments that the Brezhnev leadership recognized the potential for larger political repercussions from the economic failure; that the Brezhnev regime (and possibly even an initial successor) was nonetheless likely to attempt to muddle through rather than confront the politically difficult choices necessary to deal with the decline; that muddling through was not a viable option for the longer term; and that by the mid-1980s the economic picture "might look so dismal" that a post-Brezhnev leadership might coalesce behind policies that could include "structural reforms."
Other unclassified CIA publications disseminated in 1977 and 1980 (Appendix A, references 5 and 6) presented the same picture of a deteriorating economy that ultimately could provoke more radical policies.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/21/world/director-admits-cia-fell-short-in-predicting-the-soviet-collapse.html

"In a speech to the Foreign Policy Association in New York, Mr. Gates, the Director of Central Intelligence, said that although the agency wrote many assessments describing a growing crisis in the Soviet Union, it was not until 1989 that agency analysts began "to think that the entire edifice might well collapse."

 
Herbert Meyer, a former economic editor of Fortune whom

DCI William Casey brought to the Agency in the early 1980s as a special

assistant, is quoted as saying:

Everything I had been able to learn about the Soviet economy,including visiting the place, told

me it couldn't be growing at the rate the CIA said it was...It sim-

ply couldn't be true. I know what an economy looks like

when it's growing 3 percent a year, and that isn't what it looks

like [Author's note: Actually,CIA calculated the average for

the early 1980s at slightly less than 2 percent per year]... You

cannot have food shortages growing worse, production shortages

growing worse, bottlenecksall those things we knew were going

onand still have an economy growing at the rate the agency

said it waswhich the United States was barely doing at that

point...It couldn't be true.
 
I am not sure how any rationale person could have lived during the end of the Cold War and not given Reagan some credit for its collaspe. Reagan central foreign policy theme was to drive the Soviet Inion into collapsing. Nothing like that was ever uttered or policies produced by the likes of Johnson, Nixon, Forc or Carter. The criticism Reagan received as being a dangerous war -monger was near universal. Reagan was portrayed as stupid and crazy for his ideas by politicians and the media. It just baffles my mind how some now dismiss what happened.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure how any rationale person could have lives during the end of the Cold War and not given Reagan some credit for its collaspe. Reagan central foreign policy theme was to drive the Soviet Inion into collapsing. Nothing like that was ever uttered or policies produced by the likes of Johnson, Nixon, Forc or Carter. The criticism Reagan received as being a dangerous war -monger was near universal. Reagan was portrayed as stupid and crazy for his ideas by politicians and the media. It just baffles my mind how some now dismiss what happened.
Because the inevitably of socialism was so certain that the inevitability of its collapse was just as strong.

:shrugs:

People re-write history all the time. Best we capture eight years of the WaPo and NYT op-ed pages to back ourselves. Guess they're on microfilm somewhere.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not sure how any rationale person could have lived during the end of the Cold War and not given Reagan some credit for its collaspe. Reagan central foreign policy theme was to drive the Soviet Inion into collapsing. Nothing like that was ever uttered or policies produced by the likes of Johnson, Nixon, Forc or Carter. The criticism Reagan received as being a dangerous war -monger was near universal. Reagan was portrayed as stupid and crazy for his ideas by politicians and the media. It just baffles my mind how some now dismiss what happened.
I don't think it should be dismissed. And I agree with you that many people were completely wrong about how they regarded Reagan. They honestly believed that Reagan's confrontational actions would lead us to a possible nuclear war with the Soviets, which was very naïve. And nowadays the intellectual heirs of those same people denigrate Reagan at every turn and are eager to give him no credit.

Please do not place me with those people. I believe that Reagan was essentially correct in his foreign policy toward the Soviet Union (though not in some other ways) and that his statements about the Soviets were correct as well. But that being said, I still don't believe that any of this was essential in collapsing the Soviet Union.

 
He didn't.

Reagan arguably kept the USSR from implementing "all in" reforms in '85 which might have sped up the inevitable, but that was due to his "inordinate fear of communism" creating his SDI visions.

 
I still remember when SDI was first proposed. It was supposed to make nuclear weapons obsolete. It sounded like a great idea (though nobody ever explained how it would stop a nuclear sub). But I was all for it. Then they spent billions and the tests never worked. Apparently when George W Bush was first elected, Donald Rumsfield intented to go back to it but 9/11 stopped all that.

So it turned out to be a gigantic boondoggle and waste of money. But now we're told that the really important thing about it is that it drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. It doesn't matter that no historian covering the fall of the Soviet Union even considers this a factor; the timing works and we need to find a way to give Reagan credit.

 
I still remember when SDI was first proposed. It was supposed to make nuclear weapons obsolete. It sounded like a great idea (though nobody ever explained how it would stop a nuclear sub). But I was all for it. Then they spent billions and the tests never worked. Apparently when George W Bush was first elected, Donald Rumsfield intented to go back to it but 9/11 stopped all that.

So it turned out to be a gigantic boondoggle and waste of money. But now we're told that the really important thing about it is that it drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. It doesn't matter that no historian covering the fall of the Soviet Union even considers this a factor; the timing works and we need to find a way to give Reagan credit.
I have no need or desire to give Reagan any credit at all. Afghanistan was Brzezinski (thus Carter)'s trap for the USSR. Our defense buildup resulted no change in the USSR's defense spending (i.e. they didn't try to keep up). All of Reagan's support for the "ideological heirs of the founding fathers" were in places that Cuba might have interest, but not the USSR of the '80s. And of course were the very definition of "inordinate fear of communism". Reagan walking away from Reykjavík (I keep saying '85, but it was '86 - The Red Sox were down to their last strike) over his SDI fantasies was one of the dumbest foreign policies blunders ever...

But it might have worked out for the better if we believe the sudden collapse of the USSR and the renewal of ancient conflicts was a good thing. You aren't given Reagan credit for blundering his way into a better result (if it was), nor should you. But he might have. More likely it was already too late for the USSR to save itself and a few more years of reforms only changes a few dates in history books.

 
I still remember when SDI was first proposed. It was supposed to make nuclear weapons obsolete. It sounded like a great idea (though nobody ever explained how it would stop a nuclear sub). But I was all for it. Then they spent billions and the tests never worked. Apparently when George W Bush was first elected, Donald Rumsfield intented to go back to it but 9/11 stopped all that.

So it turned out to be a gigantic boondoggle and waste of money. But now we're told that the really important thing about it is that it drove the Soviet Union into bankruptcy. It doesn't matter that no historian covering the fall of the Soviet Union even considers this a factor; the timing works and we need to find a way to give Reagan credit.
I have no need or desire to give Reagan any credit at all. Afghanistan was Brzezinski (thus Carter)'s trap for the USSR. Our defense buildup resulted no change in the USSR's defense spending (i.e. they didn't try to keep up). All of Reagan's support for the "ideological heirs of the founding fathers" were in places that Cuba might have interest, but not the USSR of the '80s. And of course were the very definition of "inordinate fear of communism". Reagan walking away from Reykjavík (I keep saying '85, but it was '86 - The Red Sox were down to their last strike) over his SDI fantasies was one of the dumbest foreign policies blunders ever...

But it might have worked out for the better if we believe the sudden collapse of the USSR and the renewal of ancient conflicts was a good thing. You aren't given Reagan credit for blundering his way into a better result (if it was), nor should you. But he might have. More likely it was already too late for the USSR to save itself and a few more years of reforms only changes a few dates in history books.
But don't forget, per rockaction, we invaded Grenada! That had a HUGE impact!
 
For those interested in the OP, the views of Obama proponents, and current events, can anyone enunciate what the Obama Doctrine is or if there is none?

 
This is not a criticism or statement TIA, it's an open question - is there an Obama Doctrine and if so what is it?
Pragmatism.
Ok, or realpolitik?

Can we be more specific here?

Wiki is not a real reference but it can be useful as an example:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf.

It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the United States' Cold War adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf.

The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes the section:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
But don't forget, per rockaction, we invaded Grenada! That had a HUGE impact!
Besides conveniently diverting attention from the suicide bombings of the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, Grenada was all about giving a generation of military leaders "combat" experience so they would have hopes to further their careers and just about everyone involved some hardware (more medals than participants). The Soviets did care enough to force the US to veto a UN resolution condemning the whole thing. Maybe that two day diplomatic action diverted the necessary resources that could have kept them going.

 
This is not a criticism or statement TIA, it's an open question - is there an Obama Doctrine and if so what is it?
Pragmatism.
Ok, or realpolitik?

Can we be more specific here?

Wiki is not a real reference but it can be useful as an example:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf.

It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the United States' Cold War adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf.

The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes the section:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Obama is close to Kissinger's realpolitik. The problem with Carter was that he was a soft religious guy and no one took his threats seriously. Carter allowed a minor situation - some hostages - to define his entire career because he was afraid to threaten Iran and follow through (besides the one of the most ridiculous military missions in history). Military force is Obama's last option, but he has no issue using it when necessary - but only then with discretion. The reason I prefer 'pragmatist' over 'realpolitik' is that realpolitik has a constantly changing definition. Obama is a pragmatist since he appears to weigh the cost/benefit to any decision without much regard to ideological beliefs. He's also big picture guy who considered the long-term outcome and not just the immediate situation.

 
People caring about what Saudi Arabia thinks is like people caring about what the Kardashians think.

Both are dangerous in their own unique way. HTH.
Seriously DD? Come on now. The Saudi's have ramped up military spending to be either the 3rd or 4th biggest spender depending on whose list you are looking at but basically spending roughly the same as Russia. This is a huge increase over the years which seem to have been greatly increased in Obama's administration. Now, in general, it is nice to see some of our allies pick up the check on security but we also have to see why this is happening. Is it Obama has been successful in encouraging a regional ally like the Saudi's to shoulder more of the weight for that part of the world or is it because the Saudi's are worried about the influence of Iran and the lack of leadership from the US? To say who cares about the Saudi's seems to me to be a very cavalier way of being shortsighted. Usually you are much more in tune with the nuances of security concerns.

 
People caring about what Saudi Arabia thinks is like people caring about what the Kardashians think.

Both are dangerous in their own unique way. HTH.
Seriously DD? Come on now. The Saudi's have ramped up military spending to be either the 3rd or 4th biggest spender depending on whose list you are looking at but basically spending roughly the same as Russia. This is a huge increase over the years which seem to have been greatly increased in Obama's administration. Now, in general, it is nice to see some of our allies pick up the check on security but we also have to see why this is happening. Is it Obama has been successful in encouraging a regional ally like the Saudi's to shoulder more of the weight for that part of the world or is it because the Saudi's are worried about the influence of Iran and the lack of leadership from the US? To say who cares about the Saudi's seems to me to be a very cavalier way of being shortsighted. Usually you are much more in tune with the nuances of security concerns.
Saudi Arabia is a simple country to figure out - all it cares about is keeping its dictatorship going. They are spending money because they are afraid ISIS will end their gravy train.

 
This is not a criticism or statement TIA, it's an open question - is there an Obama Doctrine and if so what is it?
Pragmatism.
Ok, or realpolitik?

Can we be more specific here?

Wiki is not a real reference but it can be useful as an example:

The Carter Doctrine was a policy proclaimed by President of the United States Jimmy Carter in his State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980, which stated that the United States would use military force if necessary to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf.

It was a response to the Soviet Union's intervention of Afghanistan in 1979, and was intended to deter the Soviet Union—the United States' Cold War adversary—from seeking hegemony in the Gulf.

The following key sentence, which was written by Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter's National Security Adviser, concludes the section:

Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.
Obama is close to Kissinger's realpolitik. The problem with Carter was that he was a soft religious guy and no one took his threats seriously. Carter allowed a minor situation - some hostages - to define his entire career because he was afraid to threaten Iran and follow through (besides the one of the most ridiculous military missions in history). Military force is Obama's last option, but he has no issue using it when necessary - but only then with discretion. The reason I prefer 'pragmatist' over 'realpolitik' is that realpolitik has a constantly changing definition. Obama is a pragmatist since he appears to weigh the cost/benefit to any decision without much regard to ideological beliefs. He's also big picture guy who considered the long-term outcome and not just the immediate situation.
I want to rethink or re-read this response. I did like it the first time (still do) but this just caught my eye:

without much regard to ideological beliefs
Do you really believe this?

He has an ideology and it does guide him. It's an open question what that is and I hate to speculate but I'd like to hear what your thought on that is.

 
People caring about what Saudi Arabia thinks is like people caring about what the Kardashians think.

Both are dangerous in their own unique way. HTH.
Seriously DD? Come on now. The Saudi's have ramped up military spending to be either the 3rd or 4th biggest spender depending on whose list you are looking at but basically spending roughly the same as Russia. This is a huge increase over the years which seem to have been greatly increased in Obama's administration. Now, in general, it is nice to see some of our allies pick up the check on security but we also have to see why this is happening. Is it Obama has been successful in encouraging a regional ally like the Saudi's to shoulder more of the weight for that part of the world or is it because the Saudi's are worried about the influence of Iran and the lack of leadership from the US? To say who cares about the Saudi's seems to me to be a very cavalier way of being shortsighted. Usually you are much more in tune with the nuances of security concerns.
Saudi Arabia is a simple country to figure out - all it cares about is keeping its dictatorship going. They are spending money because they are afraid ISIS will end their gravy train.
You think that the Saudi's spending as much as the Russians on defense is about Daesh? I really think you are not understanding the dynamics of the region there.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top