Neocon Washington Post scolds Obama, all but calls for military action against Russia

[brentspeak]

I don't usually like sticking up for Obama, but it's hard not to when the right-wing (yes, right-wing) WP editorial board wags its neocon finger at him and then saber-rattles for military action while claiming it doesn't really want military action. ("We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea...but, uh, actually we do, as we imply in the very next paragraph".)

Unfortunately, Obama's positions inevitably reflect whatever 1% crap the WP's editorial board supports (public school privatization, Social Security and Medicare "reform", bank bailouts, corporate lobbyist-written free trade agreements, eternal war in Afghanistan, etc.), so expect Obama to begin hinting at military action against Russia in at least some small way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html

President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy

By Editorial Board, Sunday, March 2, 8:56 PM

FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality. It was a world in which “the tide of war is receding” and the United States could, without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces. Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past. Secretary of State John F. Kerry displayed this mindset on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday when he said, of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Ukraine, “It’s a 19th century act in the 21st century.”

snip

Unfortunately, Russian President Vladimir Putin has not received the memo on 21st-century behavior. Neither has China’s president, Xi Jinping, who is engaging in gunboat diplomacy against Japan and the weaker nations of Southeast Asia. Syrian president Bashar al-Assad is waging a very 20th-century war against his own people, sending helicopters to drop exploding barrels full of screws, nails and other shrapnel onto apartment buildings where families cower in basements. These men will not be deterred by the disapproval of their peers, the weight of world opinion or even disinvestment by Silicon Valley companies. They are concerned primarily with maintaining their holds on power.

snip

The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.

But it’s also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.
As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.

[BeyondGeography]

1. Fuck them and their piece of shite track record

In the months leading up to the Iraq war, the WP wrote 27 editorials supporting an invasion: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/20/washington-post-iraq-war-anniversary_n_2915608.html

[okaawhatever]

2. It was bought out by Jeff Bezos. I think the "editorial" says something about the way he plans

to run the paper in the future. The editorial was a joke because it said, well, nothing. It's important to note that no one put their name on that piece. Hmmm........

[malletgirl02]

7. Editorial

You are correct it does show where Bezos is taking the Washington Post in the future. The reason there is no name to the piece is that it is the official position of the paper, not just the work of some columnist.

[Enthusiast]

3. +1 an entire shit load!

[Fumesucker]

4. It's that damn liberal media again n/t

[pampango]

5. "So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea."

The White House often responds by accusing critics of being warmongers who want American “boots on the ground” all over the world and have yet to learn the lessons of Iraq. So let’s stipulate: We don’t want U.S. troops in Syria, and we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea. A great power can become overextended, and if its economy falters, so will its ability to lead. None of this is simple.

But it’s also true that, as long as some leaders play by what Mr. Kerry dismisses as 19th-century rules, the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether. Military strength, trustworthiness as an ally, staying power in difficult corners of the world such as Afghanistan — these still matter, much as we might wish they did not. While the United States has been retrenching, the tide of democracy in the world, which once seemed inexorable, has been receding. In the long run, that’s harmful to U.S. national security, too.

As Mr. Putin ponders whether to advance further — into eastern Ukraine, say — he will measure the seriousness of U.S. and allied actions, not their statements. China, pondering its next steps in the East China Sea, will do the same. Sadly, that’s the nature of the century we’re living in.

If you couple the statements "we don’t want U.S. troops in Crimea" with "the United States can’t pretend that the only game is in another arena altogether", you get support for a non-military, but tough and effective, response. People may want the 21st century to be different from the 19th and 20th centuries, but you have to be ready for old tactics to be used again and again. I expect that is what Obama understands that Putin believes that military power is the essence of Russia's strength and he is not afraid to use it.

[reformist2]

6. The neocons are the ones who destabilized the Ukraine. I think we have agitators inside the gov't.

If this were any other country, the press would be reporting on how the US government is not in control of its own foreign policy.