What Ben Rhodes seems to saying is that US foreign policy made some mistakes over the last 20 years or so - undeniably correct. He is also saying that because of America's position in the world, although diminished, we should work to make things better - also correct. However, Ben Rhodes is a little hazy about what that US foreign policy should be.
Ben Rhodes is a pariah character. He organized the coverup of Benghazi. He told various folks that Benghazi was a consequence of a movie about Islam. That was never true. It was an ISIS attack on a US consulate (in Benghazi). Hillary (who also publicly lied about Benghazi) sent her own daughter an Email that very day (the day the consulate was attacked) saying it was an ISIS attack.
The lies of Ben Rhodes and Hillary played a role in the 2016 election. Ben Rhodes should be very ashamed of his role in Benghazi.
I think that the message here is that the foreign policy of regime change does not work. I would add that economic sanctions to achieve this goal do not work. (economic sanctions may be important for other reasons). I agree that the US should its influence in elaborating the positive elements of liberal democracy, such as a free press, but not expect authoritarian regimes to swallow liberal democracy whole.
It's a pity they didn't discuss Bosnia and Kosovo, two places where US-led intervention definitely did a lot of good.
Libya was Obama's Kosovo, a conflict where the US and allies quickly intervened to stop an autocrat's murderous rampage. The civil war Libya has experienced over the last decade does not mean overthrowing Qaddafi was a mistake - if anything, it might have made sense to put US troops in Libya to help build up the forces of the UN-recognized government, rather than keeping troops in Afghanistan for far too long.
Had Obama intervened in Syria in 2013, it could have been his Bosnia, a conflict where a US president intervened to weaken (not overthrow) a thuggish regime after initially dragging his feet. Launching air and missile strikes alongside France, and arming the Free Syrian Army to the teeth, would have helped the forces of decency stand strong as an alternative to both Assad and jihadists. Instead, Obama made the big mistake of taking a deal offered by Putin that left chemical weapons in Syria. US non-intervention left a void for Russia and ISIS to fill, contributing to a massive refugee crisis.
Diplomacy in Syria in 2011 may have been worth a try, but in any case it was foolish for Obama to call for Assad to step down if he didn't intend to do anything to bring that about. The arc of history (if such a thing exists) does not bend on its own. It requires human action to bend it. The Iraq war hawks were not the only people to be mistakenly optimistic - Obama had too much faith in history turning out alright in the end.
I respect Obama, and I agree with most of his foreign policy decisions. Drone strikes; Iron Dome; killing Bin Laden; pushing Mubarak out; intervening to save the Yazidis; Iran sanctions and the nuclear deal; the response to Ebola in West Africa; diplomacy with Cuba; trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea; negotiating TPP (which Congress should have passed); the European Reassurance Initiative; Power Africa - all these made sense, and many achieved good results. But I really hope he comes to regret his non-intervention in Syria, just as Clinton came to regret his non-intervention in Rwanda.
"...I was frustrated that it was harder to build support for a diplomatic agreement with Iran than it was to take our country to war in Iraq."
This reminds me of a quote about President Obama from the 'Times profile of Rhodes in 2016: “𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩,” 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵.
Rhodes thinks that supporting the Iraq was was easier than the Iran deal only through some moral or intellectual failing. The more obvious reason is that normal people saw 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 chance of success with Iraq but 𝘯𝘰 chance with Iran.
What Ben Rhodes seems to saying is that US foreign policy made some mistakes over the last 20 years or so - undeniably correct. He is also saying that because of America's position in the world, although diminished, we should work to make things better - also correct. However, Ben Rhodes is a little hazy about what that US foreign policy should be.
Ben Rhodes is a pariah character. He organized the coverup of Benghazi. He told various folks that Benghazi was a consequence of a movie about Islam. That was never true. It was an ISIS attack on a US consulate (in Benghazi). Hillary (who also publicly lied about Benghazi) sent her own daughter an Email that very day (the day the consulate was attacked) saying it was an ISIS attack.
The lies of Ben Rhodes and Hillary played a role in the 2016 election. Ben Rhodes should be very ashamed of his role in Benghazi.
I think that the message here is that the foreign policy of regime change does not work. I would add that economic sanctions to achieve this goal do not work. (economic sanctions may be important for other reasons). I agree that the US should its influence in elaborating the positive elements of liberal democracy, such as a free press, but not expect authoritarian regimes to swallow liberal democracy whole.
It's a pity they didn't discuss Bosnia and Kosovo, two places where US-led intervention definitely did a lot of good.
Libya was Obama's Kosovo, a conflict where the US and allies quickly intervened to stop an autocrat's murderous rampage. The civil war Libya has experienced over the last decade does not mean overthrowing Qaddafi was a mistake - if anything, it might have made sense to put US troops in Libya to help build up the forces of the UN-recognized government, rather than keeping troops in Afghanistan for far too long.
Had Obama intervened in Syria in 2013, it could have been his Bosnia, a conflict where a US president intervened to weaken (not overthrow) a thuggish regime after initially dragging his feet. Launching air and missile strikes alongside France, and arming the Free Syrian Army to the teeth, would have helped the forces of decency stand strong as an alternative to both Assad and jihadists. Instead, Obama made the big mistake of taking a deal offered by Putin that left chemical weapons in Syria. US non-intervention left a void for Russia and ISIS to fill, contributing to a massive refugee crisis.
Diplomacy in Syria in 2011 may have been worth a try, but in any case it was foolish for Obama to call for Assad to step down if he didn't intend to do anything to bring that about. The arc of history (if such a thing exists) does not bend on its own. It requires human action to bend it. The Iraq war hawks were not the only people to be mistakenly optimistic - Obama had too much faith in history turning out alright in the end.
I respect Obama, and I agree with most of his foreign policy decisions. Drone strikes; Iron Dome; killing Bin Laden; pushing Mubarak out; intervening to save the Yazidis; Iran sanctions and the nuclear deal; the response to Ebola in West Africa; diplomacy with Cuba; trade deals with Colombia, Panama, and South Korea; negotiating TPP (which Congress should have passed); the European Reassurance Initiative; Power Africa - all these made sense, and many achieved good results. But I really hope he comes to regret his non-intervention in Syria, just as Clinton came to regret his non-intervention in Rwanda.
"...I was frustrated that it was harder to build support for a diplomatic agreement with Iran than it was to take our country to war in Iraq."
This reminds me of a quote about President Obama from the 'Times profile of Rhodes in 2016: “𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘨𝘶𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘐 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩,” 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘵.
Rhodes thinks that supporting the Iraq was was easier than the Iran deal only through some moral or intellectual failing. The more obvious reason is that normal people saw 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦 chance of success with Iraq but 𝘯𝘰 chance with Iran.