So I'm listening to the Foreign Policy / Editor's Roundtable podcast. It's interesting but man oh man, it is amazing just how hawkish the consensus seems to be among foreign policy specialists. They rail against Trump's positions, which is to be expected, but they're also very negative about Obama. Not that I think that he has a perfect record (the whole "red line" thing was a major blunder), but the podcast contributors across the partisan divide seem to believe there's really no problem that can't be fixed by heavy US military involvement. For one it sells short the still massive US effort permanently ongoing (half of the campaigns "led by allies" in the Middle East and Africa probably wouldn't happen without it) and their subdued and discrete involvement (special forces, military "trainers"), as if anything else that US sending tens of thousands of fresh meat sticks anywhere was a road to isolationism.
It's a nice thing to see US force as a potential force for good in the world but roasting at the same time Obama for not coddling enough Sunni allies is a bit of underlying ambivalence you have to adress at one point. In the same vein, it's all fine and good to get all heated about Syria but I can't help but notice that there's very little talk about the Libya shitshow aftermath as a textbook example of how it's easier to break a vase than fix it.
In a way, the constant negativity is not that far removed from some of the Trumpism chant of "We are losing everywhere". It all has an air of self persuasion of an American decadence
Also lamenting at the insolvency of a liberal morally enlightened lawful world order advantageous to the USA when it is the same country that was willing to override or put the brakes on institutions trying to make this more of a reality everytime it might tie their hands...
