This is a genuine question from an Englishman who doesn't keep up with the news a great deal. The readers of AoM seem, on the whole, anti-Obama. Why? His praises are sung pretty often here in Europe.
Well, actual action on withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan is a start.
Those are actually worse withdrawals than Vietnam. Not sure how you think they're good for the military.
ground being broken on civil rights in the military
I know you're anti-military, but this smacks of down right ignorance of history.
the official end of "dont ask, dont tell"
Only the "don't tell" part was repealed. I'm still not allowed to ask. And you're allowed to tell, despite me not asking. It's a rather annoying half-assed move and, not an improvement.
women being able to serve in combat positions being
How will this be an improvement?
Truth be told, i find the outrage with Obama to be quite humorous after the outright bufoonery of GWB.
You find it humorous that our previous President was a giant piece of shit, and our current one mimics the previous one's policies, poorly? I think outrage at the promised change which never occurred is rather appropriate.
I really think it's just butt-hurt over him being black AND a Democrat.
You're a fucking idiot. American's haven't cared about race since the year 2000.
Obama is praised in Europe because he does what is good for Europe and cares about what Europe wants. The same is not true regarding the USA.
Can you clarify why you say that? I'm not seeing how Obama's policies benefit Europe.
May I second your opinion? May I also add that Mr. Obama looks weaker every time something happens--he was dragged into war in Libya, protesting every step of the way, It's not war!, by European opinions--he was stopped from going to war in Syria by European opinions, again, protesting that it's not war, anyway--& it seems like whatever disaster is next, he's going to go through the motions again...
I'd say that the only reasons the President didn't authorize "surgical strikes" in Syria are:
1. After 12 years of military involvement in the Middle East, Congress had the political will to say, enough.
2. Not so much European opinion about the idea, but RUSSIAN opposition to air strikes hitting a client state.
3. Simple political economics, in a time of domestic fiscal retrenchment, the government simply can't afford to fully fund both guns and butter.
I'm just relieved he didn't..
Regarding your first point, really, it's a question--how many unbelievably small strikes can you balance on top of public & Congressional disapproval?--The answer is, Mr. Obama is officially the weakest president since Carter; I believe he will soon outdo him & then JFK, too. Other feeble leaders will look at him, astounded.
I agree with your second point.
Your third, too. Syria simply does not have the appeal Libya had. Liberals apparently only pick on the smallest, slightest stuff.
At least liberalism was still a fighting faith back then...
I don't think that's to Europe's benefit. Making EU look proactive may be good for Eurocrat careers, but not for Europe. Bankrupting the US, as Nick says, is going to cause economic disaster for everyone.