Come on, are Obama and W much worse than Reagan, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Rossevelt? The US will keep using up the last of its credibility year after year, and of course that just means it isn't.
Yes, in terms of foreign policy, I think that W and especially Obama have been profoundly, historically, difficult-to-believe bad.
I'm not trying to downplay Iran-Contra, Gulf of Tonkin / Vietnam, etc., but the last two administrations have taken what was unduly hostile (and expensive) logistical capability around the world and turned it into Empire.
The needs, wants, representative processes, laws, and sovereignty of other nations have reduced in relevance to the Empire's decision making process to zero.
It's interesting you bring up Roosevelt: don't forget - that was an actual, declared war - by Congress. So in terms of assessing foreign policy that's different for sure.
By comparison, Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars. I think this is, as you say, "much worse."
The last 8 years have been relatively quiet compared to the 00s or 90s or 80s. Historically speaking, I bet 20 years from now most of Obama's interventions are mere footnotes, like Reagan's mostly are.
I mean, prior to 2001 the web wasn't what it is today - but now news/information/opinion/whistleblowing/whatever spreads quickly and easily and reaches pretty much everyone. Could it not just be that it's harder to be clandestine and easier to speak out / monitor everything?
I would argue the opposite. Wars have eroded US global power. Iran was the biggest regional winner in the Iraq war, Saudi Arabia the biggest loser. US has weakened its position in the Middle East and Eurasia. Saudis are dealing with China more openly and Turkey is more independent. Even Germany is now more openly pushing it's own agenda in relation to Russia.
>Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars.
International laws have changed a lot since WWII. Formal declarations of war (using the text 'declaration of war' in the bill) are not used anymore. There is no need to declare war if the war has UN authorization. If a country goes into war without UN authorization they can't do formal declaration without violating UN charter they have ratified.
If you look at the wars US has been involved since 2001, they are either wars authorized with UN resolution and funded by Congress or they are 'military engagements' authorized by Congress.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Un...
The US has been, and acted as, a global empire from the end of WWII, and a basically unrivaled one since the fall of the USSR. It is certainly not either of the most recent two administrations that did that.
> Obama has attacked no less than seven different countries in undeclared wars.
I suspect you are mistakenly applying a "magic words" standard to Congress' Article I power to declare war, but if you don't identify which specific instances you are talking about, I can't really tell how much that explains.
Other nations are not obligated to actually do anything or stand up for themselves and if it is known that their rhetoric will result in zero action why would you bother listening to them in the first place?
Now get off my lawn.
The mission itself was a failure.
"...the bulk of U.S. foreign surveillance operations are governed not by acts of Congress, but by a 33-year-old executive order issued unilaterally by President Ronald Reagan."
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/29/new-documents-...