HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
2.27 MB
Extraction Summary
10
People
5
Organizations
13
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Policy memo / meeting notes (congressional oversight record)
File Size:
2.27 MB
Summary
This document appears to be a page from a foreign policy memo or meeting notes, stamped by the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810). It provides a critical analysis of the Obama administration's foreign policy, characterizing it as risk-averse and lacking 'big bets' compared to historical presidents like Truman, Nixon, and Reagan. The text includes specific strategic advice regarding Iran, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia (KSA), and Iraq, and incorporates views from Strobe Talbott and Brent Scowcroft regarding the need for a central strategy over tactical incrementalism.
People (10)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Barack Obama | US President |
Subject of the policy critique; described as taking no risks and making no 'big bets'.
|
| Harry Truman | Former US President |
Cited as an example of making big bets (Marshall Plan).
|
| Richard Nixon | Former US President |
Cited as an example of making big bets ('73 ME war).
|
| George H.W. Bush | Former US President |
Referred to as 'Bush (I)'; cited for integrating Germany and Poland into NATO.
|
| Ronald Reagan | Former US President |
Cited for his handling of the Malta summit and bypassing bureaucracy.
|
| Mikhail Gorbachev | Former Soviet Leader |
Mentioned in relation to the Malta summit with Reagan.
|
| Osama bin Laden | Terrorist Leader |
Mentioned as 'Osama'; his killing is listed as a victory.
|
| Ayad Allawi | Iraqi Politician |
Referred to as 'Alawi'; suggestion made to 'Bet on Alawi' regarding Iraq.
|
| Strobe Talbott | Foreign Policy Analyst/Diplomat |
Attributed author of a section discussing the 'Obama doctrine' and hedging bets.
|
| Brent Scowcroft | Former National Security Advisor |
Referred to as 'Scowcroft'; attributed author of a section criticizing the lack of central strategy.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| NATO |
Mentioned regarding the integration of Germany and Poland.
|
|
| White House |
Referred to as 'WH' in the context of Reagan's administration.
|
|
| EU |
Mentioned in relation to the financial crisis.
|
|
| NAM |
Mentioned in the context of Iraq (possibly Non-Aligned Movement or National Alliance).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Source of the document (indicated by footer stamp).
|
Locations (13)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Afghanistan/Pakistan region, described as 'a mess'.
|
|
|
Afghanistan, mentioned regarding the 'surge'.
|
|
|
ME
|
Middle East.
|
|
Mentioned regarding NATO integration.
|
|
|
Mentioned regarding NATO integration.
|
|
|
Site of a summit between Reagan and Gorbachev.
|
|
|
Identified as a location requiring a 'big bet' from the next president.
|
|
|
Described as having clear importance but a pitiful US response.
|
|
|
Discussed regarding US hesitation and the need to break its link with Iran.
|
|
|
United States.
|
|
|
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; suggestion to guarantee their integrity.
|
|
|
Discussed regarding potential breakup and political bets.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of 'Pivot to Asia'.
|
Relationships (2)
Talbott analyzes the 'Obama doctrine' as deliberate and smart.
Document suggests 'Bet on Alawi' in Iraq.
Key Quotes (6)
"Obama has made no big mistakes in a revolutionary environment, but no victories either."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #1
"Presidents make big bets, administrations don’t."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #2
"Incrementalism won’t work. Activities threaten our vital interests."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #3
"No big bets can succeed if the US has a policy of leading from behind."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #4
"Obama is an anti-doctrine doctrine."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #5
"Currently we are all tactics and no strategy."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,454 characters)
Afpak – a mess
Obama has made no big mistakes in a revolutionary environment, but no victories either. No big bets other than surge in Afghan – which we lost; and killing Osama which we won. Obama’s approach is to take no risk, increment into a situation and hedge the position. No big bets. Maybe that’s right for these times but look at Truman with Marshall Plan; in ’73 ME war Nixon used it to push Soviets out of ME which gave us 30 years of dominance in ME. Bush (I) pushed to integrate Germany and Poland into NATO – huge bet and we won. Big bets come from the top down. Not interagency BS. Before Malta summit, Reagan WH had given him 18 initiatives to raise with Gorbachev. 2 days before summit, Reagan decided to pass them by cabinet. Held cabinet meeting and every time an idea was surfaced, the relevant cabinet member tried to kill it until it had been vetted by his bureaucracy. After three went this way, Reagan ended the meeting. Presidents make big bets, administrations don’t. Here are some ideas:
1. Iran – next president will be forced to make a big bet.
2. Egypt – Importnace is clear. Our response has been pitiful. Small and irrelevant. Obama is letting his team over analize and organizational dynamics are pushing safe and no risk options. Only a president can overcome organizational dynamics. Not all big bets are worth taking.
3. Syria – Pattern has been to hesitate and equivocate. Some of our allies are joking that we will implement a no fly zone … 10 feet at a time. We should break the Syria - Iran link with the full force of the US. Slow and cautious will be damaging to our interests in Syria and Iran.
4. KSA we should consider guarantying their integrity.
5. Iraq – NAM bring it towards a break up. Bet on Alawi
6. ME peace process – we need a big bet.
Incrementalism won’t work. Activities threaten our vital interests. No big bets can succeed if the US has a policy of leading from behind.
Strobe Talbott
Big bets should be hedged and designed to change when circumstances change on the ground. Obama doctrine is not concise and that’s deliberate and smart in a very dynamic regions. Obama is an anti-doctrine doctrine.
1. Iran – next president will be forced to make a big bet.
2. Egypt – Importnace is clear. Our response has been pitiful. Small and irrelevant. Obama is letting his team over analize and organizational dynamics are pushing safe and no risk options. Only a president can overcome organizational dynamics. Not all big bets are worth taking.
3. Syria – Pattern has been to hesitate and equivocate. Some of our allies are joking that we will implement a no fly zone … 10 feet at a time. We should break the Syria - Iran link with the full force of the US. Slow and cautious will be damaging to our interests in Syria and Iran.
4. KSA we should consider guarantying their integrity.
5. Iraq – NAM bring it towards a break up. Bet on Alawi
6. ME peace process – we need a big bet.
Incrementalism won’t work. Activities threaten our vital interests. No big bets can succeed if the US has a policy of leading from behind.
Strobe Talbott
Big bets should be hedged and designed to change when circumstances change on the ground. Obama doctrine is not concise and that’s deliberate and smart in a very dynamic regions. Obama is an anti-doctrine doctrine.
Scowcroft
We need a central strategy. Currently we are all tactics and no strategy. Pivot to Asia, responses to EU financial crisis etc are all tactics. The Westphalian structure is under attack. Industrialization led to Westphalian state. Globalization is creating
We need a central strategy. Currently we are all tactics and no strategy. Pivot to Asia, responses to EU financial crisis etc are all tactics. The Westphalian structure is under attack. Industrialization led to Westphalian state. Globalization is creating
14
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025810
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document