are as bad as they've been in a generation at least. Whether you can attribute that to Biden or not can be up for debate, but in my worthless opinion his strategy towards Iran has been disastrous, if not enabling/encouraging. That's my opinion and the opinion of many others, so I do think that's where these kinds of things matter. If we had a president who was stronger/more present would Russia have invaded? Would Iran be as bold as they've been? Would they have given the green light to Hamas and the Houthis? It's impossible to know one way or the other, but my point is people are connecting these issues, and I don't think it's a totally unfair connection.

No surprise there. The same complaints were voiced during the Obama administration. They seem unrelated to mental competency issues.

people are linking the policy issues with the chaos in the Middle East / Russia, and questioning his ability to navigate all of this given his declining cognitive abilities. His strategy in both arenas is confusing to many, and he's not really able to artfully articulate or make the case for why we're doing some of the things we're doing. For example, I was always afraid to get more entangled in more wars (particularly in Afghanistan), and Biden certainly didn't give any comfort that this is a good use of American money/attention/resources aside from bumper stickers like "Russia bad, Ukraine good", or "democracy good, tyranny bad". 3 different posters back here were able to articulate and explain why it was important to us in a way neither Biden nor anyone in his administration was able to do. Now, given Biden's flip-flopping on this issue regarding what we'd provide, what we'd accept (minor incursion), etc. and his continued cognitive decline, is he going to be able to navigate this? That's the link people are making now.

Is that anything he advocates too much for Republicans become reflexively against. He didn't want CHIPS/the debt ceiling deal/Ukraine to be too associated with him or it might lose bipartisan support.

He needs to run for reelection now. There aren't really more deals to be had outside of the Israel/Ukraine bill.

This SOTU in a month is shaping up to be the most important for a president giving it in decades. If he gets a good back and forth like the last one he should be able to right size his campaign. If he flubs it the knives are out for him.

Was Bush by a long shot. The reaction to 911 vis a vis Iraq screwed us up foreign policy wise. Had he kept his powder dry ziran would be boxed in and we'd have had the bandwidth to be more decisive countering Russia as it was expanding.

Honestly, I think we needed out of Afganistan. Had we stayed we'd have needed a surge. Things were quiet because of Trump's truce and the Afgan national forces needed a lot of help. Given manning shortages the op tempo is actually quite high now with Ukraine going on. If we had a bunch of boots on the ground in Afganistan it wouldn't be pretty.

He also executed Ukraine's support well. His current issue is MAGA sabotaging US interests to serve glorious leader.

He's also gotten more buy in from China's neighbors in aligning with us (Phillipines and Vietnam mainly)

He's also played the Israel situation as well as he could. He's applying pressure to Bibi in a manner and at a time to mitigate the humanitarian disaster and be able to push Israel to stop at some point when they're clearly spinning their wheels.

I can see preferring someone like Hsley who's competent and more traditional GOP/hawkish making decisions.

As to Trump, the potential for self inflicted disasters like NATO withdrawal, starting trade wars w allies, giving China chip tech as a reward for a meaningless trade deal, attacking Mexico unilaterally over Fentanyl etc. Are terrifying. As PJ Orourke said of Hillary "She's wrong about absolutely everything, but she's wrong within normal parameters."

I think people really underestimate the damage Trump can do with only sycophants and no adults advising him on national security.

alternative or even some kind of bar, and fully agree with you on the disastrous Iraq decision. That no one has been held to account on both Iraq and Afghanistan and the lies we were told in both over the course of 2 decades shows that politicians protect themselves. But on Iran, the strategy of engagement has only worked to fill their coffers to fund their deadly mischief, and prior to that engagement I read credible reports that their terrorist proxies were being picked up on wires complaining that the mothership was no longer funding them at the necessary levels. Obviously we're funding their various wars as well by continuing to buy their oil (election year I get it), but that will continue to have deadly consequences. The sanctions and pressure we had on them previously really did have a material impact on their cash reserves if you look at the trends over the years.

On Ukraine, what is the strategy there? We held off on tanks as some kind of red line, then decided to provide that. Same as the jets. We tipped our hand that a "minor incursion" wouldn't really be seen as a big deal. If the objective is to help Ukraine drive Russia out of its territory, we haven't really acted in that way by drawing lines in the sand (for a while at least) about what we would provide.

We really feared Putin escalating early on. We also feared Ukraine folding in the first month.

As to Tanks, we assessed that Abrams were not the tanks you wanted to start them off with. We ended up releasing our tanks to shame the Europeans into giving up the Leopards Ukraine wanted.

With the financial shortage (imposed by MAGA) we didn't want to focus on big ticket items in later packages to eat up the financial runway we have left.

I think the war likely goes into 2025 whatever happens with negotiations or an armistice. The terms will be decided by balance of power.

It's in our selfish interest to see Russia attitudes as much as possible. We don't want Putin to be able to sell this as a win and keep expanding into countries with Russian minorities like the Baltics. It's also in our interest to integrate Ukraine into the EU/NATO infrastructure to further deter Russia/reduce the need for American boots on the ground in Europe.

We need to fund them so they can hold the line this year and shame Europe into contributing what they really need to be doing. Our generals and theirs are painting a pretty dire picture of what happens when their ammunition/air defense shortage gets worse than it already is.