Is Obama Any Better Than George W Bush?

Obama and Dubya hanging out with Bill Clinton. (Photo via)

During his first presidential campaign, Barack Obama made a piñata of George W Bush. He criticised Dubya on all fronts, including his forerunner’s foreign policy, which seemed to be built on a philosophical foundation culled from Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns.

Now, after failing to close Gitmo and continuing to drone the shit of people, Obama is mulling over intervening in Syria. The parliament of his closest allies yesterday decided this wasn't a good idea and the UN investigators are yet to issue their findings regarding the use of chemical weapons that sparked this whole thing off.

In any event, Obama continues to mull, contemplating pulling a Dubya and staging an "intervention" on a whim rather than on the basis of any real evidence.

I took to the streets of London to ask folks if there was any difference between the foreign policy of Obama and his much-maligned predecessor.

Eugene, 24, works for a recycling charity: I get the sense that Obama is the one making the decisions, whereas with Bush I had the feeling it was everyone around him, especially Dick Cheney. I feel like Iraq was more Dick Cheney’s call than Bush’s.

VICE: Obama seems to be tripping over himself to find legal justifications to intervene in Syria, global opinion be damned. Isn’t that similar to Bush’s attitude?
Well, yeah, it certainly seems that way.

Is there more justification to intervene in Syria than there was to go into Iraq?
Well, it depends on what that UN report says.

Do you think the US should intervene?
Probably not.

How come?
Mainly because of the mistakes made in Iraq; I’m afraid they’ll be repeated.

Mariela, 29, works for women’s rights charity: I feel like Obama can get away with things that Bush couldn’t.

Why?
Because I think people assume that he’s more liberal. Take the situation in Syria – it’s still unclear what happened, yet he’s saying that’s enough reason to intervene That’s kind of ridiculous.

So the US shouldn’t intervene?
No.

What’s the solution then?
That’s another question. You only get one.

Fine.

Aida, 26, research assistant: I think, at least publicly, there’s more intellectual reasoning with Obama.

But, at the end of the day, he’s still been pretty hawkish. In terms of foreign policy, are the results the same?
Yeah, but it’s taken a long time to get to the point where he is at now.

Isn’t it arrogant for the US to think it can solve the Middle East’s problems?
Is it solving the Middle East’s problems or preventing more damage from happening in Syria? You hear a lot of outcries about the inaction over Syria. There seems to be more of a desire for a collaborative solution than in the case of Iraq.

Karin, 30, project manager: Yes. Obama’s more calculating.

The US appears to be trying to craft a legal justification for unilateral action, but its closest ally just opted not to intervene in Syria.
Well, that vote doesn’t necessarily mean that the UK won’t intervene.

Okay, but it becomes politically much more harder and complicated to do so.
Yeah. I don’t know – there’s two sides. Obviously you don’t want civilians and children being killed, that’s awful. But that’s happening all over the world, so why aren’t we talking about intervening everywhere else?

Too right.

Is there any difference between the run-up to the Iraq war and the debate over Syrian intervention now?
Rebecca, 27, journalist: There seemed to be more of a clamour to get into Iraq.

What do you think should happen?
Well, I think it should be the United Nations' call, not the decision of a single nation.

So you don’t think it should be a unilateral move?
No, I think that’s a bit arrogant.

That’s kind of what the US is known for.
It’s kind of a superiority thing: "What we do in our country is right, what you do in your country is wrong, but we’re not going to give you a voice in the solution."

Previously - Are Western Airstrikes the Solution in Syria?