>The theory that I essentially take from your (and others)
>analysis is that your opinion on what to do is right and moral
>and anything else is not.

Where did anyone say that? I think you're reading this into the discussion where it doesn't really exist.

I would instead state that there is
>no definitive right decision, just choices that have to be
>made. There are countless factors going into all these
>decisions from humanitarian concerns to maintaining
>international relations to trade concerns to jobs, etc...

Of course - but you have to assess foreign policy in its totality - juggling all of these factors (and more) when seeking to create responsible statecraft. Even if there are no "right decisions" as you contest, there are certainly bad decisions (countless ones throughout the lineage of U.S. foreign policy) and some absolute tragic decisions (Vietnam, the Iraq War) - and it's not helpful when people just pivot from the specific to vagaries and essentially become apologists for disastrous (and in some instances - criminal) foreign policy.

We have a very specific act of foreign policy/war to assess here: Biden's strike on Syria. It's not vague and we have a number of complex layers to analyze with this - so maybe we could start to actually dive into it instead of just saying "well it's complicated and there's really no right/wrong answer here."

>Obama put it well on the wtf podcast...the federal government
>is an aircraft carrier... you can't move it on a dime, you can
>make nudges and over time the policies change.

I've long contested that the Obama Doctrine was a step in the right direction:

https://www.theatlantic.com/press-releases/archive/2016/03/the-obama-doctrine-the-atlantics-exclusive-report-on-presidents-hardest-foreign-policy-decisions/473151/

Obama challenged a lot of the conventional norms in terms of how foreign policy is constructed and projected into the world (namely: distancing himself from the corrupt regimes of Saudi Arabia and Israel and openly engaging with Iran (also a corrupt regime in some ways - but nonetheless far more democratic than Saudi Arabia - and a nation we have far more commonality with than people think). Obama proudly refused to intervene and exact regime change in Syria (citing Libya as the biggest mistake of his presidency) - and the JCPOA was the most impressive foreign policy/diplomatic achievement this country has had in multiple decades.

The foundation was laid under the Obama years - and a progressive president (like Bernie Sanders) could've taken the baton and really evolved our foreign policy into a force of good in the world - but obviously the opposite happened under Trump. And now - with Biden striking Syria (and continuing the Trump policy there and elsewhere) - we must not be silent. Many of us were loud and deeply critical of the disastrous Trump foreign policy - and that shouldn't change when a new president continues those awful policies.

There are a few major areas where there is bi-partisan consensus in this country: foreign policy and war is one of them.

So yes - you're right: foreign policy is full of complex layers and intricacies. So let's dive into them instead of just throwing our hands up and saying "well there's really no right or wrong answer here" -- for if we can't call out unconstitutional strikes and borderline war crimes - what can we call out?

-->