Posted on 05 Jul 2010 at 9:48pm By GavinoLiberal intellectuals have persistently demeaned the foreign policies of Republican presidents, characterizing a seeming willingness to apply American power as some sort of thought-deficient cowboy diplomacy. Are the results any better under President Obama?
The font of all knowledge...?
For the left, the basic precept is that dialogue – an intellectual activity – can be applied to resolve diplomatic differences without recourse to military-backed solutions. Failure to follow this clever and enlightened approach implies a lack of intellect which, of course, is a label that has been applied to Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Sarah Palin.
Leftist political theory also has it that the basic problem with the world is the United States. According to this narrative, if it weren’t for exploitation and bullying by the world’s superpower, and the capitalist system it promotes, people in the developing world would enjoy higher living standards and there would be a more peaceful coexistence.
Barack Obama has put both of these ideas to the test. Indeed, the word “reset” was deliberately applied (although embarrassingly mistranslated into Russian in the infamous button stunt) and Mr. Obama promptly embarked on what American conservatives refer to as his apology tour, in which he pointedly criticized the historical application of U.S. influence in speeches in the Middle East and Europe. So, have the dialogue and pull back on power produced any substantive foreign policy gains or breakthroughs?
With the insurgents in Iraq largely defeated and political progress there in place before Barack Obama entered the White House, the administration’s biggest foreign policy decisions have been made on the on-going conflict in Afghanistan. President Obama took several months to decide on a policy of preemptive withdrawal – a surge of military force accompanied by a commitment to begin drawing down the additional troops by July 2011. The delay, the discord and the decision have all fed negative perceptions. Today, the White House and U.S. military leaders resemble the French soccer squad at the World Cup – where a lack of coordination between talented players and officials produced performances that lacked purpose, ingenuity and success. General McChrystal worked within the parameters dictated by President Obama but it is widely known that he wanted greater resources and more political support. Following the publication of the Rolling Stone article, it is clear that McChrystal and his staff had no respect for the president.
Obama has compounded this management problem by righteously creating a rift with the imperfect Afghan leadership. This now threatens to undermine the entire mission. The resulting distrust, coupled with the promised withdrawal, reportedly has led President Karzai to seek deals with insurgent elements. Doubtless Obama will blame McChrystal and other military leaders if setbacks follow on the ground.
President Obama’s campaign promise to personally talk to Iran never materialized but his ’softly softly’ approach has had no impact on Tehran’s efforts to produce nuclear weapons. The criticism of America’s past, the scolding of Israel, the nuclear summits, the silence in the face of brave public demonstrations by the green movement and the quiet diplomacy have gone nowhere. While the administration has congratulated itself for securing United Nations sanctions, the final measures carry little weight. They are about as hard hitting as an agreement to suspend trade in blue cheese. It seems that the White House valued the appearance of consensus with the permanent members of the Security Council over substance. The bottom line: there is no reason to suspect that Iran is taking any steps to limit its nuclear program, a fact underlined by CIA Director Leon Panetta who gave his assessment that Iran will have two weapons in two years’ time and that the UN sanctions probably will make no difference at all. All of this makes some sort of military action by Israel more likely.
In the world’s other hotspot, a North Korean submarine torpedoed and sank a South Korean warship in March 2010, killing 46 sailors. So far there has been no convincing reaction from the Obama administration.
Away from these big issues, the administration has struggled to identify and promote any consistent principles, or demonstrate leadership, in its own turbulent backyard. It failed to support the removal from power of President Zelaya in Honduras after he attempted to subvert his nation’s constitution. Secretary of State Clinton mystifyingly called this lawful and peaceful process a coup. The U.S. has also allowed President Ortega to appoint an Ambassador to Washington who has not been confirmed by Nicaragua’s Congress, further encouraging constitutional democracy to be disregarded. And it stood on the sidelines as its southern neighbors established a new organization, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States, designed to weaken the Organization of American States (OAS).
Rather than setting the foundation for achievements, President Obama’s self-deprecation of America has fueled contempt overseas and resentment at home. Eighteen months on, it is difficult to discern any notable benefits from Obama’s foreign policy. Liberals point to polls that purport to show that some countries now have more favorable opinions towards the United States. But this is grasping at straws – foreign policy has never been a popularity contest and polls can go up and down. What matters in the long-term are the actions of world leaders and America’s enemies. By this measure, Obama’s foreign policies are not producing desirable outcomes.
Just as they argue that today’s economic stagnation is the result of George W. Bush rather than the anti-investment policies of the White House and Congress, liberals retort that it will take time for the world to forgive what they regard as America’s past indiscretions. But at some point tangible benefits have to materialize for a policy to be validated. As with the failure of the so-called economic stimulus, it is not sufficient to say that the medicine isn’t working properly because the dose isn’t big enough. Leftist theories are being tested under Obama. And they are failing.
.png&w=16&h=16&zc=T&q=95)
Since when were dems interested in the long term? They’ve always been about this election term. Now repubs are the same but that wasn’t always the case. But anyway, the Obama administration isn’t concerned about long term effects of policy from what I can tell.
It’s sad that dems are forever making the image of the US someone else’s fault. It’s the same as slavery.. we’ll always be making up for it according to democrats.. we will never be finished paying for the sins of the past, even if it means making things worse in the process.