Scoring Obama's Foreign Policy: The Obama administration’s foreign policy has tried to reconcile the president’s lofty vision with his innate realism and political caution. And given the domestic and global situations Obama has faced, pragmatism has dominated. Judged by the standard of protecting U.S. interests, things have worked out quite well; judged by the standard of midwifing a new global order, they remain a work in progress.
Scoring Obama’s Foreign Policy (A Progressive Pragmatist tries to bend History)
ReplyDeleteAs a subscriber of FP for over 20 years and reader for more than 30 years, I do enjoy many articles & essays published in the journal and had abstained from sending a letter to the editor when I considered them to be off balance and skewed. But the May-June issue with Obama’s FP review by three eminent FP contributors really popped a vein on my neck and sensed this cotton puff ball criticism of a president that really has some serious Foreign Policy challenges and has really set back the clock in the Israeli=Palestine issue, North Korea and Iran and due to his “pragmatic approach” has led to a carnage of over 22,000 in Syria to no avail.
As I read into the article, I did find real criticism of on these three key points but still it was pretty much a cotton puff ball critique and not what it should have been. There are FP issues that are state policies, and go far beyond the presidency. The fact that events happen during (his or her) watch does not grant them a consideration of a success or failure. I refer to mostly strategic intelligence and terrorism matters that are part of a country’s agenda: (War of Terrorism, War on drugs, Nuclear Proliferation). In some cases a president can or cannot influence during their term those events.
When I hear that president Obama took out Osama Bin Laden, has taken the war on Al Qaeda, and other terrorists in Afghanistan-Pakistan it really boils my blood.. These three items are state policies of the United States of America which are part of intensive and continued intelligence operations spanning over 11 years.
• The attack at Abbottabad was product of an intricate intelligence operation that culminated with his death. A decision any president given the same information would have done the same.
• The war on Al-Qaida, has been re-defined during the last 11 years addressing regional concerns and relative activity of each cell (AQIM) Al Qaeda in Magreb (North Africa) AQAP (Al Qaeda in Arabian peninsula) AQ in Iraq (during the occupation) AQ in Pakistan- Afghanistan
• The use of drones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and various other locations is also a product of evolution of warfare, not of presidential policies. The fact they are more efficient and cost effective and that they have increased during the Obama administration is also in part a product of the economy, and social weariness of a ten plus year conflict. Once again a policy that any president given the same challenges would have made the right choices.
Ending the war in Iraq is presented in the essay as an accomplishment, when in fact it was a product of poor judgment, advice from the so called worn out experts and inexperienced junior advisers he has. President Obama should have started work on the SOFA (Status of Forces agreements) with al Maliki in late 2010, early 2011 and not sat around until October of 2011 when he was confronted with the fact that the only way the US presence in Iraq would remain in 2012 through 2014 was if the Iraqi government had judicial control over criminal matters of the advisors in country. With less than a month and a half, left before the drop dead date, and seeing his ineffective resolution with al Maliki, he ordered a total withdrawal. This was not a decision made out of sound resolve or change of FP but a product if his ineffective leverage with al Maliki. President Obama had only visited Iraq (once) on April 07 2009 since he was elected. Apart from a couple of other meeting with Al Maliki in Washington and several other Iraq forums what kind of negotiating power, rapport did he develop with al Maliki? President Bush was in Iraq (4) times three of them his last three years (2006, 2007, 2008) Obama’s mishandling of timing to reach an agreement with Maliki led to an impromptu removal of all forces before January 01, 2012 causing a tremendous logistical challenge to the armed forces leaving behind millions of dollars of equipment and facilities that will be pilfered, ransacked and possibly used by the renascent Al Qaeda in Iraq which has been empowered in the last three months. The training programs for the police and armed forces are solely left to a few advisors.
ReplyDeleteObama’s selection of old dinosaurs, relics for key regional issues has also been a disaster: George Mitchell success in Northern Ireland did not prove fruitful in the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Obama’s key advisors (young, inexperienced) and the deep division within the Obama admistration staff proved to polarize the Israel Palestinian conflict. This is very well addressed in the article.
The other disaster in Afghanistan- Pakistan was the eternal conflict between (General Mc Crystal, Richard Holbrooke, and Ambassador Eikenberry) all pulling in different directions, mostly due to Holbrooke’s views. Once again, a dinosaur which does have merit for his resolutions in Bosnia- Herzegovina, but had not achieved success in Pakistan & Afghanistan possibly costing him his life.
ReplyDeleteThe other so called success: The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty….. Is a blunder, every sitting president has negotiated SALT, START, ABM, CTV, MIRVS. What Obama did with Medvedev was to get rid of older warheads, which cost more to maintain on both sides, The only attributable portion was the sidebar of taking out the radars and ABM sites in Poland to sooth the Kremlin in exchange for support on sanctions to Iran…. But that once again would have been a logical trade off, which any president would have probably bargained.
The other critical failure is China which is also very well addressed and will keep on deteriorating with the US pivot to South East Asia, the establishment of a Marine support facility in Australia and our clear open policy as expressed by General Odiermo’s article “The US Army in Time of transition”
The article on two occasions does insinuate what president Obama should do in his second term…. Quite frankly, don’t see that as a solution since the essay also concludes that trends are going in the wrong direction and the country’s economic future is at risk. This affects, our armed forces and the capability to project them overseas a key item in Foreign Policy.
I do agree with the article in that he does respond to events, his compromises have been interpreted as a sign of weakness, also agree with the assessments on Iraq and North Korea, so if we take the so called positives attributed to Obama:
Negotiating START with the Russians, Killing Osama Bin Laden, Revving up the war on terrorists (Al Qaeda) and others, Finishing the war in Iraq, exit strategy…..
What is left? Nothing…. A total failure of FP now evidenced by the manslaughter of Syria and the US does nothing.