President Obama came into office with high hopes of transforming America’s foreign relations and he has enjoyed some real successes, notably the toppling of Muammar Qaddafi and the killing of Osama bin Laden. But there have been even more setbacks. In country after country he has not shown much progress in dealing with intractable problems.
Iran creeps ever closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, while Benjamin Netanyahu warns that the mullahs could pass the point of no return as early as next spring. Israel and the Palestinians are as far apart as ever on a peace deal; Obama’s heavy-handed pressure on our ally predictably resulted in more gridlock, not a breakthrough. Al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist groups are showing resilience in Libya, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq, notwithstanding the loss of Osama bin Laden. U.S. standing in the Middle East appears to be no higher than it was when he took office and threats to U.S. interests are just as great, as seen from the killing of our ambassador in Benghazi. Iraq has just seen the most violent September in two years and Iran continues to use Iraqi airspace to ship weapons to the Assad regime in Syria. The fighting in Syria grows worse and worse—as does frustration among America’s Arab allies with the current American inaction. Russia is openly poking Uncle Sam in the eye by stopping all American support for civil society organizations. China is growing ever more belligerent with Japan, the Philippines, and other U.S. allies locked in disputes over tiny island groups in the East and South China Seas. North Korea continues to proceed apace with its nuclear and missile programs.
Oh, and hopes of achieving a peace deal with the Taliban are now officially being given up as unrealistic. One only wonders how it could have taken the administration so long to figure out the obvious: Sending fewer troops than military commanders had requested and setting an exit date for their departure is hardly the way to bring the Taliban to the peace table. Instead it only encourages them to wait us out, convinced, perhaps rightly, that we have no staying power.
Granted, most of these lingering issues would hardly have been fixed by a different occupant of the Oval Office: George W. Bush, after all, did nothing meaningful to stop the Iranian or North Korean nuclear programs and his relations with Putin were just as troubled as Obama’s now are. But what makes Obama’s foreign policy particularly problematic (full disclosure: I am an adviser to Mitt Romney’s campaign) is the hubris with which he came into office, as symbolized by his promise not only to heal the planet but also to heal America’s relations with Iran, Russia, and other despotic regimes. That was a sign of his overweening self-confidence combined with a lack of knowledge about how the world really works.
The last four years have been an important educational experience causing the president to abandon, at least for now, unrealistic hopes of a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian, Iranian, and North Korean negotiations. But he continues to chart an uncertain course in Afghanistan, Syria, and other crisis spots. The charitable explanation is that he is waiting for the election before he acts more decisively. But given the outcome of his decisive action in Iraq—the complete pullout of U.S. troops has led to a power grab by Prime Minister Maliki that threatens to tip the country back into civil war—inaction may actually be the preferred course.
what right does this country have in sticking it’s nose into another countrys buisness!!!!!!!
With all due respect, I differ as to whether toppling Qaddafi was a success, I consider an abject failure. Unless the US goal was to contribute (a)mto the destabilization of the Middle East, not to mention much of Africa south of Libya and (b) to the rise of militant Islam, not to mention (c) breaking up that country (it will not come together anytime soon despite pious wishes and earnest pronouncements) and the scattering of much of its weapons inventory. nThe fact was that Qaddafi whatever his quirks and foibles, kept militant Islam in check in Benghazi and the eastern part of the country, while his generous payroll had the mercenary chieftains and tribal leaders provided incentive for restraint. (It is not surprising that Amb. Christopher Stevens was murdered in Benghazi, given the dominance of Islamic militants there — and it will be a bitter irony if those who murdered him were supplied with US money or weapons…) nIn fact, despite occasional verbal outbursts, he communicated with the Israelis as well as most other players in the eastern Mediterranean. nToppling Qaddafi and disrupting the regional balance, by supporting radical Muslims (probably even al Qaeda and other extremist elements), was half-baked policy conceived and carried out by ignorant and arrogant members of an administration, who probably did not know the capital of the state next to that in which they were born before they joined it…
You and Romney share a fatal error about Obama: you think he is dumb or uneducated (Romney says this all the time with the "not up to the job" comments"). He is neither. If instead of thinking Obama was dumb you respected his intelligence, you would realize he is generally quite happy with seeing American power get decimated. Ocassionally the cat slips out of the bag, like with Bengazi, but even that is barely covered. He is really more of an evil genius than a dimwit. If you and Romney realized that, Romeny would be doing much better than he is.
While I agree with you that Obama's aim is to see US power in decline, Mr. Boot does not assert that Obama is either dumb or uneducated. I do not believe that Obama is an evil genius, but an unparalleled narcissist. What Romney really believes, as opposed to what he is saying for public consumption, is a matter of conjecture, but I would venture to guess that the "not up to the job" phrase was focus group-tested.
I did not mean that Boot thinks Obama did not go to Harvard and Columbia. I mean that Boot says that Obama is uneducated on foreign policy. That is the title of the piece, isn't it? And this quote: "The last four years have been an important educational experience causing the president to abandon, at least for now, unrealistic hopes of a breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian, Iranian, and North Korean negotiations." n nThinking Obama is "uneducated" on foreign policy or anything else is just wrong: he is a master politician and is playing everyone like a fiddle.
You're so right. Since 2008, conservatives have underestimated just how good and effective Obama and his campaigns have been. They ridiculed his effort to be a media star; his crowds, his celebrity persona. All at conservatives' expense. They know exactly what they are doing because it fits into their intellectual construct of what the US and world ought to be. Done cleverly and smartly, all at our peril.
I don't know, guys, I'm really of two minds about this. I mean, couldn't Obama be both incompetent AND dangerously left-wing? n n I have no doubt that he's pro-Palestinian, and if he's reelected I fear we will see tangible evidence of that. (I wish the LA Times would see fit to show us tangible evidence NOW, in the form of that Rashid Khalidi video.) and I agree that he'd like to see the US step down from its superpower role. but isn't that more out of naivete? n nI see Obama as one of those earnest people at J-Street, proclaiming that they have "tough love" for Israel. Obama sincerely believes that decreasing our presence on the world stage would be good for us. I think.
Obama's really closer to Nixon in his policies than to any other recent President. He's left on sexual and reproductive issues, but on foreign policy, environment, affirmative action and health care, Nixonian. n nCheck the record before you scoff.
Finally we agree on something: Obama is certainly as corrupt as Nixon. More so, actually.
Obama's certainly as thin-skinned and paranoid as Nixon was. he's just lucky the MSM is on his side.
"Sending fewer troops than military commanders had requested and setting an exit date for their departure is hardly the way to bring the Taliban to the peace table." n nIt is always sad when our troops are lost.To commit them in a cause where the mission is undermined from the start is a crime. Particularly so when it was politically motivated.Remember, Afghanistan was the good war and the president had to seem to support it.
you know, you have to hand it to Obama tho, he's come up with a new way of ending wars: he just proclaims them over, and packs up and goes home. n nto this mindset, having a 2014 withdrawal date probably makes a lot of sense. didn't he say something about "ending the war on schedule"? I hope Romney jumps on him for that bit of idiocy; Jim Lehrer won't.
Well, it's not all that new. Just ask any South Vietnamese.