He’s Got the World Wrong

There are competing, but not necessarily mutually-exclusive, theories to explain why the Obama approach to foreign policy and national security has been both ineffective and oddly inappropriate to the challenges we face. I have suggested that much of the problem stems from a fervent desire to turn inward and work on a radical domestic agenda. Part of the explanation I have also suggested is traceable to Obama’s temperamental shortcomings, ideological misconceptions about the nature the Islamic jiahdist enemy, and political priorities. Robert Kagan offers a compelling alternative theory — Obama is not the pragmatist he billed himself as, but an idealist who has read the world very wrong. He writes:

The fundamental assumption is that the great powers today share common interests. Relations among them, therefore, “must no longer be seen as a zero-sum game,” as President Obama argued in July 2009. The Obama Doctrine is about “Win-Win” and “getting to Yes.” The new “mission” of the United States, according to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, is to be the great convener of nations, gathering the powers to further common interests and seek common solutions to the world’s problems. It is on this basis that the administration has sought to “reset” relations with Russia, to embark on a new policy of “strategic reassurance” with China, and in general to seek what Secretary Clinton called in a July 15, 2009 speech a “new era of engagement based on common interests, shared values, and mutual respect.” For an administration that prides itself on its pragmatism, there would seem to be a great deal of wishful thinking in this approach.

Conservatives have watched with a mix of awe and revulsion as Obama has again and again smeared his predecessor and crafted policies — often counterproductive, dangerous, and politically unwise — that seem calculated to merely demonstrate that he is “not Bush.” But the “not Bush” fixation also may be part of Obama’s worldview, as Kagan explains:

All that was required was an America wise enough to guide the world toward agreement on the important matters on which all the powers must naturally agree. According to the Obama administration’s narrative, George W. Bush then came along and destroyed this great opportunity with his belligerent and unilateralist policies. Now that Bush was gone, the world could resume its convergence under the inspirational direction of the new American President.

What we do know is that what Obama has been doing hasn’t been working. Kagan comes up with a partial list: “Iran’s refusal to accept the outstretched hand sincerely proffered by President Obama; the breakdown of the Middle East peace process, despite the administration’s strenuous efforts; the failure to gain any meaningful Chinese help in North Korea.” Meanwhile, Obama’s anti-terror policies (which are seemingly designed to downplay the very existence of a war against Islamic fundamentalists, persuade the world of our moral bona fides, and reduce, he imagines, the grievances against the West) are now coming under widespread criticism.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

He’s Got the World Wrong

Must-Reads from Magazine

A Familiar Paranoia

Donald Trump sees disloyalty even in his closest supporters.

In a performance that would have shocked sensibilities if they weren’t already flogged to the point of numbness, President Trump delivered a nostalgic, campaign-style stem-winder on Monday to a troop of boy scouts. The commander-in-chief meandered between crippling self-pity and gauche triumphalism; he moaned about his treatment by the “fake media,” praised himself for the scale of his Electoral College victory, and pondered aloud whether to dub the nation’s capital a “cesspool” or a “sewer.” Most illuminating in this manic display was an exposition on the virtues of fealty. “We could use some more loyalty; I will tell you that,” the president mused. These days, Trump seems fixated on treachery—among Republicans in Congress, among his Cabinet officials, and among his subordinates in the administration. His obsession may yet prove his undoing.

6
Shares
Google+ Print

Salaita, Out

Sympathy deferred.

I have written before about Steven Salaita. Once a tenured professor of English at Virginia Tech, he resigned from that position on the strength of an offer from the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign to serve in the American Indian Studies program. But in the summer of 2014, UIUC rescinded the offer, mainly over of a series of reprehensible Salaita tweets.

2
Shares
Google+ Print

Syria’s Forsaken Rebels

Has Washington given up on Syria?

Last week, I wrote about one of the troublesome byproducts of the Trump-Putin summit in Hamburg: a ceasefire in southwestern Syria that Israel worries will entrench Iranian control of that area bordering the Israeli Golan Heights. The day after my article came out, the Washington Post reported on another troubling decision that President Trump has made vis a vis Syria: Ending a CIA program that had provided arms and training to anti-Assad forces.

4
Shares
Google+ Print

The Democratic Party’s False Centrism

It's a duck.

Democrats are finally digging out of the wreckage the Obama years wrought, and are beginning to acknowledge the woes they visited upon themselves with their box-checking identity liberalism. So, yes, the opposition is moving forward in the Trump area, but toward what? Schizophrenia, apparently.

14
Shares
Google+ Print

Challenging Violent Speech—Unless It’s About Israel

The border of incitement.

The idea that speech can itself constitute an act of violence grows ever more popular among the left’s leading polemicists. They argue that employing a politically incorrect word can be triggering; that the wrong gender pronoun can provoke; that words and sentences and parts of speech are all acts of aggression in disguise. The left seeks to stop this violence, or less euphemistically: to silence this speech.

39
Shares
Google+ Print