Face reality: Obama’s foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster
Over dinner in London with an American friend from the Washington think tank community the other night, I found myself mouthing words about Barack Obama that I’m no longer sure I can keep repeating while simultaneously retaining any sense of self respect. “Cynical, but not hostile,” was how I characterised my views of the 44th president.
Part of my defence would certainly centre on the argument that after eight years in which my fellow Brits and Europeans ditched sober and reasoned analysis of Obama’s predecessor in favour of something little better than an ad hominem hate fest, I’ll be damned if I’m going to fall into the same trap. And I won’t.
But after the selling out of central and eastern Europe to Putin’s Russia over missile defence, the contorted and self-defeating speech on Afghanistan last week, and the administration’s farcical handling of Iran’s nuclear programme, it is becoming increasingly impossible to avoid the conclusion that we might well have another Jimmy Carter on our hands after all.
Don’t get me wrong. I’d still take American leadership of the Western world under Obama over the pretensions to great power status of a newly revamped European Union whose recently appointed foreign policy supremo, Lady Ashton, spent the early 1980s as treasurer of the pro-Soviet Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
But for those of us who believe that the West has a duty to secure democracy where it already exists and to enhance its chances of taking hold where it does not, it’s all beginning to look like a choice between the hangman’s noose or your head on a block.
Reflexive opponents of Obama may say that I’m well behind the curve on all this. Perhaps I am. I still think, though, that, once elected, it was fair to give him a chance to prove his critics wrong. But unless he’s about to perform one of the great U turns, it looks like he’s already blown it.
Putin must be rubbing his hands in glee — he got an end to the missile defence programme, humiliating Warsaw and Prague in the process, with absolutely nothing in return. Ukraine and Georgia now look less likely fully to withdraw from the Russian ambit than ever. With Obama’s pledge to send in 30,000 new troops to Afghanistan but start withdrawing them 18 months later he has effectively told the Taliban (and anyone wavering between backing them and the government in Kabul) that all they have to do is sit it out in the mountains for a year and a half and then America will run away.
And on Iran, it just goes from one empty gesture to another as the regime first came out last week with the “shock” announcement that it was planning 10 new uranium enrichment sites and, after Obama and the Europeans responded with the blood curdling threat to “consider the possibility” of tougher sanctions in January, it is now reported that Ali Akbar Salehi, the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization, has upped the ante and said they want 20.
It’s all falling apart. Obama may not think he is engaged in a zero sum game with the likes of Vladimir Putin, the Taliban and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad but all the signs are that they think they’re engaged in one with him. They smell fear, they sense weakness and they’re pressing home their advantage.
To be honest, I’d be delighted to be wrong. I do not want to live in a world where an aggressive dictatorship in Russia now feels it has the upper hand in significant parts of its former empire. I do not want to live in a world where the Taliban can now calculate that it is simply involved in a waiting game ahead of its ultimate triumph in Afghanistan. And I do not want to live in a world where the Iranian dictatorship can now be increasingly confident that the United States lacks the will to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons.
But can anyone really dispute that this is the world in which we now live?
Robin Shepherd is Director of International Affairs at the Henry Jackson Society, the London-based think tank
December 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Robin – a very good summary of how many Democrats here are feeling – “Cynical, but not hostile,”
For the youngsters who tweeted and facebooked him to power, I would say “disillusioned, but not hostile”.
He’s a nice man, but inexperienced and it shows badly. His inability to accept that there are people out there in the world who, when offered a hand of friendship, simply take it as an opportunity to drag you down. I voted for Hilary in the primaries, and deeply regret that she is not the President.
Perhaps voting should be reserved for people who have already seen a president or two in power and have already been disillusioned and seasoned.
If you have nothing else to worry about, meet our next president and her supporters:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/12/05/VI2009120503155.html?sid=ST2009120503336
December 6th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
“But for those of us who believe that the West has a duty to secure democracy where it already exists and to enhance its chances of taking hold where it does not, it’s all beginning to look like a choice between the hangman’s noose or your head on a block.”
True, but shouldn’t it be the technologically more advanced “… choice between the electric chair and lethal injection”?
December 6th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
AKUS, sorry to say, but to a certain extent I disagree. Hillary Clinton could only have been marginally better on every foreign policy issue. She is not THAT much friendly to Israel either I believe. Besides the hostile (to Israel for example) State Dept. is strong enough to sabotage pro-Israel intentions of any President if he/she ventures over their set borders. But I largely agree with the analysis about Obama’s naivite written here. (Just a separate line of thought if I may: I think the current British FM is the worst of all times ever after the 2nd world war. He is deeply hostile to Israel, has a very questionable background to put it mildly, and the man has almost zero connection with either Israelis or the current government. This makes him very dangerous. The proof: his planned support for the Swedish position of dividing Jer into two among many others. This should not be swept under the carpet.)
December 7th, 2009 at 4:02 am
Gabor – when your choices are (were) Obama, Hilary, or Sarah … you don’t have much choice!!
December 7th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Let’s not forget near 80% of American Jews voted for Obama, a scandal in its own right. The difference between Obama and Carter, is that under Carter we did not face a race for nuclear armageddon from mad mullahs, now we do.
December 7th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
Akus,
America had a clear choice, either elect someone who has experience on the world stage (McCain) or someone who had absolutely no real world experience (Barry).
Instead what we got was the Palin hate fest love in from the MSM (unfortunately championed by the BBC).
Ive been saying all along though, the longer Barry is in power the more he makes GW’s Presidency look like a fond memory.
Mailman
December 7th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
I apologize if I sidetrack this particular entry but according to the latest news in the Jerusalem Post it seems that Britain – virtually alone among the big states as opposed to the non-supportive France, Germany, Italy and the reportedly stalling Spain – come out in support for the Swedish text draft on Jerusalem. This WILL make London even more irrelevant on the global arena vis-a-vis anything in connection with the Mid East “peace process”. It seems London is spoiling its own diplomatic standing and prestige.
December 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
AKUS,
You said: “He’s a nice man, but inexperienced and it shows badly.”
I don’t know how “inexperienced” can be used to justify his idiotic actions from the ridiculous stand on Zelaya in Honduras to the knot he tied himself in trying to force Netanyahu to remove himself from leadership while encouraging the PA to be even more intransigent.
The man, and his handlers (advisers) seem to know nothing about who and what they are dealing with.
He cannot seem to realize that in dealing with pit bulls one cannot approach them as Pekinese.
As for Sarah Palin, well she she appears to have more integrity and an honest forthright manner which would be a breath of fresh air after considering the backgrounds of Obama and Clinton and their nefarious relations.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:59 am
Cynic – sorry but Sarah’s “integrity and an honest forthright manner” are no substitute for brains. In fact, I think she is manipulative, sly, hypocritical and underhand.
Apart from that, I find her views on almost any issue you care to name run the gamut from foolish (geography) to stupid (economy) to loathsome (religious extremism, abortion, gay rights, etc.). I regard her as an existential danger in the same category as the mad mullahs of Iran, and the US already has the bomb – and lots of them.
All of that does not make Obama experienced or successful in foreign policy, but does not qualify her to be his replacement. We have to find better leaders for the US (and Britain and the EU- as Robin points out, the appointment of Lady (formerly baroness) Ashton to run foreign policy at the EU is as bizarre as anything the US has yet come up with both in terms of her total lack of qualifications and the way she was appointed).
Gabor – Robin Williams has a great line about GW Bush. Bush is now doing the rounds as a motivational speaker, it seems. As Williams said, its like having Lindsay Lohan working as a rehab councilor. Sorry – he will definitely not be missed by tens or hundreds of millions of Americans and billions of non-Americans.
December 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Elections have consequences and voting in a left wing, tinker bell, Kumbaya singing naif will prove to be a disaster for the Free World.
December 10th, 2009 at 2:32 am
Replying to “Larry in Tel Aviv” and others: I am an American Jew who voted for Obama. I knew that Obama was a somewhat uncertain quantity on foreign policy. He was going to be a risk. He had prominent Jewish supporters who vouched for him. I took the leap. Now we know more about him. His opponent, John McCain, did not seem to be as intellectually and temperamentally unsuited to the job.
But, remember, the Republicans had created an economic disaster because they made an idol of the Market. They refused to regulate Wall Street. They refused to consider national health insurance, which is essential in a time of great economic insecurity. Job-tied health insurance in the United States has been a form of economic serfdom. People are afraid to leave unsuitable jobs to care for their families, look for other work, or start their own businesses because they would then go without health insurance. If the USA can’t straighten out its economy and make needed reforms, then it can no longer assert global leadership and pay for the police actions expected of a great liberal power.
December 12th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Shlomo, I am a Jew who voted for McCain. Now all of a sudden, many who voted to Obama say – we had to give him a chance, how were we to know?!! – are you babies? Were you just born yesterday?
Obama knew nothing when you voted for him. And Palin was accused of having no experience, except she had ten times more than Obama. The left, the liberals are a hypocritical bunch. The facts mean nothing. It is all about power.
And they like to blacken the image and marginalize those who oppose all the radical policies of the Democrats. Discussion not allowed – you are racist if you disagree with Obama. You are a supporter of slavery (as the moron Harry Reid said last week of Republicans)!! It seems to me that the only racists were the blacks and whites who voted for Obama (and his embarrassing VP Biden) because of his skin color.
So I have only disdain for the Democrats and their supporters. And to the Jews who voted for him – I am super embarrassed that with all your “brains” you could not see through him. He is an empty suit.
And we are now all in terrible danger.