A messy state of affairs

The Pioneer, India ^ | February 1, 2010 | Barry Rubin

[James C. Bennett]

Despite messing up on Iran and the peace process, subverting allies in Central Europe and mishandling the Islamist terrorist problem, Obama says there is no problem!

Significantly, US President Barack Obama’s discussion of foreign policy came only at the end of his State of the Union message. Obviously, domestic matters and especially the economy come first. Yet international affairs are not only vital but often have been the issues on which Administrations are judged, no matter how unlikely that seemed at the time.

It is apparently considered impolite to point out that Mr Obama has no previous experience and little knowledge of international affairs. And yet that fact affects the fate of the globe every day. The really interesting question is whether the State of the Union message showed any growth in his ability after one year in office.

Sadly, the answer is ‘no’.

Here are the themes he expressed.

First, he implies that it is all Mr George W Bush’s fault, having left him with two wars. Yet there is a strange point here that no one has noticed. These wars, except for Mr Obama’s long hesitation about making a decision on Afghanistan, have caused him little trouble or criticism in relative terms. On a list of administration failures during its first year, a long list of other items prevail which cannot be blamed on Mr Bush: Embarrassing gaffes, messing up on Iran and the ‘peace process’, subverting allies in Central Europe, apologising and undermining US credibility with dictators, mishandling the Islamist terrorist prisoners, and so on.

Second, he insists that he’s been doing a great job on security. Indeed, Mr Obama suggests —in terms that would have brought a withering criticism of previous Presidents — that no one should criticise him.

There is one sentence in this discussion that embodies much of what is wrong with Mr Obama’s concept of international affairs. On the surface it is banal but it is really of the greatest importance: “So let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough.”

This is part of Mr Obama’s confusion between personal or social life and international politics that is so common to the amateur in foreign policy. During recess, boys act macho, ranking each other in a pecking order, challenging each other to fight or back down.

Mr Obama genuinely views the way that international politics works as equally silly, meaningless, unnecessary. He wants to cut through all that and show that everyone is in the same boat, he has no macho feelings about power, and he’s ready to apologise and be part of the gang without leading the gang. It is a way to say: Why can’t everyone just get along and be friends. I’ll dispense with all these petty quarrels and start by renouncing all my own power.

This is sort of like the wimpy nerd coming up to a motorcycle gang and explaining his philosophy to them. Ok, that’s an exaggerated image but it gets the point across. At first, Mr Obama’s listeners are puzzled. Why would the leader of the world’s greatest superpower talk like this? Perhaps it is a trick.

But then the reactions among foreign leaders and countries to Mr Obama’s policy can be divided into three groups:

Foes are not won over. On the contrary, the world’s dictators and radical ideologies which are America’s enemies conclude that some strange compulsion has paralysed America so why not take advantage of it?

Dependents are frightened. If this man refuses to be strong or act tough who will protect me? I must give my lunch money to the bullies or somehow ingratiate myself with them or just defend myself as best I can.

Lazy friends are pleased. We love this man because either he won’t demand that we do anything or if he does we can ignore him without consequences. But even some of them are starting to become concerned, like Britain, France, and Germany who want more action regarding Iran’s nuclear programme.

What Mr Obama calls “schoolyard taunts” are what diplomatists for centuries have called power politics, leverage, containment, credibility, and so on.

Regarding security against terrorism, Mr Obama speaks of “substantial investments,” “disrupted plots,” and filling “unacceptable gaps.” Never being able to resist some schoolyard taunts at Mr Bush, he adds that he has captured more Al Qaeda fighters than his predecessor. No problem, he says, everything is under control and don’t worry about it.

Yet people still are worried — and with good reason. After all, Mr Obama was also saying everything was fine before the ‘underpants’ bomber came along. His bomb didn’t destroy the aircraft but it did blow up confidence in Mr Obama’s counter-terrorist strategy. There is no mention of his treating terrorism as a criminal problem, nor of his very narrow focus on Al Qaeda as the only terrorist group of concern, nor of his plan to try captured terrorists at courts in the US, nor of how terrorists he has released have returned to the battle. If he ignores all the concerns people have, no wonder he can say there is no problem.

[Vaduz]

Obama’s idea of foreign policy is knowing who to bow to.