Obama on Foreign Policy

Probably the most dangerous area any American President can tread in is foreign policy.  President Obama has come into the White House at a dangerous time in the nations history, inheriting two wars and an increasingly dangerous multipolar world.  Obama’s doctrine has been to reject the Bush Era Cowboy style of diplomacy, in which the United States acts out of its own personal interest in any situation, regardless of international treaties, laws, and agreements.  Obama’s objectives have been to bring America into an era in which the country is more cooperative in international affairs and less domineering.

While this isn’t a particularly popular view in America, it is probably more realistic in today’s world.  While the U.S. economy is still the largest on earth, it is quickly being approached by China and India, formerly undeveloped countries who are coming into their own as superpowers.  In a multipolar world, it’s likely that a Cowboy diplomacy stance would be more dangerous than useful.  This isn’t politically popular though, and so far, Obama has been seen as weak or inneffectual on the international stage.  The major crises he’s been approached with include the disputed Iranian elections, the Honduran coup, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Iraq has been relatively stable in comparison to the pre-surge years, and seems to have kept from collapsing into further civil war so far.  Obama’s plan is to have all American combat troops removed from the region in 2012, but as there haven’t been any major developments just yet, he hasn’t been judged on this stance substantively.

In Iran, Obama lost face.  Many believed he didn’t take a strong enough stance against the Ahmadinejad government, and believe that he was leaving the pro-Democracy supporters out to dry.  It’s an awkward position for Obama to be in, because he is trying to improve relations with Iran and must appear ideologically resolute in his support of democracy.  Seeing it was unlikely that any U.S. outcry would change anything (and also seeing the somewhat similar attitudes towards the nuclear issue between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad), he desisted, and it looked weak.  It has ended up being a black eye for Obama.  Obama had similar problems in Honduras, where he condemned the coup, but, according to conservatives, did not condemn it forcefully enough.  It’s come down to a matter of degree, and No Drama Obama has never been the type of speaker to get overly emotional, and in a country that is used to George Bush, it’s strange to see his condemnation of other nations coming out in a passive, even manner.

Obama’s speech to the Muslim world was received extremely well within the United States (at least by all except the far right), and he’s had similar popularity in his recent tour of Asia.  Obama’s rhetorical prowess has never been the question, however, the issue is substantive policy, not speeches. He’s been praised in the Arab world for condemning Israeli settlements, but condemned for being an American.  And Afghanistan hasn’t helped either.  The increasingly convoluted mess in that country, combined with the outcry over drone attacks on the Pakistani-Afghan border, combined with contradictory calls for more troops and less troops, mixed in with Afghanistan’s impossible-to-occupy landscape, and then rolled in with Pakistan’s increasingly unstable political situation, has made the entire area a huge thorn in Obama’s side.

Ultimately, what it really comes down to is substantial outcomes from Obama foreign policy.  And these types of gains are hard to measure.  Foreign policy is largely measured, from within the United States, in terms of how few bad things have happened.  Long term games are largely intangible, so improved relations with the Iranians, North Koreans, Palestinians, and Europeans won’t be seen for a long time.  And in the meantime, the Council of Foreign Relations still suspects that there’s a pretty good chance of a nuclear or biological attack on the United States in the next five years.  While Obama certainly has done work to prevent nuclear proliferation, this would all be for naught if there was a massive nuclear attack on an American city.  Even a small-scale terrorist attack would do serious damage to his national security credentials, especially since there weren’t any in the U.S. after September 11th under the Bush administration.  In a bizarre way, this type of terrorist attack would be a vindication of Bush policies, and could do permanent harm to Obama-style multi-lateral diplomacy.

So Obama has his plate full.  Any number of catastrophes could occur (in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in South Korea, in Iran, in Israel, in the U.S.) and it could potentially kill 2012 for him.  Or make it a much, much harder race.