Obama has been a [great] awful foreign policy president

By
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html>
Jennifer Rubin 

 <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/20/opinion/brooks-where-obama-shines.html>
David Brooks writes an odd column in the New York Times today citing foreign
policy as a great strength for President Obama. As readers of Right Turn
know, I take a very different view of the president’s track record. So let’s
see if we can spruce up Brooks’s column. It should only take a few edits.
His original text is in brackets. My changes are in bold. 

It won’t help him [win] lose many votes this year, but it should be noted
that Barack Obama has been a [good] terrible foreign policy president. He,
Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the rest
of his team have created a style of policy making that is [flexible] rigid ,
[incremental] chaotic and [well] poorly adapted to the specific
circumstances of this moment. Following a foreign policy hedgehog, Obama’s
been a pretty [effective] incompetent fox. 

Some eras call for bold doctrines, new global architecture and “Present at
the Creation” moments. This is not one of those eras. Today, the world is
like a cocktail party at which everybody is suffering from indigestion or
some other internal ailment. People are interacting with each other, but
they’re mostly focused on the godawful stuff going on inside. Europe has the
euro mess. The Middle East has the Arab Spring. The U.S. has the economic
stagnation and the debt. The Chinese have their perpetual growth and
stability issues. 

It’s not multi-polarity; it’s multi-problemarity. As a result, this is more
of an age of anxiety than of straight-up conflict. Leaders are looking
around warily at who might make their problems better and who might make
them worse. There are fewer close alliances and fewer sworn enemies. There
are more circumstances in which nations are ambiguously attached. 

In this environment, you don’t need big, bold visionaries. You need leaders
who will pay minute attention to the unique details and fleeting properties
of each region’s specific circumstances. You need people who can improvise,
shift and play it by ear. Obama, Clinton and the rest are [well] entirely
unsuited to these sorts of tasks. 

Obama has shown [a good] no ability to combine a realist, power-politics
mind-set with a warm appreciation of democracy and human rights. Early in
his term, he responded poorly to the street marches in Tehran. But his
administration has embraced a freedom agenda no more aggressively since
then, responding fairly [well] incoherently to the Arab Spring, neither
fully embracing nor rejecting those who wanted to stand by the collapsing
dictatorships and using American power in a mostly successful humanitarian
intervention in Libya. 

Obama has also shown no [an impressive] ability to learn along the way. He
came into office trying to dialogue with dictators in Iran and North Korea.
When that didn’t work, he didn’t learn [learned] his lesson and has been
much more [confrontational] conflict-averse since. Early in his term, he
tried half-hearted nation-building in Afghanistan. When that, unfortunately,
didn’t work, he [scaled back] gave our enemies a troop withdrawal schedule
to undermine that effort. 

Obama has managed ambiguity [well] poorly. This is most important in the
case of China. When the Chinese military was overly aggressive, he [stood
up] caved to China and [reasserted] shrunk America’s permanent presence in
the Pacific. At the same time, it’s misleading to say there is a single
China policy. There are myriad China policies on myriad fronts, some of
which are confrontational and some of which are collaborative. In other
words, it’s a mess. 

Obama has also dealt with uncertainty pretty [well] poorly. No one knows
what will happen if Israel or the U.S. strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Confronted with that shroud of ignorance, Obama has [properly] irresponsibly
pushed back the moment of decision-making for as long as possible, just in
case anything positive turns up. This has meant performing a delicate dance
— pressing Israelis to push back their timetable while, at the same time,
embracing their goals. The period of delay may be ending, but it’s been
[useful] confusing so far. 

Obama has also not managed the tension between multilateral and unilateral
action. No one can say he is hesitant to [work] defer [with coalitions] to
multi-lateral bodies. Look at the Libyan action, or the Iranian sanctions.
But when it comes to decimating Al Qaeda, the U.S. has been quite willing to
go it alone only in the case of assassinating Osama bin Laden, although
continuing and expanding many policies of George W. Bush. 

There have been failures on Obama’s watch, of course. Some of these flow
from executive hubris. Obama believed that he could help resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian dispute. He proceeded clumsily, pushed everybody into a
corner and now peace is farther away than ever. 

Some failures flow from excessive politicization. An inexcusable blunder by
Obama was to announce the withdrawal date from Afghanistan at the same time
he announced the surge into Afghanistan. That may have kept the Democratic
base happy, but it sent thousands of soldiers and Marines on a mission that
was doomed to fail. 

Over all, though, the record is [impressive] horrific. Obama has moved more
[aggressively] timidly both to defeat enemies and to champion democracy. He
has demonstrated that talk of American decline is hooey if we can only get a
competent commander in chief. The U.S. is still responsible for maintaining
global order, for keeping people, goods and ideas moving freely. 

And, partly as a result of his efforts, the world of foreign affairs is
relatively [uncontentious] chaotic right now. Foreign policy is not a hot
campaign issue. Mitt Romney is having a great deal of [trouble] fun
identifying profound disagreements. If that’s not a sign of [success]
failure, I don’t know what is. 

By
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/jennifer-rubin/2011/02/24/ABbIUXN_page.html>
Jennifer Rubin | 

 

 

           Thé Mulindwas Communication Group
"With Yoweri Museveni and Dr. Kiiza Besigye Uganda is in anarchy"
           Kuungana Mulindwa Mawasiliano Kikundi
"Pamoja na Yoweri Museveni na Dk. Kiiza Besigye Uganda ni katika machafuko"

 

_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
[email protected]
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet

UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

All Archives can be found at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------

Reply via email to