OBAMA AND THE WORLD - Printer Friendly

EWRoss.com

OBAMA AND THE WORLD

Do His Policies Match His Words?

by Ed Ross

June 8, 2009

President Barack Obama, in his foreign policy speeches at home and abroad, seeks to present a more engaging image of America to countries and peoples around the world. He frequently refers to the "mistakes of the past eight years," and he presents himself not so much as the leader of a superpower and the free world but as a leader of a co-equal member of the community of nations. How deeply committed is Obama to the national security ideas and principles he articulates; and do Obama administration policies match the President’s words?

One of the chief criticisms of President George W. Bush was that he allowed his ideology to get in the way of an objective assessment of his policies. Bush’s conservative supporters shared his ideology, and they encouraged him to stay the course through difficult times. They acknowledge he made mistakes, but at the end of his administration they point to his success in Iraq and the fact than no terrorist attack occurred in the United States on his watch to validate his commitment to his policies and beliefs.

Barack Obama is one of the most liberal politicians ever to serve as President of the United States. Liberal core beliefs about America's role in the world are reflected in his speeches on foreign policy, particularly his speeches in Europe and last week to the Muslim world in Cairo. His words were music to liberals' ears; and liberals, like Bush's most ardent conservative supporters, will encourage Obama not to abandon the ideas and principles he articulated in those speeches, even when they appear to falter.

Conservatives, of course, disagree with Obama. They've been particularly critical of the way he talks about America in his speeches abroad. He speaks apologetically, although he never uses the word apology, about America’s past actions. He minimizes talk of the great sacrifices Americans have made for peoples around the world. He didn’t mention in his Cairo speech that Americans have gone to war six times in recent years to defend Muslims. And he often presents himself as just the honest broker among adversaries with legitimate grievances, as he did in Cairo when talking about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He didn't say that if Hamas would only acknowledge Israel's right to exist the conflict would be one over borders, not existence.

What remains uncertain, however, is whether the words Obama uses and the nuance he attaches to them reflect deeply held beliefs that he is unwilling to compromise or change, if necessary, to achieve success. The evidence, so far at least, suggests a flexibility that Obama’s words do not.

Already, a split between more left-leaning elements of the Democratic Party and Obama has immerged. Obama has continued terrorist surveillance practices they opposed under Bush. He intends to maintain as many as 50,000 US troops in Iraq after combat troops withdraw in 2011, and he has authorized increased troop deployments to Afghanistan, decisions most liberals oppose. Obama reversed himself on the release of detainee abuse photos and on military commissions, decisions the left have loudly criticized. And he has authorized Predator drone strikes against terrorist targets in Pakistan that have killed civilians, a practice many liberals deeply abhor.

These policies, however, should come as no surprise. Obama’s foreign and defense policy teams are not made up of hard-core national-security doves. All four of his top national security advisors, Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, James Jones, and Dennis Blair, are mainstream pragmatists. While Clinton is known for her liberal views on domestic issues, on national security she ran considerably to the right of Obama in the 2008 election campaign. Both Clinton and Gates, Bush’s secretary of defense, have advocated “soft” or “smart power,” but those concepts are nothing more than an acknowledgement, by Democrats and Republicans, that there are no purely military solutions to the problems the US faces; and that multiple agencies of government must pool their expertise and talents to achieve success. State, Defense, and the National Security Council are staffed largely with experienced professionals.

So far, Obama’s national security advisors have given him sound advice, and, for the most part, he has taken it. Only Obama’s hasty decisions on Guantanamo and the release of the top secret “torture” memos appear to run counter to this trend.

On Guantanamo, Obama likely believed that when he announced his decision to close the detention facility European allies would applaud him and agree to take a fair share of detainees. When Democrats in Congress balked, so did the allies, leaving Obama with a commitment he reiterated again in Cairo, but one he may also have to reverse.

Obama's consistent and strong stand against "enhanced interrogation techniques," such as waterboarding, and demands by activists on the left led him to release the memos. It was something he could do to satisfy them while making other decisions they didn't like. Once he realized he'd opened Pandora's Box, he quickly opposed the calls for criminal prosecutions and truth commissions the memos gave rise to.

The really tough decisions lay ahead for President Obama--what to do about North Korea, Iran, the war in Afghanistan/Pakistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. What will he do when, as is most likely, speaking conciliatory and complimentary words fail to inspire reason, compromise, and cooperation? Will Obama take his cue from Theodore Roosevelt and continue to speak softly while he brings out the big stick, or will he just continue to speak softly?