Does Anyone Still Like Obama?
Published in L'Express
(France) on 4 April 2014
by Christian Makarian (link to original)
(France) on 4 April 2014
by Christian Makarian (link to original)
Translated from
by Teresa Sorbera.
Edited by Katie Marinello.
In the face of numerous problems worldwide, it is clear from his recent tour in Europe that Barack Obama is once again looking to strengthen the alliance between the two sides of the Atlantic. This is not surprising given the many speeches he has delivered focusing on Asia, Africa and the U.S. military withdrawal, which the "leading from behind" theory can summarize. Obama’s speeches usually leave Europe in the back seat.
Paradoxically, it would be almost appropriate to thank Vladimir Putin, who callously brought the two sides back to their original allied state — even if its future aspirations remain very blurry at this moment — and who abruptly reminded everyone that the long path to European integration was born in 1950 because of the Soviet threat. In response to Putin's attack on Ukraine, Obama is openly showing his concern about the cuts governments in Western Europe are imposing on their military budgets.
Barack Obama is going forward without trying to impose any ideas, which is not necessarily a bad thing — let us remember the unpleasant "axis of evil" George W. Bush dreamed up — and he favors a few key strategies. Contrary to Obama's past major strategic policies, he has now made the security of the American people and the defense of the national territory against the multiple forms of terrorism that continue to target the U.S. his priority.
Among other things, this implies the elusive "light-footprint" strategy, which saw the Americans resort to large-scale attacks using drones — often targeted killings — special troops, cyber defense measures, or increased surveillance of enemies as well as allies.
The main strategy is to put an end to the U.S. continually being at war and to show preference for specific military operations, especially antiterrorism operations, to conventional military involvement. In doing so, Obama would closely comply with the expectations of the American public, which was reluctant to attack Libya, Syria, Africa and indifferent to the problems arising in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the American presence there. It is precisely this course of action that is becoming the most unpopular foreign policy the U.S. has seen in decades.
Incompetent Leadership Combined with Indecision
There may be several explanations for this apparent contradiction. First, unlike the speed at which the U.S. launched its string of attacks, the U.S. military withdrawal would not result in enthusiasm or collective pride; we rarely thank someone who closes up shop. Next, it is not true that the U.S. withdrew from all the countries it has attacked. Its involvement in Libya was certainly decisive.
Despite appearances, the U.S. Air Force carried out the overwhelming majority of air raids over the first 10 days; once the regime was ousted, the American ambassador was killed in Benghazi during a large-scale attack. Similarly, owing to a lack of direct opposition from Congress, Obama decided to attack Syria during the last days of the month of August 2013, when he ordered a series of targeted killings carried out with the full support of France and the United Kingdom. Incidentally, today, it is reasonable to ask if such an action would have made the Russians think twice before annexing Crimea in such a heavy-handed way.
The resulting image that emerges above all is that of an incompetent and indecisive leader. When the conflict arose in Ukraine with Vladimir Putin, Edward Snowden's protector, Obama's lack of anticipation was quite obvious. His inadequate strategic planning was suddenly resounding. If successful military withdrawal and Bin Laden's elimination characterized Obama's first term, aimless decisions leading to multiple crises must not mark his second one.
Paradoxically, it would be almost appropriate to thank Vladimir Putin, who callously brought the two sides back to their original allied state — even if its future aspirations remain very blurry at this moment — and who abruptly reminded everyone that the long path to European integration was born in 1950 because of the Soviet threat. In response to Putin's attack on Ukraine, Obama is openly showing his concern about the cuts governments in Western Europe are imposing on their military budgets.
Barack Obama is going forward without trying to impose any ideas, which is not necessarily a bad thing — let us remember the unpleasant "axis of evil" George W. Bush dreamed up — and he favors a few key strategies. Contrary to Obama's past major strategic policies, he has now made the security of the American people and the defense of the national territory against the multiple forms of terrorism that continue to target the U.S. his priority.
Among other things, this implies the elusive "light-footprint" strategy, which saw the Americans resort to large-scale attacks using drones — often targeted killings — special troops, cyber defense measures, or increased surveillance of enemies as well as allies.
The main strategy is to put an end to the U.S. continually being at war and to show preference for specific military operations, especially antiterrorism operations, to conventional military involvement. In doing so, Obama would closely comply with the expectations of the American public, which was reluctant to attack Libya, Syria, Africa and indifferent to the problems arising in Iraq and Afghanistan because of the American presence there. It is precisely this course of action that is becoming the most unpopular foreign policy the U.S. has seen in decades.
Incompetent Leadership Combined with Indecision
There may be several explanations for this apparent contradiction. First, unlike the speed at which the U.S. launched its string of attacks, the U.S. military withdrawal would not result in enthusiasm or collective pride; we rarely thank someone who closes up shop. Next, it is not true that the U.S. withdrew from all the countries it has attacked. Its involvement in Libya was certainly decisive.
Despite appearances, the U.S. Air Force carried out the overwhelming majority of air raids over the first 10 days; once the regime was ousted, the American ambassador was killed in Benghazi during a large-scale attack. Similarly, owing to a lack of direct opposition from Congress, Obama decided to attack Syria during the last days of the month of August 2013, when he ordered a series of targeted killings carried out with the full support of France and the United Kingdom. Incidentally, today, it is reasonable to ask if such an action would have made the Russians think twice before annexing Crimea in such a heavy-handed way.
The resulting image that emerges above all is that of an incompetent and indecisive leader. When the conflict arose in Ukraine with Vladimir Putin, Edward Snowden's protector, Obama's lack of anticipation was quite obvious. His inadequate strategic planning was suddenly resounding. If successful military withdrawal and Bin Laden's elimination characterized Obama's first term, aimless decisions leading to multiple crises must not mark his second one.