Where Is the American Leader?

The spread of isolationism and the hands-off policies of the U.S. could dramatically undermine the authority of the West.

The world was thrilled when Barack Obama took over for George Bush. Finally, a person with a radically different notion of how to govern America, a person who would lend an ear and consult the allies, a person who would withdraw forces from Iraq and put an end to the aggressive intervention practiced by Bush. The popularity of the leader of the White House in the world was rapidly growing. He was greeted on the streets of Europe. The leaders of other countries were queuing to be photographed with him. Only a few months after taking office, Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize.

But, four years later, the euphoria has peculiarly disappeared. Instead, the Old Continent is worried: Where, after all, is Obama? Where is American leadership? Europeans are no longer rushing to pose for photographs in Washington. The Arabs of the Middle East complain about the unfulfilled promises of peace and justice. In Africa, much less friendliness is expressed toward him. The president has become almost unnoticed beyond the U.S. Has America really turned its back on the rest of the world? Is Obama really, in essence, an isolationist? So far, his major achievement is renouncing the political practices responsible for the unpopularity of his predecessor. He withdrew all U.S. troops from Iraq and promised that the U.S. will no longer take part in the struggle against the Taliban in Afghanistan. U.S. troops are leaving the country after over 12 years — a sign of the overall retreat of NATO armed forces. There will be almost none left there by the end of this year. Thus, the soldiers of the two costly wars of the Bush era are coming back home.

The Iraq campaign turned into a bloody and disastrous occupation, sucking the lifeblood and money out of America and damaging the country’s credit. The Afghanistan campaign is considered by the majority of NATO members, including the greater part of high-ranking officers, to be a war that could not be won. Today, in the opinions of the European and American communities, the aims, strategies and even the foremost arguments were false in both of these wars. The political consequences that followed were well deserved. From now on, the West is not quite as eager to organize new interventions in the Muslim world. However, there is a fear that non-interference would only lead to a decrease in Obama’s popularity and influence.

Does it really mean that armed forces will not be used in the future? What is the essence of American leadership, if not the confidence with which it flexes its muscles? Obama has gone through three trials: Libya, Syria and North Korea. Each time, the allies of the U.S. were worried — it seemed he was just avoiding challenges.

Libya set the tone. Britain and France unhesitatingly called for military methods to stop Gadhafi from annihilating the rebelling inhabitants of Benghazi. But Obama was hesitant, and that became a signal that London and Paris must not undertake any military operations. After all, Washington provided transport and scout planes, while NATO took control over the support campaign for the opposition forces. However, an infinite number of questions regarding Obama’s leadership have emerged.

The situation with Syria was much simpler. Western high-ranking officers state that intervening there would have been a political catastrophe and that it was financially impossible. But the rebels were willing to provide arms, and then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called upon Obama to help them. He refused. In words, he supported the anti-Assad troops, but that was it. In fact, he scarcely made any public statements about Syria in the U.S. And his administration clearly demonstrated its position: If Britain and France demand substantial help for the opposition, they must provide it themselves.

Obama was just as cautious about the peace process in the Middle East. As president, he advocated new relations between the U.S. and the Muslim world. But, later on, his attempts to convince Israel to abandon the new settlement projects and embark on negotiations with the Palestinians have failed to achieve any result. There was a pronounced lack of understanding between Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Nevertheless, the American president knows that an open conflict with Israel would have disastrous consequences in the U.S., where there is a powerful pro-Israel lobby. So, he just put the question off. The leader of the White House has indeed organized a visit to Israel, but it is no more than a polite gesture. There are no political initiatives on the agenda.

Obama’s considerations are purely practical. America is no longer dependent on Middle Eastern energy. Shale gas will soon make it an energy-independent country. The oil of the Middle East is not as important as it was before. Meanwhile, Obama knows very well what a disaster interference in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict turned out to be for his predecessors. Clinton wasted time and lost the people’s confidence attempting to secure a peace agreement. Bush Jr. achieved almost no progress when he eventually persuaded the countries to try and reach a mutual agreement. Both these presidents wasted political capital without attaining the goal.

Obama does what he has to do. His presidency will be evaluated by domestic and economic criteria. That is why he is focusing on renewing the country’s economy and establishing new markets in Asia. He is aware of the public mood in America. The majority of Americans consider Europeans to be rich and indifferent victims of their own “socialist” ideas. Americans are indignant about the multiple reductions of the defense budget in European countries, which resulted in Washington now being responsible for of 75 percent of NATO’s expenses. At the same time, NATO is no longer serving America’s foreign policy interests because European partners cannot reach an agreement on its aims.

Therefore, Obama does not really have an incentive to prove himself as an active North Atlantic leader. It is important to note that Obama’s new secretary of defense, Chuck Hagel, is a Republican who has actively opposed the U.S.’ previous armed interventions. He would most likely appeal against calls for any new armed interventions overseas. America would not offer troops to help France in Mali and would not help Yemen or any other country where al-Qaida is active. Instead, the Pentagon will rely increasingly on unmanned aircraft to trace and destroy suspected terrorists.

But North Korea’s provocations and bellicose rhetoric test the strength of Obama’s policy. The country’s current leader, Kim Jong Un, severed the peace accord with South Korea and is threatening to “ruthlessly” attack. Last month, Pyongyang conducted a third nuclear test; it is also researching ballistic missile technologies. North Koreans were angered by the latest sanctions imposed by the U.N. and their leader saw them as aggression against his country.

Washington could not ignore these threats, even though the unpredictable but frequent surges of hostile hysteria from the northern part of the peninsula are now habitual. Hagel announced the placement of 14 more interceptor missiles in Alaska and the shipping of GPS devices to Japan. Obama cannot afford for anyone to think that he is not ready to take South Korea’s side or that he is not going to support the rest of Asia. But for now his assistance is very limited.

The world will be watching the U.S. closely: Will they resort to a self-centered “every man for himself” attitude toward Asia, Europe and the Middle East? America’s numerous allies see the danger arising from the fact that some countries, notably Russia and Iran, are already willing to take advantage of the situation. Putin is demonstrating that he is ready to return to Cold War rhetoric when denouncing Washington’s actions. Is America really not going to react in any way if he tries to increase his influence in Syria, Eastern Europe and the former Soviet republics?