Obama's Foreign Policy

“Defensive, irritable, contradictory and at times detached from reality”: U.S. President Obama is coming under pressure because of his foreign policy. It’s not only in the context of the Ukraine crisis that his enemies allege weakness. At the same time, U.S. citizens want the U.S. to have “a less active role in world affairs.”

For some, such as veteran Republican Senator John McCain, one of the foreign policy hawks, the crisis in Ukraine is accompanied by a feeling of powerlessness. Can’t more be done to deter Russia? Together with this powerlessness comes anger, which was evident this week when McCain attacked the government during a senate hearing:

McCain: “The MREs were delivered, right? How were they delivered?”

Representative of the Department of Defense: “By a German company.”

McCain: “They weren’t flown in by U.S. aircraft into the airport at Kiev?”

Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary: “They were not.”

McCain (ironically): “Of course not, that might be provocative (Laughter) […] has body armor, night-vision capabilities and similar nonlethal military assistance been delivered?”

Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary: “No.”

McCain: “Can you explain to me how it might be provocative to supply some body armor to soldiers whose countries have been invaded by Russian Special Forces?”

Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary: “I don’t think anybody has called those items provocative.”

McCain: “Can you explain to me why we haven’t even given them body armor?”

Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary: “Again, we are continuing to look at those things.”

McCain: “May I express my deep disappointment […]”

Not even body armor. This scene illustrates how critics see the U.S. president in terms of his foreign policy — too soft, too fearful, too weak. The conflict with Russia? Only the tip of the iceberg. Besides that, there is the Syrian civil war, the failed Arab Spring, China’s territorial claims. Body armor is only the latest metaphor to be used in describing weak Obama.

Unfortunate Baseball Comparisons

The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer declared the president to be “defensive, irritable, contradictory and at times detached from reality.” For years, the American right has attempted to brand Obama as a new edition of his unfortunate predecessor Jimmy Carter. Now, in light of the Ukraine crisis, it appears this opinion is also spreading into other circles. Only 38 percent of U.S. citizens rate Obama’s foreign policy as positive, according to an NBC survey. Obama is not completely innocent.

Thus, recently, in a memorable appearance in Manila, Philippines, Obama sought to defend his policies. “Why is it that everybody is so eager to use military force after we’ve just gone through a decade of war […]?” he asked angrily — avoiding the intended blow. Nobody, not even Senator McCain, demands military deployment in Ukraine.

Obama stated that sanctions weren’t imposed against Russia “because somebody sitting in an office in Washington thinks it would look strong.” Obviously, that may “not always be sexy.” To end with, he explained his foreign policy doctrine with a baseball analogy: “You hit singles, you hit doubles; every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run.”

The baseball analogy hit home. “Presidents either say they’re going to knock the ball out of the park, or they say nothing,” wrote David Ignatius in The Washington Post. In the end, strength and credibility are “the glue of a rules-based international system.” Maureen Dowd, columnist for The New York Times, wrote: “A singles hitter doesn’t scare anybody. It doesn’t feel like leadership.” The British Economist magazine had this feeling of powerlessness in its headline: “What would America fight for? A nagging doubt is eating away at the world order.” Recently, American power hasn’t been half as scary as American absence. How weak or strong is Obama really?

Obama Has Ended Two Wars and Hasn’t Started Any New Ones

Is it weakness if a president commits to a policy of gradual withdrawal after his predecessor overextended America’s power for years? In fact, the president’s foreign policy record isn’t that bad. Obama ended two wars and began no new ones; Iran was forced to the negotiating table; Osama bin Laden is dead. On the negative side, there’s the proliferation of drone war, the NSA scandal, the newly military-led Egypt, the stalemate in the Near East.

And above all, the Syria issue. Here, Obama probably made his gravest mistake: In light of the use of chemical weapons he drew a red line, which he himself then ignored. In other words: Obama proclaimed a home run, but then dropped the bat. It is the irony of history that of all people, it was Vladimir Putin who rescued him from this predicament, by pressuring the dictator Assad into handing over his chemical weapons.

Now, foreign policy occurs in a certain context, instead of in a vacuum. Obama wanted to stay out of Syria from the beginning because he was afraid of a second Iraq for America, senseless military entanglement in another Arab country. “If George W. Bush’s foreign policy was largely a reaction to 9/11, Obama’s has been a reaction to the reaction,” observed David Remnick in The New Yorker. Additionally, Americans don’t want to police the world anymore. According to the above mentioned NBC poll, 47 percent of those questioned want their country to have a “less active role in the world.”

Unilateral American Dealings Have No Effect

It’s remarkable that people want more restraint, yet Obama gets criticized for doing exactly that — due to his perceived weakness. For that to change, Obama doesn’t just have to heed his own red lines; above all, he needs a strategic partner. What good is a multilateral-minded leader to the free world, if nobody is prepared to work with him? Peace between the Israelis and Palestinians requires more than just a strong, mediating U.S. president; it also requires the cooperation of both parties. And sanctions against Russia requires consensus among Western countries; unilateral attempts by the U.S. and shirking by Europe leads to nothing.

It’s obvious that American foreign policy is subject to cycles. After a series of presidents who reached out comes retreat — and vice versa. After Carter came Reagan, after Bush Jr. came Obama. If Obama’s approach proves successful — Iran? Russia? — then it will probably continue. If not, then it will change. What is certain, however, is that Obama will not leave as damaging a legacy as his predecessor.