An Ambiguous Superpower

Foreign policy has often served as a last resort for American presidents trying to do something meaningful with their second term. With Congress blocking so many of Barack Obama’s domestic initiatives, perhaps, this tendency ought to be reinforced. Instead, this week’s address has made many ponder over his international commitments.

A president inherits wars, friends, as well as the enemies of his predecessor. Yet, Obama has managed to formulate two major foreign policy course changes: Poorly conceived military ventures must be avoided, which is agreeable. Focus should turn from the Middle East to East Asia, which is prudent, given China’s growing economy and power. And yet, something seems amiss.

George W. Bush’s unpopular war was an important factor behind Obama’s election in 2008. The U.S. has withdrawn completely from Iraq and will be out of Afghanistan in late 2016. However, in Iraq, terrorism now thrives and is further fueled by the civil war in Syria. Obama leaves no scope for changing the timetable for Afghanistan, no matter what happens.

It is true that there is war fatigue in the United States, and that many would gladly let the world take care of itself. The president can argue that he is following the will of the people. Despite that, he has a lower approval rating for his foreign policies than in any other areas. One feasible reason for this may be that Obama is against practically everything, both isolationism and un-necessary war, making it harder to know what he actually wants.

During the intervention in Libya in 2011, Obama had already formulated a sort of doctrine: When America’s safety is threatened, military force can be used without consulting outsiders. However, during other types of crises, there must be strong international support for an intervention, which should also be limited in time. Obama certainly has used military force and allowed hundreds of suspected terrorists to be killed with drones, but basically, he is an involuntary warrior.

The U.S. cannot solve all of the world’s problems with cannons and cannot send troops to overthrow every dictator. There aren’t enough resources, and military interventions always lead to unforeseen difficulties. Anyone who decides to stop the slaughter in Syria will have to piece together a broken country.

On the other hand, Obama made a mistake when he threatened Bashar al-Assad with consequences if chemical weapons were used and then u-turned when it actually happened. Threats of military action must be credible to have the desired effect: that is to say, they would never need to actually be put into action.

No one is claiming that there is an American military solution to Russia’s assault on Ukraine. Instead, Obama has pushed to gain the support of the European Union for sanctions, which, if necessary, can be tightened. The crisis has nevertheless raised questions, both about what the West is able to do to check Vladimir Putin, and whether the NATO defense guarantee, in the Baltic states for example, can be taken seriously. In this, there should be no doubt.

Meanwhile, China’s aspirations are scaring its neighbors in East Asia. They have not seen much of Obama changing focus, and curiously enough, China was barely mentioned in the speech. During his trip to the region recently, he assured U.S. allies continued support, but they must be able to trust in his word.

It is true that Bush became too involved in international affairs, but there are also risks if there is too little of the United States in the world, and if Obama has any ideas as to how the U.S. should deal with Russia and China, he ought to disclose them.