Obama’s Tragedy Lies in Bad Portents

The headline of the June 5 article that ran in the Singaporean publication “Lianhe Zaobao” made mention of Obama’s strategic quandary. On May 28, President Obama was present at the West Point Military Academy graduation ceremony, where he defended his foreign policy. In all fairness, Obama is the perfect model of a charismatic leader; his charisma comes not only from his skin color, wisdom and skill, but also from his rock solid leadership ability.

According to the account in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s memoir “Hard Choices,” the decision of which strategy should be used to assassinate Osama bin Laden came straight from Obama himself, which she praised as “the bravest and most resolute a display I’ve seen from any leader.” In addition, Obama made good on his promise, which was specifically to end the costliest, longest running, most wasteful and most enigmatic wars in American history.

On May 25, Obama secretly visited Afghanistan the day before Memorial Day, announcing that all troops would be withdrawn by 2016. Prior to this, America had maintained approximately 10,000 forces to participate in military exercises to maintain security in the region. Actually, throughout American history, some presidents made history by starting wars; others entered the annals of history for ending them. The former were, for example, James Polk; the latter were men like Lincoln and Roosevelt. Just exactly as Obama said, ending a war takes more courage and wisdom than starting one. Thus, Obama’s tragedy is written in his unlucky auspices. The quandary that America is facing is structural in nature, and nothing that any one president could solve by simply relying on his own power to turn the tide.

For starters, America has been mired down in the thick and muddy marsh of war. Ten years of war has left America utterly depleted and exhausted, not only shouldering a heavy financial burden, but with a victory nowhere in sight. Results from an opinion poll published on Jan. 20 by Pew Research Center show that 52 percent believe that America lost the war in Afghanistan; the same ratio of those surveyed also believe that America lost the war in Iraq. Even more importantly, there was little or no transparency with regard to the reasons why America started these protracted wars to begin with.

Many Americans believe that Afghanistan basically doesn’t interfere with America’s core interests. Despite the threat of terrorism, however, American domestic defense systems are ready and able to protect the country in the event of another terrorist attack. Most likely, at this time, Americans are really questioning whether the government’s mission is to manage domestic affairs or to crusade across the globe looking for enemies.

Second, the American economy has recovered from its recessional woes. In the wake of the financial crisis, the American government focused the bulk of its energy on reviving its sagging economy, but the effects of it were lasting and pervasive. Although the U.S. economy has grown overall, it never received the boost it needed, thereby leaving it unstable. For example, according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis on May 29, in the first quarter of 2014, the economic growth rate was corrected to -1 percent (the figures were originally published as 0.1 percent). Simultaneously, the U.S. unemployment rate remained high, showing no signs of a reprieve. Although in the past few months these figures have lowered: As of April 2014 the unemployment rate stood at 6.3 percent and has hit a new low, but it’s doubtful whether this trend will sustain itself.

Third, America’s political effectiveness has declined a great deal. A perfect example is the American system founding core beliefs of fairness, equality and the rule of law, for which one can sacrifice some efficacy as a necessary cost. But actually, what the U.S. founding fathers never considered is how, with respect to equality, after more than 200 years of development the country has not really come that far — case in point, the 2011 Occupy Wall Street movement, which was organized under the banner of the 99 percent vs. the 1 percent. This movement even established a battle line made up of an alliance of Americans who fall within the 99 percent, which illustrates that the effectiveness of the American political system is waning. Furthermore, the snare of bipartisanism and its vicious cycle of “deadlock” has led to a series of policies and bills related directly to the economy and people’s livelihood that were not drafted or enacted in a timely enough manner; this has left the people at large with a sense that the American government doesn’t respect, nor take to heart, their interests. In recent years, we have seen that most American voters are fed up with the two-party system.

Fourth, the people’s enthusiasm for foreign affairs is growing cold. Due to the fact that political, economic and social problems in the country have yet to be resolved effectively, the American people’s support for participation in foreign affairs has reached a historic low. Poll results published by the Pew Research Center on Oct. 11, 2013 show that 53 percent of those polled feel that America should pay attention to its own affairs, which is the first time since 1964 that this has happened. In addition, 80 percent of those polled feel that “America should not overly concern itself with foreign affairs, and that it should focus its energy on domestic issues, along with rebuilding America’s strength and prosperity.”

Fifth, other countries have seen meteoric rises. Perhaps all the internal problems the Obama administration is facing can be fixed without help, but the collective rise of other superpowers and would-be superpowers is something that is beyond America’s control. In an era of globalization, relations between countries are like a boat sailing against the current; if you are unable to take advantage of opportunities, and if you are unable to minimize your tactical errors, then you will be surpassed, even if you have the advantage of being the first to develop on your side. It’s like the old Chinese saying, “if a boat sails against the current it must move forward or surely be pushed back.” What should be pointed out is that this current game of one-upmanship is not like the game for dominance of yesteryear that was played out in only one or two key regions or countries, in which the winner rose swiftly to the top of the totem pole. No, this is a game in which many countries compete against each other for the right to rise. It’s a magnificent and awe-inspiring one, the likes of which has rarely been seen throughout history.

With the lay of the land being as it is, America, the world’s forerunner, is not only feeling the burn from a real threat, but also, and perhaps even more importantly, it is feeling the burn of a psychological threat. Current circumstances being as they are, no country is really in a position to surpass America in the short term, but as the days press on and these trends develop further, the U.S. cannot help but feel panic-stricken, especially to a country that views its authoritative position as the very center of its profits.

Just as Obama stated in his address, the real question now is not “whether or not America can lead, but how America will lead.” It’s a shame that Obama has not given us a blueprint for how America plans to lead the world. Most likely, he himself is not even clear on the matter. Judging from this perspective, Obama’s strategic quandary is mainly about how to resolve the contradiction between America’s will to be the world leader and the decline of its power to do so.

The author holds a position at the Institute for International Strategic Studies at the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC.