Bush's Legacy Weighs Heavily on Obama

It has now been seven weeks since Barack Obama took office, yet his foreign policy continues to be unclear. There are slight indications regarding his general tendencies, which are influenced and will be governed by three factors: first, the American and global economic situation; second, political realities in hot areas of the world and at the forefront is Russia, then the Middle East (Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Turkey, and Sudan in particular); and third, the general, historic trend which dictates the path of super powers and empires. What is clear is that Obama inherited a political and economic system that the word “turmoil” does not begin to describe, perhaps better words would be “crisis,” “disaster” and “implosion.”

President Obama did not hide his irritation regarding the policy which preceded him, which brought him “an economy burdened by debt” and difficult decisions to be made, not the least of which Obama himself took to pump 300 billion dollars into the ailing U.S. economy. In addition, there have been other decisions taken by Obama to contribute to a reduction in spending, among them: a complete withdrawal from Iraq, the closing of Guantanamo prison and the trial of inmates before American courts. Perhaps the most important is the realization in Washington that it is unable to face issues beyond its borders, according to the vision of the neocons and their ambitions, and the feeling that the mistakes from the recent past will take a heavy political and financial toll.

The time is not distant when America will begin to gradually tackle domestic policies and to decrease its interaction with the world, a path that will bring it towards isolation. It is believed that isolation is better for America than carrying out its hegemonic policies and fighting with others. These hegemonic policies have given America a psychological disorder regarding its vision, policies and attitudes.

Although President Obama has not openly made direct statements against the former president and his teamwork with the coalition, a number of his statements hint at his disgust of the policies of his predecessor and emphasize his feelings that he has inherited a heavy legacy that he will not be able to honestly or successfully carry.

The features of the new U.S. dynasty began with the toppling of George Bush, his party and his administration. This was his terrible fall, against feelings of anger which the American people have, who feel for the first time that the slogans that were heavily used by the Bush administration were, in fact, hostile towards others and not beneficial for Americans, provoking feelings of arrogance, providing media noise, creating turmoil and confusion, and leading to an adversarial spirit and a policy of conflict. This was clearly the prevailing atmosphere during the visit of the British prime minister to Washington last week. It was described as a “peaceful visit,” different greatly from previous exchanges between London and Washington, the majority of which had been war visits. Gordon Brown did not hide his concerns regarding the nervous atmosphere which loomed over the world during the Bush presidency. That was clear, when Obama called on the United States through the world leadership to battle to break the current economic cycle. The cycle began with America and has spread to the whole world; it has become an unprecedented threat to the capitalistic, economic system. There is no hiding that the Western hegemonic power (America) undertook to establish economic excellence resulting in technological and scientific development. The United States has been weakened gradually after the emergence of other power centers far from Western circles. Now, whatever is said about the economic decline, it is undoubtedly linked to military policy, war, enormous spending and the unaccountable, death machine of the United States. It is believed that the current economic crisis runs deeper than the “Great Depression” which occurred in interwar period in America, and it is also believed that the Second World War is the primary reason for the toppling of the British Empire. American and British involvement in wars during the past twenty years has not ceased. Both countries have thought that they would be free from the economic consequences of those wars and they have thought this in spite of what happened to the Soviet Union after its invasion of Afghanistan.

Obama did not include many strategic details, but perhaps it will become clearer after his first visit to Europe the in the coming months to attend the 20 Member Group Summit, which will deal particularly with Afghanistan. Preparations for the Obamas first European tour began with a visit from the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to the NATO headquarters in Brussels. Throughout the visit, comments were released which disclosed some of the new American political positions which are largely different from the previous ones. They reflect a degree of realism on the one hand, and introspection on the other hand, and a renewal of American political discourse to the Third World. Perhaps U.S. President Obama realized the answers to questions which are regularly raised in Washington: Why does the world hate us? Clinton brought up many issues during her European visit: First, the need to rebuild bridges with Russia and preventing the beginning of a new Cold War with Moscow. Second, inviting Iran to attend the above-mentioned Afghanistan conference, making good on the promises that Obama made in his presidential speech on the day of his inauguration to “extend a hand to opposing forces.” Perhaps Europeans also recognized the need to build bridges with forces, known as terrorists, such as Hezbollah and Hamas.

Although Washington does not have a defined stance towards Hamas, Britain announced that it would seek for the possibility to open communications with the Lebanese Hezbollah, which is a completely different and unprecedented step for British foreign policy. A spokesman for the British Prime Ministry said that this move reflects the improved political climate in Lebanon, which has formed a national, unity government that includes Hezbollah. This also indicates that the British government has taken a stance which considers the positive, political developments that have taken place in Lebanon. The spokesperson added, “We seek for official lines of communication with the political wing of Hezbollah.” The British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Bill Rammel, told the British House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee that “the most important goal is to press Hezbollah to play a greater role in political building, distancing itself from violence.” It is certain that the American stance is not well-received by Arab governments, which are considered adversarial or even extremist, and who have become increasingly worried by these statements. The stance of Egypt and Saudi Arabia in particular has clearly become hostile to Lebanese and Palestinian nationalism, feeling betrayed by the British and the American stances. Additionally, the Obama administration went to talk with ‘moderates’ from among the Taliban, after Washington’s announcement that it could not win the war in Afghanistan on its own. This new stance will create disruption and confusion, particularly since it reflects the American admission that those who oppose America will not be defeated in the end.

Further reading is necessary to explain the current and possible changes in Washington’s foreign policy. The economic dimension is considered one of the most important factors in changing the American psyche. The economic collapse that the United States has faced is unprecedented in modern history, and it will have major consequences throughout the whole country. This far exceeds that which happened during the Great Depression, which began in 1929. While observers say that the situation is not yet urgent, it will be soon. This dangerous phenomenon reflects the fragility of the capitalist system and the banking system at its core, which has not been able to revive itself, in spite of hundreds of billions of government coffers to help out. There is no doubt that the massive military spending on widespread wars has directly applied pressure on Western economies. Real estate inflation remains at the root of the problem, without harmonizing mortgages and real estate loans by financial institutions. It is certain that the crisis will not be solved in the foreseeable future, and also unlikely that Obama’s initiative to allocate billions of dollars to revive the market will provide the direct, positive result envisioned. Consequently, there is the belief that increases daily that the United States will not be able to restore its international position and that meddling in international issues has not solved its financial crisis. Since this will not be resolved soon, it is likely that Washington will work on converge and focus on domestic issues, giving up the role that has expanded immensely over that last three decades.

The economic stability has become the rock that has smashed the ambitions of the previous American administration and with it the neoconservatives, and it is unlikely that America will return to the role that it has played during the recent decades. The personality of the president and his political program play a role in determining the course of American policy. Obama is not George Bush, and in spite of what can be said about the basic role of American politics in determining central policies, the role of the president cannot be underestimated. The personality of Obama is different from that of Bush, his speeches are not scripted and the words may not have much practical application. There is no value compared to the foundational American thinking which goes beyond the personality of the individual.

Now foreign international development is another factor in gauging American superiority. Obama has inherited two wars from his predecessor, Iraq and Afghanistan. So he decided to withdraw from Iraq due to the apparent magnitude of continuing with the occupation and to change direction and focus on the war in Afghanistan.

It appears that the American generals are the decision makers when it comes to operations. They believe that increasing the number of combat troops in Iraq last year led to the defeat of al-Qaeda. Moreover, Iraq cannot be subject to America forever. The combining efforts of Iraq’s sons, their cohesion and their success in overcoming sectarian divisions has persuaded the United States of the impossibility of continuing the occupation and the need to withdraw.

Now, Afghanistan has become another wound in America’s side, and the military insists on escalating the confrontation with fighters of the Taliban movement. And to do this, they suggest increasing the number of forces in Afghanistan by more than seventeen thousand soldiers. This would bring Afghanistan back into the forefront of the “War on Terror,” after Iraq held that leading role for the last five years. This coincides with the feelings of the American administration that it should continue with a bone-breaking policy with Iran which would begin a vicious cycle to no avail. After thirty years of estrangement from Iran, Tehran has been able to expand its Islamic-political influence even further. Meanwhile, the coalition has achieved military and political victories, it has not been able to oppose regional or international players from continuing with their political projects and ambitions.

After Hezbollah’s victories in 2006, Hamas has had a difficult place in the Palestinian equation and has not added any value as it had done previously. Perhaps this war of wills is waiting to see who will break first; it may be a race between two unequal players, or perhaps betting in an underworld casino of chaos and hidden powers, such as the mafia. Whatever the case, Obama’s America is a different place than the political philosophy and strategy of America during the post-Cold War era, where it was the only superpower and hegemonic administrator of world issues.

Washington finds itself unable to target all of its opponents and rivals using its old methods. It can be assumed that the post-Cold War strategy differs substantially from that of its predecessor, and the strategy that attempts to thwart the Islamic threat must differ than it would if this were a world free of ideological perspectives and religious wars.

But what about Russia?

And what about the placement of missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland? In spite of recent statements that have raised the ire of the Russians. An awakened sense of nationalism has stemmed from the missiles aimed at Iran and the recent Russian invasion of Georgia.

President Obama was clear in his inauguration speech when he called for dialogue with Russia. That was also the message of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when she visited Brussels this past week – the need to reach an understanding with Russia, which goes with the flow of reconciliation that Obama has adopted. When the group of 20 meet next month, Russia will have the loudest voice and the most influence in framing the new strategy for NATO. Russia becomes the other difficult number in the equation, just like Iran. Isn’t that a threat to the balance of power in the post-Cold War era?

There is no doubt that the leaders of Europe who are strategic partners with the United States began to feel not only the error in America’s policies which are dragging the world into the horrors of war on its account, but they also feel the effects of the economic downturn, which is no less dangerous than any other military of ideological threat. Civilizations rise and fall depending on their economic conditions and military decline. Hopefully, Barack Obama will be able to avoid the danger of slipping into the political, military, and strategic quagmire initiated by his predecessor, George Bush. Hopefully he can break away from this dark period of history and his decisions will not be made at the spur of a moment and will not be easily pre-empted. If achieved, the United States and its European allies might be able to rise out of the resulting quicksand stemming from unwise decisions, so many of which come from Washington. This is a big challenge, not only for Americans, but for those who try to fix things, no matter what.

D. Saied al-Shihabi

Bahraini writer and journalist, living in London.