Disillusionment

Shortly after Barack Obama’s election, far-sighted people began warning us not to expect miracles from the new occupant of the White House. The warning went largely unheeded by many, both at home and abroad, despite their recognition that the key to success was concentrating on what was doable. Obama has now been in office a good seven months and we are seeing disappointment, the twin sister of great expectations, now rearing her head.

Now, the liberals in the Democratic Party have begun to complain that the president is not pursuing his vision of renewal for America with enough dedication; he is not sufficiently distancing his foreign policies from those of his predecessor. Such reactions, whether justified or not, are unavoidable and to be expected as independent voters abandon him and his spending policies. Governing does not necessarily mean following campaign blueprints word for word. Few presidents were ever able to see their policies accepted during their first year in office, despite voter mandates and strong congressional support; actually, the only one to do that was Ronald Reagan. Nor does governing consist only of giving polished speeches.

Homemade “Disappointment Shock”

Accompanying the disappointment is the driving force that Obama is regarded as having near messianic powers, not least by those who now note that his policies have thus far failed to produce much in the way of recuperation. This “disappointment shock” is partly Obama’s fault because the central message of his entire campaign was change. He was quite right to think that many voters were depending on him to restore hope, but, in everyday politics, the magic soon dissipates.

This holds true, above all, in the area of foreign policy. The number of wars or conflicts, not to mention the extent of fence-mending needed with many nations, that Obama inherited from his predecessor was so great from the outset that it was absolutely intimidating. In some areas, he has made progress, but, with the exception of U.S. engagement in Iraq, most of it has been insubstantial. In other areas, such as the conflict over Iran’s nuclear program, progress seems to be marking time.

Mistrust in Israel

The mood among some of America’s allies and friends is noteworthy. In Israel, Obama is regarded with mistrust, if not downright rejection – not surprising, given his friendly overtures toward the Islamic world and his criticism of Israel’s settlement expansion policies.

In Poland, “disappointed” is too mild a term to describe the current mood. The Poles feel they are not being taken seriously and that their concerns are not being adequately addressed. This has less to do with Washington’s policy toward Russia than is claimed; the status of members of the U.S. delegation sent to the memorial celebrations marking the start of World War II in Poland was perceived to be disrespectful.

Beside the general question of Obama’s policy toward Europe, the same holds true for Obama as for his predecessor, George W. Bush: The United States should not take its European partners for granted. It is no longer a given that Europe will obediently follow America’s lead regardless of whether or not the U.S. takes Europe’s symbolic or material needs seriously.

However, there is one point that Europeans should not disagree upon, which is that Europe will no longer continue to be the centerpiece of American foreign policy. The music is now being played on different stages in the Near and Middle East and in Southern and Eastern Asia. It would be surprising if Obama did not direct the focus of his policies in those directions.

Portrait of Afghanistan

Obama has accorded Afghanistan high priority and has partially changed U.S. strategy there, but with unsatisfactory interim results. The situation there is anything but rosy; military commanders are openly expressing doubt about strategies and goals, losses continue to mount, and more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the costs of involvement are not worth the campaign. It is already being called “Obama’s war,” just as Iraq was called “Bush’s war.” Possible defeat is often mentioned, but one seldom hears about a possible victory. In other words, those nations currently militarily engaged in the Hindu Kush (especially the United States) will face decisive months ahead and there will be months of unpleasant decisions.

The one thing that changed strategies and more realistic goals cannot replace, however, is sufficient military, civil and financial support. Obama has already increased the strength of military troops there considerably and, despite congressional and public skepticism, he will send more combat troops to Afghanistan. He will have to do this, otherwise the Taliban will maintain control and there will be neither security nor development in the country. The European allies cannot leave the United States to carry on alone because it is not just Obama’s war; the label has been unfairly pinned on him. It is also our war, and it would also be our defeat.