A Horrible Foreign Policy Record

Ask an Obama fan to evaluate the President’s foreign policy record and the likely response is that it’s a good one.  Osama Bin Laden is dead, after all.  As if that fact is the only significant event in America’s foreign and military policy in the last four plus years. 

Shortly after Barack Obama took office in 2009, he embarked on a tour of the Middle East, excluding Israel.  Many conservatives termed it a “guilt tour”.  In fairness, that’s hyperbole.  But his comments did suggest that past American policies had displayed insensitivity to Arab-world concerns.  The President promised a reset in the American policy.

Obama did likewise in his approach to Russia  by cancelling the Bush Administration’s plans to build anti-missile installations in the Czech Republic and Poland.

The same attitude was displayed in comments about Iran, with the President, prior to his election, offering direct talks with the Iranians, in contrast with what was termed intransigence on the part of George Bush. 

Did any of that serve America’s national interest?

When the Green Revolution broke out in Iran in 2009, following the questionable re-election of Ahmadinejad, the Obama Administration was largely passive, with little if any support voiced for those protesting in the streets (with nothing offered of a substantive nature).

The Arab Spring bloomed first in Tunisia and Libya – and the President led from behind.  Egypt was next and he undercut President Mubarak (albeit an authoritarian ruler) and led the way (unwittingly?) to a successor government manned by the hostile Muslim Brotherhood. 

And don’t forget the raging civil war in Syria where the US is sitting impotently on the sidelines and the Administration is busy erasing red lines. 

Iran and North Korea are told by the President, time after time, that continuing efforts to develop nuclear weapons are “unacceptable”, yet those weapons continue to be developed.

It’s as if the Administration has chosen to combine the worst of both policies.  Passivity, when the proper course of action is unclear, is appropriate.  The drawing of “red lines” warns off one’s foes from taking actions that will cause a truly unacceptable response.

But to adopt a passivity punctuated by empty threats is to highlight one’s unwillingness to protect the national interest.  That makes for horrible foreign policy.

Killing Bin Laden was a psychologically satisfying event.  Did it substitute for an effective foreign policy?  No.