Obama’s Foreign Policy – the Perils of Trying to Have It Both Ways

President Obama took office 4 ½ years ago promising a new foreign policy; one free of the unilateral, aggressive and strident conduct perceived to have been the hallmark of the Bush Administration.

But despite the early 2009 “apology” tour of the Middle East, Obama didn’t claim to be against all military action either.  During the 2008 election campaign, candidate Obama roundly criticized American involvement in Iraq because those efforts reduced American effectiveness in Afghanistan – the good war, he termed it.

Yet in office, while expanding drone strikes against Islamist enemies, he has proven reluctant to use military resources elsewhere and set “ exit dates” from both Iraq and Afghanistan over the opposition of American military leaders. 

Unfortunately, his rhetoric has not matched his performance.  He tells Iran that its development of nuclear weapons will not be tolerated.  But the continuing development is.  North Korea is told there will be consequences for its missile tests.  There are not.  Syria is told by the President that use of chemical weapons would be crossing “the red line”.  They are used and nothing happens.

A half century ago, the leader of what was then called Red China, Mao Tse-tung, derided the U.S. as a “paper tiger”.  That was wishful thinking on his part.  But does that pejorative have substance today?

The U.S. would be perceived stronger in the world today if the administration had publicly projected a policy of non-involvement in world affairs – which seems to be Obama’s preference anyway.  Sure, that would plainly create a power vacuum likely to be filled by our foes.  But America’s enemies would undoubtedly tread gently – if at all – on American interests.  One does not want to rouse the sleeping tiger.  Fear of U.S. action would still exist.  And that alone would provide some protection for America.

But this Administration wants it both ways.  It wants to avoid military action but also postures that it might use force. 

But who believes that?  The bluff has been called too many times.  The cruel irony is that by President Obama’s failure to show that he means what he says, our enemies are emboldened; friends are worried and neutrals become more cautious.  Who dares depend on the U.S.?

So why does Barack Obama continue to act this way?  I don’t doubt that he means well, though that is hardly sufficient justification.  Perhaps he is such a supreme egotist that he does believe his warnings to others must be taken to heart... and is utterly perplexed when they are ignored.

Such may be a pity for Obama personally, but it is a tragedy of growing proportions for many in the world who have expected more from the President of the United States.