American Foreign Policy Under Obama: A Report Card

I guess some would expect The Sensible Conservative to hand the President an “F” as obviously deserved.

Certainly, there is a strong argument to be made that indeed it is.  But I do believe in being fair and sensible and so a review of Barack Obama’s five years in office should be done.

First, it’s important to note that candidate Obama never made foreign affairs a part of his campaign (other than ending the Iraq war).  Rather, his political career, including two years in the U.S. Senate, featured conventional liberal prescriptions for domestic concerns.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that the Administration’s initial forays overseas were marked by naivete and wishful thinking.  The so-called guilt tour of the Middle East and the much maligned “reset” with Russia of early 2009 are prominent examples.

Yet the U.S. reaction to the “green revolution” of Iran’s protesters later that year was of a different sort.  America stood by while foes of the anti-U.S. regime were brutally repressed.  We provided no help and barely uttered a peep in protest.  Did the Administration not understand the opportunity to advance our interests?  Or was the inaction a consequence of an ideological aversion to doing so?

In 2010 the Iraq war wore down as the President announced a date certain for withdrawal.  Military observers criticized the action as premature and likely to cause an unraveling of the stability that so many Americans had fought and bled to secure.  Efforts to obtain an agreement on a long term presence were unsuccessful.

The Administration refocused attention on Afghanistan (which Barack had termed during the 2008 campaign as the “good war”).  Drone strikes were stepped up and U.S. forces increased.

At the same time, the President let the world –and the Taliban – know that our commitment there was not open-ended, either. 

[Announcing that U.S. involvement in an unpopular war will end by a specific date is undoubtedly comforting to Obama’s anti-war constituency, but it can only encourage our enemies on the battlefield to persevere until we depart, thus severely undercutting the objective that was the purpose of our involvement!]

The President continued the hunt for Osama Bin Laden which finally culminated in success.  But despite Administration predictions, his Al Qaeda terror group was not affected.

In Libya, an American foe was toppled.  In this effort, the U.S. famously led from behind as British and French allies took a more prominent role.

The Administration’s relative diffidence about affairs after the  fall of Gadaffi resulted in a deadly cost as the killing of our ambassador and three other U.S. personnel in September of last year demonstrated.

Earlier this year, the “red line” was crossed in Syria and Al Qaeda’s influence there expanded greatly, all without a visible U.S. response except verbiage. 

In the past few months, Obama has entered into a temporary deal with Iran regarding its nuclear activities.  This has been subjected to condemnation by Israeli and Saudi Arabian allies who are most vulnerable to Tehran’s aggression.

Now comes news that America had acquiesced in part to China’s unilaterally-imposed expanded air security zone, contrary to the interests of our ally Japan, in particular.

Further, Russia has succeeded in cowing the Ukraine into renouncing previous plans to join the European Union. 

[Can anyone doubt that these recent actions – plainly in opposition to the interests of America and our allies – were taken after calculating that the U.S. reaction would be tepid and ineffectual at best?]

Naivete and inexperience were probably factors in the conduct of Barack Obama’s foreign policy five years ago.  But Americans did have a right to expect that he would have learned lessons since then.   Instead, reviewing the Administration’s performance, it is hard to conclude that the President understands that his proclivity for grand words and cheap face-saving deals projects weakness (he’s just all talk).  Inexperience is no longer an acceptable excuse.

Our president is one stubborn individual.  But he’s also consistent.  He is loath to accept that his “liberal” view of policy – at home and abroad – is simply wrong and, more importantly, dangerous to America’s survival as a strong and free land.

The grade?  “D-”.  Noting that his policies haven’t been entirely devoid of successes and anyway, in the Christmas season, I may be inclined to be overly generous.