How Can Anyone Defend Obama’s Foreign Affairs Performance?

It’s not easy, nor successful, but some try.

One of the more remarkable aspects of reactions to President Obama’s foreign speech at the U.S. Military Academy last week was the negative reviews it generated.  Apart from MSNBC’s commentators, the President’s speech was generally panned as defensive and disconnected from reality.

Even the New York Times editorial board – usually a reliable Obama cheerleader – was unimpressed.  The speech was “largely uninspiring” and illustrated why “many still doubt that he fully appreciates the leverage that the U.S. has even in a changing world.”

But our President still has champions who loyally raise his standard.

Colbert I. King, a Washington Post columnist, who usually confines his topics to matters of local interest, was game to come to Obama’s defense.  But his efforts underline the difficulty of the task.

A fair review of Barack Obama’s performance certainly would include credit for the killing of Osama Bin Laden and drone hits on Al Qaeda targets.  The President would also cite the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and Afghanistan but evaluation of the consequences is premature.  Is there really anything else of substance over the past five and a half years to commend?

Of course, there has been lots of talking, warnings and threats coming from the White House.  But, in sum, they have either not been worth a damn (Russian reset) or have been counterproductive (Syrian red line).

But Mr. King wasn’t daunted. 

“You see, Obama’s Republican attack dogs… refuse to accept a president who is cautious and thoughtful and all too aware that every problem related to peace and freedom does not have a military solution.”

To be sure, some might say the President’s “caution and reflections” are synonymous with indecision and naiveté (Syria and Russia).  And it is foolishness not to realize that the possible use of force underpins effective diplomacy.  (Obama renounced force or military support for Ukraine).

The Post writer closes his defense by reciting the President’s own fall-back argument:  There is no acceptable alternative to the action or inaction of the Administration.

“Nothing short,” King insists, “of a U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, America bombing Damascus and Tehran, and the deployment of U.S. troops to the Ukraine-Russian border will satisfy those who take issue with everything our President does or does not do.”

Unfortunately for the strength of Mr. King’s argument, the GOP “attack dogs” have proposed none of these actions.  As does the President, the Post columnist is putting forth a fallacious “strawman” argument.

The fact is, I suspect, Colbert I. King knows, for he is no fool, that President Obama does not understand the world.  He does not recognize that words without follow-through create a perception of weakness and undependability.  Foreign leaders, both friend and foe, can be expected to act not on a perception that Obama means well but rather on an appreciation of what is within their national interests.  Their regard for America depends on respect for what we might – not merely can – do.  The President’s disinclination to act on behalf of America’s national interest has been noted.

Barack Obama has shown himself to be a weak, feckless force on the world stage.  The perception is the reality.  Defensive polemics cannot change that.