Obama and Foreign Affairs – Unintended Consequences?

The latest news for Syria is treated by most American media as yet another rebuff to the Obama Administration.  Russian bombers are attacking Syrian rebel areas controlled not by ISIS, but by non-terrorist foes of Syria’s pro-Russian tyrant.  The U.S. was given a warning not to send its aircraft over the country a mere hour before the initial Russian attack. 

This came several days after Obama and Putin had a ninety minute meeting at the U.N. in New York City, supposedly, to coordinate their joint efforts against ISIS.  Accordingly, wasn’t Putin’s conduct humiliating for the president?  One would have thought so but the White House acted as if Russia’s conduct was no big deal.  Was Barack Obama simply trying to save face or were Putin’s actions actually quite tolerable?  What is certain is that President Obama shies away from asserting U.S. authority.  “Leading from behind” is how an administration official put it when referring to U.S. policy in Libya in 2011.  Even that description is overly positive when viewing Ukraine and Iraq where American influence is negligible. 

But it’s fair to surmise that Obama welcomes these developments.  He, after all, has made clear his preferences for a lessened U.S. presence on the world scene.  He doesn’t believe that Americans should continue to play a dominant role – he doesn’t think it’s right.  After all, what entitles us to act as if we were exceptional? 

Of course, the retreat has left a vacuum which others, all foes of ours, have sought to fill.

 

Did the Administration anticipate these results?  Or are the, unfortunately, unintended consequences? 

It’s certainly possible that Obama’s level of self-imposed naivete robs him of the ability to recognize the consequences of inaction and disengagement which are so obvious to others.  But it’s at least as possible that Obama sees very clearly the results which flow from his policies.  And that is to his liking.  America deserves to be taken down a notch or two, doesn’t it?

For those who love this country (Americans and foreigners), such an attitude denies the reality that America has so often – and for so long – been a strong force for good in the world. 

For many on the left, however, the idea of positive American exceptionalism is a myth.  Alas, our president has given ample support for the view that he agrees. 

NOTE:  I have speculated – with considerable confidence – on the reasons why President Obama is so passive in the face of hostility to American interests.  However, I do not need to guess as to the objectives of Russian President Vladimir Putin in the Middle East.  If one were in his shoes, it is obvious that the interests of greater Russia would be served by aligning himself with Iran and destroying all Western influence, including the elimination of Sunni foes and secular opponents of Syria’s Assad.  Without effective U.S. opposition, he will be able to obtain, with the cooperation of Shia Iran, dominance over Middle Eastern oil.  Because of joint Iranian-Russian power, and the absence of America’s, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States will have no choice but to acquiesce to Putin’s aims.  Expect Russia to use its new found energy powers to force the subjugation of Europe to its interests.  America, due to its new energy resources (fracking, etc.), will escape dependency but will be economically isolated with untold consequences.

None of these worries will befall Barack Obama, of course.  Will they trouble him?  Or simply be considered as just desserts?