I don’t ever recall mentioning an article in The New Yorker as a must read. But this one is. It’s a devastating look at how Obama thinks (or doesn’t think) about foreign affairs.
Writer Ryan Lizza tracks the chaotic course Obama has traveled in trying to figure out what he believes American foreign policy should be. He insisted during the presidential campaign, for example, “The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George W. Bush’s father, John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan.” At other times he insisted that he was an idealist who would deal with genocide. What’s remarkable is how Obama has never really been challenged about his repeated contradictions.
The picture Lizza paints is of, well, incompetence. There is Secretary of State Hillary Clinton getting jazzed about distributing cook stoves to people in third world. Remarkably, she compares the Egyptian protesters to her anti-Vietnam war activities while in college. There is Obama’s speech in Cairo, Egypt in June 2009 when he proclaims that there is a concern about the “promotion of democracy” in the region and his stated policy that he won’t “impose” it on countries in the Middle East. (Ooops. Now it’s time to reverse that!) And when protests broke out in Iran in 2009, the Obama Administration did nothing. Well, almost nothing. In Lizza’s article Obama State Department officials proudly declare how they contacted Twitter and asked them not to perform a planned upgrade so it wouldn’t interfere with Twitter in Iran. Now that is standing up for democracy! Speak softly and use Twitter!
Middle East Unrest: In August, 2010, the Obama White House gets a details assessment that there is “evidence of growing citizen discontent with the region’s regimes.” The Obama National Security Council has several reviews to discuss what U.S. policy should be concerning reform in the Middle East. Still, they get caught completely flat footed and act befuddled when the protest movement breaks out months later. As Ryan Lizza puts it, Obama’s approach to the unrest in the Middle East is the equivalent of voting “present” in the Illinois Legislature. “Obama’s instinct was to try to have it both ways.” And of course why not? He’s had it both ways several times before and has never been called on it. Only this time he was dealing with world events. Not the Washington press corps.
Libya: “American Presidents usually lead the response to a world crisis, but Obama seemed to stay hidden that week,” says Lizza as civil war broke out in Gaddafi’s Libya. And indeed, the Obama people have a phrase for this: “Leading from behind.” But, of course, international affairs is not community organizing.
There is the apparent “gender war” over foreign policy. The men are the “realists” who view foreign policy as a chess match. And then their are the women “who talk about democracy and human rights.” Ironically, the women in the Obama Administration seem more willing to use force than the men. Lizza also points out that Obama does not approach the world strategically, but approaches “foreign policy as if it were case law.”
Clear vision and clear direction? No. Chaos and confusion. Yes. Leading from behind. Is that the Obama 2012 reelection slogan?