In recent days, President Barack Obama has been stressing that his national-security record will help him get reelected. In a January interview with Time magazine, in his State of the Union address, and elsewhere, he not only recalls, with justifiable pride, the killing of Osama bin Laden, but also claims credit for “restor[ing] American leadership in the world.”
In common parlance, leadership abroad means something along the lines of identifying the U.S. national interest and enlisting foreign partners to join us in achieving it. What Mr. Obama means, however, is more or less the opposite.
Advertisement
Before entering office in 2009, Mr. Obama and his administration’s top foreign-policy intellectuals wrote extensively in favor of a less assertive, less militarily capable, less independent United States. This prescription fit their characterization of America’s post–World War II history as a story of bullying, selfishness, militarism, and violations of the rights of others.
In a 2003 article in The New Republic, Harvard lecturer Samantha Power referred to American pride in our freedoms of speech, religion, voting, and assembly — then explained that “much anti-Americanism derives from the role U.S. political, economic, and military power has played in denying such freedoms to others.” She advocated “instituting a doctrine of the mea culpa” and drew a parallel between America’s actions and those of the Nazis: “When [German Chancellor] Willie Brandt went down on one knee in the Warsaw ghetto, his gesture was gratifying to World War II survivors, but it was also ennobling and cathartic for Germany. Would such an approach be futile for the United States?” Amazingly, the comment caused no flap in 2003 — or in 2009, when President Obama appointed Ms. Power to the National Security Council staff.
In the academic circles Mr. Obama inhabited before entering politics, historical, classic American leadership is criticized for being arrogant and overreaching. In a recent Woodrow Wilson Center essay, Princeton’s Anne-Marie Slaughter, who served as the State Department’s director of policy planning from 2009 to 2011, summarized a progressive understanding of leadership as follows: “The U.S. should stop trying to dominate and direct global events. The best we can do is to build our capital so that we can influence events as they arise.”
President Obama often speaks of leadership, as all politicians do, but he inclines to the progressive foreign-policy school’s definition. For him, it involves embracing constraints and subordinating U.S. interests to the permission of multilateral bodies, as he did when he waited for the approval of the Arab League and United Nations before supporting the anti-Qaddafi rebellion in Libya.
Mr. Obama explained to Time that he favors “an American leadership that recognizes the rise of countries like China and India and Brazil. It’s a U.S. leadership that recognizes our limits in terms of resources, capacity.” Knowing one’s own limitations is good and can help advance one’s interests. But that’s different from shackling oneself or deciding to act only with lots of company. If leadership means joining the crowd, that’s an Orwellian inversion of vocabulary. When an anonymous administration official told The New Yorker last year that Mr. Obama aspired to “lead from behind,” he caused embarrassment by exposing the president’s sleight of tongue.
Because President Obama is an intelligent and accomplished communicator we tend to forget that he entered the Office of President of the United States with neither the experience nor the temperament to be successful. Thus, in situations that require more than the smooth delivery of words that appear on a teleprompter, he has little to offer.
one wonders if Obama had stood up for the Iranian freedomfighters in 2009 would we be in such a pickle today vis a vis the nuclear race and the in-your-face actions of Syria, Iran's client state...???
I am 43 and remember the Carter years. The empty feeling of powerlessness because our President was an appeaser and weak. We ARE the leaders of the Free World for God's sake. No other country consistently fights for and promotes the causes of liberty more than the US. OUR military keeps the peace in the world and keeps the intentions of evil men at bay. Our President needs to remember that when he deals with other countries.
Obama is none of that and I can't tell you how badly I feel seeing him standing there as President of our country. Acting weak. I don't care who it is but we must vote for any one other than Obama. Whoever it is, just vote for the best other guy and we'll get better instantly. Please not another four more years of this...
I also remember the Carter years, as a young Marine Lieutenant it was painful to have a C in C so utterly at sea ( well Mr Carter was a Navy man) .
However it was Bush Jr who lost two wars through utter incompetence and a lack of seriousness. It was Bush who vastly expanded the Government and paid for none of it. Mr Obama's profligacy is disgraceful. But his foreign policy is dictated by what a democracy will accept and ours is truly fed up. All things considered Mr Obama has done a far better job than Bush JR .
You do remember Mr Bush spent his entire Presidency handing billions to the Pakistanis, while they hid OBL? You do remember that Mr Bush spoke with his good friend ( and personal choice for Afghan President) the bi-polar Mr Karzai weekly and supported him without cavil. . Mr Karzai was not only corrupt and probably insane, Karzai is also a paid Iranian agent. My favorite was Bush looking into Putin's eyes and seeing ? AHHHH.. We both know I could gone on for pages.
In a foreign policy driven election Obama wins hands down. Make it about the spending and we win.
America under G.W. Bush's leadership won the Iraq War. Saddam Hussein was overthrown which was the initial objective and in America's strategic interests for lots of reasons. When you accomplish your objective in a war, by definition you won the war, ok? Later, when the Sunni / Al-Qaeda insurgency started, the second objective was to defeat the insurgents and give the Iraqi democratic government Bush created a chance to survive and develop. Bush ordered the Surge that crushed the insurgents and achieved that second objective. As of today in 2012 Iraq is still a developing democracy, so what part of the Iraq War did Bush lose? If the Iraqis eventually lose their democracy which America gave them, that won't be Bush's fault. He gave the Iraqis a chance for a better life, but you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink. In the meantime, the government of Iraq is no longer butchering its citizens, using its oil wealth to fund terrorism and invading its neighbors, all beneficial results created by by G.W. Bush.
As a bonus completely separate from Iraq's future political destiny, thousands of Al Qaeda terrorists were killed in Iraq, making Americans safer at home. As a former military man, I'm sure you agree it is to better the fight the enemy in their homeland, not yours. That's Military Strategy 101.
Regarding Afghanistan, Bush initially won there also. Immediately after 9/11 Bush ordered the American military into Afghanistan which swept the Taliban and its Al-Qaeda allies from power in a few weeks. That was a brilliant military victory, not a defeat. I grant you, Bush's followup policy of nation building in that country was a mistake. But Obama has continued that failed policy for the past 3 years and even and double downed on it with his own troop surge. That fact renders incorrect your statement "All things considered Mr Obama has done a far better job than Bush JR ."
Fascinating analysis. By its terms, we now understand the Soviet war in Afghanistan to have been a success, as well. After all, the communist government in Kabul asked for support from the USSR. The USSR sent troops, fought the mujahideen, and trained the communist government's army to fight the insurgents on their own. When the Soviets departed, they had given the Afghan communist government a chance to survive and develop; if the Afghans eventually lost the communist government, that wasn't Brezhnev's fault.
Turns out the Nazis won WWII, too. By your reckoning, they won in France, Norway, Poland, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Sure, the Germans lost a war they later started against the USSR, but that doesn't take away the fact that he met all his objectives in all those other countries: he toppled all those governments, and if they couldn't hold on to the fascist governments he gave them, that isn't HIS fault.
By your standards, France prevailed in the Napoleonic Wars, the English won the Hundred Years War, the U.S. won in Vietnam, the Mahdi won in the Sudan (well, I guess in a way he DID, since he didn't live to see his forces crushed), and the Crusaders came out on top in the Holy Land. Every country that ever launched a war it couldn't end is now a winner, as long as it met some of its own objectives along the way.
Back to Iraq: you can lead a horse to water, but if you break his legs, smash his jaw, and burn his nose, it's a bit disingenuous to complain that he won't drink.
Dear Mr Forro: Wow. "Brilliant Military Victory" in Afganistan . You mean When Bush sent the local Afgan miltia in to kill OBL when 4000 marines where sitting 50 miles away ? That brilliant victory ? Then Bush lets OBL escape to Pakistan and pays the Paks billions to what ? Hide OBL ?
Ask 1,000 Americans if we won in Iraq, one Trillion dollars later, every dime borrowed by that profigate silver spooned moron. You know what the answer will be. Iraq was never worth the bones of single American.
Since you still believe the fictions the Generals are feeding you may I suggest you read Col D Davis' article at the Armed Forces Journel, It might alter your perceptions considerably.
Obama's grand plan is a redefinition of not only America, but of all things. He redefined the very meaning of leadership by leading from behind. Rising unemployment is now jobs "saved or created." Warfare is an "overseas contingency operation" and the ability to attack and retreat at the same time. Obama has redefined political oratory with the aggressive use of "I," "me," and "my." Terrorism is now "man-caused disasters," while diplomacy is apologizing and bowing to world leaders for the sins of lesser men who came before. A trillion dollars has become an affordable sum. Bipartisanship is giving the opposition the opportunity to do as they are told, and dignified debate is the demonization of anyone who disagrees. Fair play is victory by any means. Truth is whatever Obama says it is. Rules are whatever he says they are.
Thanks for your article, Mr. Feith and Mr. Cropsey. I admire Prsident Bush very much for his courageous stance in a more active global American participation towards furthering the cause of liberty -- even when that means military presence and use of force, if necessary. However, I wish someone would write an article addressing the history behind Winston Churchill's policy decision to give Israel as a gift to the Jewsih people. That one decision has had an enormous impact. The Brits are responsible for so many great diplomatic achievements that furthered the cause of global civilization and progress, but do they/did they understand the cause of global peace and liberty as we Americans must? Aren't there, as yet, many untried and peace advancing non-military foreign diplomatic decisions to be made, possibly in conjunction with the Brits?
You can't presume to give anyone something that what was theirs in the first place. Progress and civilisation has nothing to do with it and is not the measure of any ownership right. This is more than can be said for your moral standing in these stakes regarding the Americas purloined as they were from their original inhabitants.
The Balfour declaration was made under the government of Lloyd George, endorsed by the Allied nations and the League of Nations. Other than being in favour of this himself, Winston Churchill was not in a position to dispense with this decision one way or another.
That about sums up your grasp of the situation.
When Ottoman possession were distributed by the victors - which was their right - the arabs received 99.99% of the land in question. The 0.01% 'given' to the Jews was the subject of separate agreement between arab and Jewish representatives (Feisal-Weizmann) in Paris 1921.
The British actively refused to meet their international obligations, fomented unrest and dischord in order to fabricate a need to keep control over their imperial and mandated possessions. That is the ubiquitous legacy of the European contribution to the present day situation and 'liberty' was not high on that agenda.
I'm otherwise sure that I do not understand what it is your post was about and am convinced that you don't either.
Thanks, JohntyD, for pointing out a lot of things I didn't know. You're right, I hardly ever know what I'm talking about. I will need to read a book that focuses on the subject of the Balfour Declaration. I was only thinking of an article by Jay Nordlinger on this site called "The Z-Word." It talks about the origins of Zionism in the 19th century. It sounds to me like there was a radical element that rose up and claimed to be Jewish and sort of took over the Jewish identity, like the Muslim Brotherhood is taking over the Muslims. Some Jews didn't care about going back and reclaiming Israel, and some did. The ones that did were called Zionists. I was only thinking that, if I were a Jew, which I'm not so it's probably hard to relate, I would want to be a peaceful, and perhaps not add to an old Arab Middle East mindset that was beneath me. After all, yes, I've been persecuted, but does that mean I should make everybody else feel guilty about that for another 2000 years? How much can a little piece of land be worth? We've got so much land here in America we don't know what to do with it! And we want Jews to be here in the Western world contributing their creative energies and profiting by them and benefiting everyone by them. Because we love them. Israel, right now, is a socialist state. People pay a lot of taxes and retire early and are taken care of, but does that sound right to you, if you're a conservative? Also, if anybody considers that Israel was given as a gift of appeasement to the Jews, which I have heard said, but you are saying is inaccurate, then I'd be ashamed to pretend the piece of land was mine to give. I'd also be uncomfortable to receive such a gift. Gift-giving, when it is done, I've always thought, is supposed to be done without expectations, and is given by the possessor of the gift to one who needs it. It is so hard to know when a gift is really needed, isn't it? And sometimes the stronger man is the one who prevents a fight that will cause harm to anyone. Anyway, thanks for your comments JohntyD. Hope to hear more from you! You are right that my first comment doesn't make much sense. Writing is so hard, isn't it?
The irony of Mr Feith, an architect of the catastrophe that was the invasion of Iraq by the Keystones Cops administration, criticizing Mr. Obama should be lost on no one. Mr Obama exists because Bush was a failure and isolationism is prevalent int he country today because of those failures.
The incompetent, and frankly unserious, Bush Jr administration is THE key reason our country is in such terrible shape today. Mr Obama is not the solution, but he is right that he did not cause the problems as well.
Mr Feith is simply not qualified, given his history , to be a critic of anything. He should emulate his boss in one particular, have the class to GO AWAY and shut up.
I agree with andy fr dc ... compared to the disastrous "strong leadership" of the George W. Bush years, Obama's low key foreign policy has been comparatively smooth sailing. There have been many notable accomplishments, e.g. the gutsy but successful raid on Bin Laden's compound (Obama's decision), the handling of the Libya crisis which resulted in the demise of Muammar Khaddafi without U.S. military casualties, soaring foreign policy approval ratings at home as well as abroad compared with George W. Bush's etc. etc..
At the time of writing, Obama's average foreign policy approval rating is 49% - 38% [ External Link ]. If this year's election turns out to be about foreign policy, Obama would annihilate Romney, Santorum or Gingrich -- pathetic candidates who have learned nothing from the disastrous invasion of Iraq.
really - you approve of his foreign policy vis a vis Israel, his ramping up the Afghan war while setting a departure date, the disaster with Honduras, the lack of follow through on Egypt post-Mubarak and Libya post-Ghaddafi, his silence during 2009 Iranian uprising and his pat on the back of Al Assad of Syria as a "reformer" followed by mealy-mouthed platitudes while Assad kills his own, people, etc, etc, etc, etc? gracious! hard to believe!
you act as if 9/11 never happened and that Mr Obama's response would have prevented additional "man made disasters" and that he would have taken ANY action that would have put Osama Bin Laden in the lap of the next president. I think his foreign policy actions would have been as weak as his actions on the Iranian and Syrian fronts currently are and would have left terrorism unfettered.
Had it not be for GW Bush and his aggressive actions to hunt and kill the people that perpetrated 9/11 Mr Obama would have no glorious killing to crow about. He does not display leadership in any forum but I do agree that he does lead from behind which has nearly 20/20 vision since you do not have to make decisionon, just wait for others to act then quickly reformat the teleprompter to take full credit.
I imagine there is much hand wringing trying to figure out how to pin a lack of serious policy on the energy front on GW Bush. After 3 years it seimplausibleible but I wait with anticipation, I am sure the teleprompter is undergoing major rewrites...
"There here have been many notable accomplishments, e.g. the gutsy but successful raid on Bin Laden's compound (Obama's decision),"
Nothing really gutsy or brave or about that decision. Any American President, even Jimmy Carter, would have ordered the raid on Bin Laden once we knew where he was. Ordering a raid which you know will benefit you politically is a no-brainer requiring no courage. Even if the raid had failed, Obama knew he couldn't be blamed much for trying.
Besides, you liberals need to quit bragging and preening about the Bin Laden raid since he would still be alive if you liberals had your way. We only learned Osama Bin Laden was hiding in a house in Pakistan because we had been tracking one of his couriers. We only knew about the courier because of information extracted from terrorists by waterboarding them at Gitmo. Waterboarding was authorized by G.W. Bush. Obama was always on record as opposing waterboarding and abolished its use after he became president. So if Obama and his fellow liberals had somehow forced Bush to outlaw waterboarding, Osama Bin Laden would still be alive. So in a roundabout way, it was really Bush who got Bin Laden.
yes. here's another way to look at it: Obama talks a lot about "inheriting" a bad economy from Bush. but he also "inherited" the intel operation that allowed him to be the one to get bin Laden.
Obama never mentions that part of his "inheritance."
