Throughout the last three years, President Obama has been nitpicked in the press for a variety of public gestures that in and of themselves seemed to have little lasting effect: having Mexico join Eric Holder’s Justice Department to sue to strike down a U.S. state’s immigration law; bowing to Saudi and Japanese royals; apologizing for, or at least contextualizing, past American acts while overseas; giving interviews in which he criticized his predecessor; offering mythopoetic speeches that offered pleasant but outright fiction to his hosts; branding his entire new foreign policy as “outreach” and “reset” as he sought to soothe Hugo Chávez, Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, or Muslim Brotherhood leaders; sending subtle messages that an old ally like Britain, the Czech Republic, or Israel is now just one of many, while reaching out to old enemies like Iran, sending an ambassador to Syria, and trying to appease Putin. All that by now is old hat and relegated to the talk-show litanies. And if the showboating-Nobel-laureate policy has not made the world any safer or more secure since 2009 — so akin to the Carter reset years between ’77 and ’78 — it so far has not seemed to make things all that much worse. So far, that is.
But what appears to be a gesture in isolation often become a tessera in a larger mosaic, and after three years the picture is starting to emerge of a somewhat different United States. Whether the emerging image is a fair representation or not does not really matter because, after all, it is an image perceived by others that President Obama is ambiguous about America’s past and its future, that he seems to agree that others might justifiably have long-standing grievances against the United States, that his inherited friends are as problematic as his inherited enemies, that foreign animosity toward the United States during the Bush administration had a logical basis, that America’s wrong wars are better ended than won, that he reluctantly must expand the Bush antiterrorism protocols he once derided as so toxic, and that just as he derides the 1 percent at home as suspect, so too perhaps abroad he is equally suspicious of the small number of wealthy and prosperous nations who derive riches from the other 99 percent.
The result of all this, as in the fashion of 1979–80, is that many nations — Iran, North Korea, China, Pakistan, Russia — might conclude that there is now a good full year left for readjustment to the global security scene in ways that will not earn much reaction from the U.S. Certainly current American allies like Taiwan, Israel, South Korea, Japan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Eastern Europe might have good reason to assume that the U.S. is scaling back, does not have its heart in old defense commitments made long ago during a different era, and does not wish to perpetuate a world order not of its own making.
The result, I think, may be that in this coming year we will see a new boldness among Islamic forces in North Africa; China will show the flag far nearer to Taiwan, the Philippines, Japan, and South Korea; some independent-minded former Soviet Republics will be forced to move closer to Russia; Turkey won’t worry too much whether it overflies Greek or Cypriot airspace — or worse; Iran will test a missile or do something stupider; North Korea may resume its now-and-then shelling of the south; and Lebanon and the West Bank will heat up again — all on the impression that either the U.S. doesn’t much care, does care but is too broke or weary to do much about it, or beneath its public warnings harbors some quiet sympathies for such “corrections” in a prior flawed global order.
Of course, after Carter’s mistakes, Russia eventually left Afghanistan and finally quit Central America; we got our hostages back and survived serial Islamic terrorism; and the Chinese left Vietnam. All that said, much of our problems for the next few decades originated during 1979 when an impression was left that proved hard to correct.
If so, it'll be 1979 without a Reagan waiting in the wings.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhere to start with this cherry-picked and slanted account of the US at the start of 2012?
(i) the suit against AZ is about federal versus state power; where does the Constitution empower states to deal with foreign nations?
(ii) bowing to royals in Saudi Arabia and Japan? Was Mr. Hanson outraged when Mr. Bush held hands with the Saudi king to stroll through a garden?
(iii) finish a war rather than win one. When would the Iraq ware have been finished? Does Mr. Hanson believe that after the Bush and Obama administrations praised nascent democracy in Iraq (however dubious the claim), that the US would force Iraq to grant immunity for a continued, large-scale troop occupation? What about the very large embassy and continued US presence, including the "contractors"?
What's Mr. Hanson's brilliant strategy for Afghanistan we should be considering? Please share it with the rest of us.
(iv) "and that just as he derides the 1 percent at home as suspect, so too perhaps abroad he is equally suspicious of the small number of wealthy and prosperous nations who derive riches from the other 99 percent." Talk about a non-sequitor; what proof is there for this statement?
(v) in terms of what happens internationally in the coming year, Mr. Hanson repeats the mistake of so many who write for NRO--that it's really all about the US, and that everything other countries do must be viewed from a US-centric perspective.
Mr. Hanson, we understand you hate the president and want him out at any cost, but this article is worse than your usual pablum.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRounding up criminals has nothing to do with sovereign powers.
Do you honestly think holding hands is the equivalent of bowing to?
The Iraqi war would be finished when the terrorists decide they don't want to kill us any more. Either that or their all dead. That's the way wars traditionally are won.
Why shouldn't Americans view the world is a US-centric fashion. Europeans view the world in a European-centric fashion. Chinese view the world in a Chinese centric fashion? Why should the US, alone amongst nations, be the only one not permitted to put our own interests first? Do you really hate us that much?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMark:
Always with the simplistic replies. You don't like the Constitution's grant of power to the federal govt? Just like so many of your fellow travelers, with the cafeteria approach to the Constitution.
If Obama had held hands with anyone from the middle east you and your friends would be apoplectic with rage at his sign of submission. My point isn't to criticize Mr. Bush, just to point out that a head of state generally follows the customs of a country he or she is visiting.
Stick with trying to fathom basic statistics (you know, that 100% of 40% isn't 100%).
Best wishes for 2012.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"the suit against AZ is about Federal versus state power;"
You are correct, which is why VDH rightly points out that the Federal government should not be siding with a foreign power (i.e. Mexico) in Federal lawsuit. And by the way, the odds are pretty good that the SCOTUS will uphold Arizona's sensible immigration law, irrespective of Mexico's outrageous attempt to influence U.S. law.
"Bowing to royals in Saudi Arabia and Japan?"
I know; it's hard to believe, isn't it, that our president actually prostrated himself not once, but twice while formerly representing out country. He even tried to apologize for dropping the atomic bomb on Japan (which by the way ended to war and saved millions of both American and Japanese lives) but the Japanese government denied him permission to do so at the Hiroshima memorial as I'm sure they could see right through his self-serving attempt to exploit the deaths of hundred of thousands of people for his own petty self-aggrandizement.
"When would the Iraq war have been finished?"
It already was finished. What You're failing to understand is that we achieved victory in Iraq after General Petraeus' (or is that General "Betray Us" to people like you?) surge succeeded in bringing stability to the country. Unfortunately, the hard fought gains of our military are now in serious jeopardy with Obama's precipitous election year pull out. Look for more Iraqi bloodshed as Iran and Al Qaeda fill the power vacuum left behind.
"Talk about a non-sequitor; what proof is there of this statement?"
Hmm, let's see Obama has serially apologized for the U.S. while on foreign soil in what are often times pretty speeches void of fact (e.g. the Cairo speech). He has tried to ingratiate himself to some of the worst thugs and tyrants imaginable (e.g. his laughable out reach to Iran) while at the same time taking deliberate acts to snub our allies such as sending back the bust of Churchill to Britain, scolding Israel for building apartments in its own capitol, and pulling out previously agreed missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic. I think it's safe to infer that Obama believes the world is an unjust place and that the U.S. is to blame. You may recall that his spiritual mentor Jeramiah Wright has said that the "white man's greed fuels a world in need." This belief is obviously reflected in Obama's attempt to make the world more equitable in his eyes, whether it be in supporting the transfer billions of dollars to help third world nations deal with fictitious climate change or cozying up to third world Marxist dictators such as Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, and Daniel Ortega. This shouldn't surprise anyone that Obama has a rather skewed far-left outlook when you recall that Obama sat in this man's pews for 20 years of Sundays getting a weekly dose of such anti-American hate rhetoric as "GD America" and "America's chickens have come home to roost (the blaming of America for 9/11 only one week after the tragedy)."
"That it's really all about the U.S., and that everything other countries do must be viewed from the U.S.-centric perspective."
In case you are unaware of it, every country views their nation's interests from their geo-political perspective. The U.S. is nothing unique in this regard.
When our president prostrates himself to foreign leaders, harangues our allies while attempting to ingratiate our enemies, apologizes for and distorts our nation's history while on foreign soil, shows sympathy for Marxist dictators, and runs out of Iraq for election year posturing we have not much needed leadership, but an arrogant amateur who cares only about advancing his far left ideology and staying in power.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseU.S.-centric perspective?
The job is President of the United States of America.
If you don't perform the duties from a "U.S.-centric perspective" then you aren't performing the duties at all.
Which noodle-spined, socialist, irrelevant country of milquetoast twits would you have the president take up the perspective of?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCherry picked??
Dr. Hanson just scratched the surface, almost every action and policy of this administration has been a mistake. Dr. Hanson could fill a book or two with the misguided, foolish, and haphazard policies and decisions of this administration.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFill a couple books? Really?
How about responding to the points I raised?
Mr. Hanson may have a PhD, but his essays on this blog tend to be fatuous screeds devoid of any factual basis. Like this one. In fact, given the anti-intellectual bias of this blog, I'm surprised you and others take his maundering seriously.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlright…but for sake of brevity I’ll respond to just one of your ‘points’…
(ii) bowing to royals in Saudi Arabia and Japan? Was Mr. Hanson outraged when Mr. Bush held hands with the Saudi king to stroll through a garden?
While I concede who we have relationships with is a valid discussion, this is clearly not the issue Dr. Hanson addresses. His point is not which countries on our behalf the president chooses to have relationships with but regardless of the nation we treat their leaders as equals.
Courteous shallow bows as a display of greeting are reasonable but deep bows to a heredity sovereign is a display of subservience and connotes consent to the doctrine of inherited rule. Such rule is not an American virtue and no president should engage in such a display.
As shaking hands and garden strolls are appropriate why would Dr. Hanson be outraged if President Bush does this?
Taking Dr. Hanson’s points out of context is a form of anti-intellectual bias and I’m surprised you would engage in an activity you so easily accuse others of.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRob: You write: "Courteous shallow bows as a display of greeting are reasonable but deep bows to a heredity sovereign is a display of subservience and connotes consent to the doctrine of inherited rule. Such rule is not an American virtue and no president should engage in such a display."
"deep bows"? how deep is deep? Why was Mr. Obama's bow "too deep."
A "deep" bow connotes consent to the doctrine of inherited rule? What's your expertise in diplomatic protocol to make such a statement? What's your expertise in "american virtue"?
Mr. Bush was clearly VERY uncomfortable holding the Saudi king's hand. Doesn't the fact that he did it indicate the same type of subservience and consent to the doctrine of inherited rule you've devised? Of course not, which shows your reasoning to be fabricated nonsense.
Finally, Mr. Davis Hanson cites these bows as a major flaw in Mr. Obama and his presidency. How does my observation re the bush-hand-holding take Mr. Hanson's statements out of context? (I'll leave aside any concerns Mr. Bush may have had to please the Carlyle Group).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse(I) What does the AZ law have to do with foreign nations? If it is about state vs federal power why isn't Holder sueing sanctuary cities that are flouting federal immigration laws?
(ii) Holding hands in Arab culture is a sign of friendship and trust. Bowing is a sign of submission in any culture. Obama may not have meant it in that way, but that speaks even more poorly on his preparation and temperament for his presidential duties.
(iii) The war in Iraq has been neither finished nor won.
(iv) not sure what to make of this one. Have you listened to any of Obama's speeches during the last year?
(v) If the American perspective bothers you, just wait until the end of Obama's second term. We will all have a Chinese perspective then.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn much of the middle east when two men hold hands they are seen to be equals who share a mutual trust. However, one man bowing to the other is seen to be submissive and subservient. But you already know that, don't you. That tired old comparison never did hold water and now it is just stale. You should go back to your handlers and tell them you need updated talking points.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseKevin,
You should have someone sharpen your crayons - you're getting outside the lines and no one can make any sense of the scribbles.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLKS: Can't respond to my points as an adult, so you resort to childish taunts. good for you.
As to the rest of the culture experts who claim that men holding hands is no big deal, but that bowing is always a sign of submission, please provide more evidence than your own, unsupported views.
More to the point, try thinking for yourselves. And don't lecture to others re "blind hatred" until you've cleansed yourself of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDear Lord Kevin!!!!! You dont believe that US engagement in foreign relations should be driven by our own national interests??? On whose interests should we govern our actions???? If you hate the country that much perhaps you should leave it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBC: Please call me "Count Kevin"; I'm not a peer yet.
You missed the point completely. We certainly have to look out for our national interests, but in doing so we can't assume that all other nations see the world as we do.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"(i) the suit against AZ is about federal versus state power; where does the Constitution empower states to deal with foreign nations?"
That's some weak sauce, Kevin. The state of AZ isn't negotiating a treaty. It's arresting trespassers. It's not even deporting those trespassers. It's holding them for the federal government to come and pick them up, because under federal law, it's a federal responsibility to deport people.
Do you know who else local and state police hold for federal officials to come pick up? Bank robbers, that's who. Robbing a bank is a FEDERAL offense. And yet, 90% or more of all captured bank robbers are captured by local and state authorities. Now, they're not prosecuted by those local and state authorities, they're prosecuted by the feds. Should the local stop responding to bank robbery calls because they have no authority - under federal law - to prosecute those bank robberies?
Yeah, I don't think so either.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI've often wondered if the world would size up Obama as a one-term president and thus act accordingly, or if they thought he would be a two-term president and would hold off mischief until they could get 4 more years of unfettered freedom to commit mayhem. It seems like the world has come to the realization that now's their time to go for it, since 4 full years of mayhem doesn't look as probable. Pretty much any Republican would become more like Reagan than the typical Democrat without any cojones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if I had a farm or ranch of my own, perhaps inherited, on land stolen from the indigenous peoples by military force, then maybe I'd feel as VDH feels. But as it is, the US military's interventionist strategy, and its large share of the national budget, does nothing for me.
The greatest threats to me are political correctness, illegal immigration, fantasy courts overturning centuries of common rational culture, inadequate funding of Social Security and Medicare due to government excess, and above all, the fact the UNLIKE landowners and most members of the military, I can lose my job on short notice without recourse, for no reason, without cause.
Prancing around with gunboats and drones does nothing to solve the problems that I care about, and does a lot to cause them, by deflecting resources.
I'm not one of those kumbaya types. But look, does anyone think that the US and China are likely to engage in war nowadays? Not likely, considering the trade situation. They already have nukes. As the NRA types might say, "Nukes don't kill people, people kill people." And, they reason they do that, is because they don't have good trade relations. So, what are conservatives doing to facilitate trade between Iran and Israel, or to help some kind of Palestinian state set up trade relations with Israel? Is it that the Jewish people do not know how to engage in trade?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me take the liberal talking points in order:
Does it matter how VDH acquired his property? What effect does that have on the points he seeks to make? This is just a personal attack and it demonstrated, quite clearly I might add, the lack of any valid argument.
Quick, name a country that is standing on soil that ALWAYS belonged to the people who currently inhabit it. There was a war. The inferior culture lost. It was a long time ago. Do try to get past it.
Oh, and it isn't the US military's strategy. It is a strategy approved by the people's representatives as embodied in AUMF. Why not try to get your facts right? At least try.
Well guess what, we can all lose our jobs at a moment's notice. We always could. In fact I just lost mine after ten years. We serve at the will. Better get used to it, or perhaps consider starting your own business. Yeah, that's the ticket, Try being a farmer like VDH did.
Clearly you don't understand, or appreciate, the value of Pax Americana. The global economy is only possible because the required logistics are possible. Take away America's work to keep the sea and sky safe and the cost of everything you buy will rise dramatically.
Need proof? Check out what Iran is doing in the Straits of Hormuz. Absent a sizeable American fleet the Iranians would be driving the cost of oil through the roof just now. And they could do that shakedown anytime they wanted.
I just loved that George Will quote. I enjoy it so much I will apply it here: you are an arsonist in a field full of straw men. Who, other than you, is talking armed conflict with China? Who, other than you, is demanding that something be done to promote trade between Israel and the country whose government has sworn to blow it off the map?
Spare us the strawmen.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse