The Corner

Obama’s Moral Confusion

President Obama accepted his Nobel Peace Prize with a speech about American exceptionalism, the existence of evil in the world, and the necessity of using force. At times it seemed as if he were channeling George W. Bush. But then he would suddenly morph into George McGovern, as when he attributed the prevention of World War III and the Berlin Wall’s collapse to the “architecture of peace,” which he defined as “the Marshall Plan and the United Nations.” He went on to explain that a just peace in the future could be secured by “agreements among nations. Strong [international] institutions. Support for human rights. Investments in development.” Somehow, military deterrence didn’t quite make the cut.

As always, Obama’s words have received considerable attention and praise. But to truly understand his foreign policy, we would do better to look at his recent actions on the international stage. If you’re a national leader somewhere trying to figure out how to chart a course for your country in the Age of Obama, there seems to be one ironclad rule: You are better off being America’s adversary than her friend. The reason? You are likely to be treated better. If you don’t believe me, just ask political leaders in Israel, Central Europe, the Middle East, and Asia.

The president has pushed our ally Israel to unilaterally freeze all new settlements in exchange for vague promises from Arab states. Obama simply asked that the Palestinians and Arabs agree to talk in return for Israel giving up its one bargaining chip.

In Central Europe, allies such as Poland have seen the Obama administration cancel America’s promised missile-defense shield. Never mind that Poland went all out supporting the plan. Or that Poland has soldiers dying in Afghanistan. (Indeed, Poland is sending 600 more troops to Afghanistan next year.) Obama pulled the reversal to appease Russia, which has long opposed the shield. Obama also softened American opposition to a Russian energy plan that would make Europe more dependent on Moscow. And how has Russia responded? By failing to support a harder line on Iran’s nuclear program, and by conducting military exercises that included a war-gamed nuclear attack on Poland.

On his recent visit to Asia, President Obama snubbed the Dalai Lama and seemed bent on appeasing China at every turn. He did not press Beijing for the opportunity to address the Chinese people directly, and he agreed to speak only before groups that were hand-picked by the Chinese government. He also went along with Chinese demands not to take questions during the joint presidential press conference.

When it comes to Iran, which has thumbed its nose at the world over its nuclear program, Obama’s policy has been all carrot and no stick. (At best, he has offered a twig.) When Obama presented the idea of Iran’s being allowed to send most of its uranium abroad to be turned into medical research chips, the mullahs rejected it. What was Obama’s backup plan? Nothing.

These are not simply missteps: They represent Barack Obama’s true views of the world. The Obama administration came into office claiming that America’s foreign-policy problems were all of our own making — indeed, that they were the results of the Bush administration’s arrogance, and could only be corrected with Obama’s multilateralism. But in reality, Obama’s multilateralism is nothing but mushiness. He uses the term “partner” to describe everyone: Russia, our European allies, China, Israel. This sort of moral confusion sends terrible signals to both friends and foes. Friends under threat, such as Israel and Poland, openly question America’s commitment to them. Our adversaries see Obama’s ambiguity, not as evidence of reason, but as evidence of weakness.

None other than Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and a former senior official in the Carter administration, has said that Obama demonstrates “a disturbing amateurishness in managing America’s power.” As Gelb points out, Obama’s foreign travels represent a dramatic break from American diplomatic traditions. Most (if not all) presidents used foreign visits as an opportunity to finalize a deal or sign a treaty. But rather than use his own trips to achieve concrete results, Obama instead uses them as an apology tour. Former presidents Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, and either of the Bushes would never have weakened presidential prestige and authority by traveling overseas simply to issue a national mea culpa.

President Obama’s recent speech on Afghanistan — which essentially amounted to splitting the difference by giving U.S. commanders part of what they wanted — reflected the same sort of moral mushiness. Wasn’t this the same leader who during the 2008 presidential campaign proclaimed that Afghanistan represented “central front” in the war on terror?

Obama’s softer touch has yielded nothing in the way of increased allied unity. Indeed, our Western allies seem as divided as ever over how to deal with Iran, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. Our Western European allies, in contrast with allies such as Poland, appear to have little interest in making a sustained commitment to Afghanistan. For our adversaries, Obama’s softer touch has simply served to encourage their worst instincts. Obama shows a profound naïveté when it comes to understanding the problems in this world. He needs to understand, before it’s too late, that soft words and sweet reason will accomplish nothing with leaders who harbor destructive attitudes.

President Obama invoked the name of President Kennedy during his Nobel speech. According to the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, JFK’s favorite quote was from Dante’s “Inferno.” “The hottest places in hell,” it reads, “are reserved for those who in a time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality.” Moral neutrality is never good foreign policy — whether during the height of the Cold War or today.

–  Former congressman Bob McEwen is the chairman of Renewing American Leadership. Rick Tyler is the organization’s founding director.

Most Popular

Trump vs. Biden: A Rundown

One week out, the contrasts are worth assessing. Foreign policy Biden so far has issued no substantive critique of Trump’s foreign policy other than banalities that Trump’s comportment and unpredictability have offended allies and tarnished America’s reputation. But who exactly, according to Biden, is ... Read More

Trump vs. Biden: A Rundown

One week out, the contrasts are worth assessing. Foreign policy Biden so far has issued no substantive critique of Trump’s foreign policy other than banalities that Trump’s comportment and unpredictability have offended allies and tarnished America’s reputation. But who exactly, according to Biden, is ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The Kavanaugh Court

If Justice Barrett votes as her mentor Justice Scalia did, she will be part of an ascendant conservative majority on the Supreme Court. What kinds of decisions can we expect from this majority? Short answer: Ask Brett Kavanaugh. Contrary to how journalists frame each seat change on the Court, comparing the new ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The Kavanaugh Court

If Justice Barrett votes as her mentor Justice Scalia did, she will be part of an ascendant conservative majority on the Supreme Court. What kinds of decisions can we expect from this majority? Short answer: Ask Brett Kavanaugh. Contrary to how journalists frame each seat change on the Court, comparing the new ... Read More

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More

The Pollster Who Thinks Trump Is Ahead

The polling aggregator on the website RealClearPolitics shows the margin in polls led by Joe Biden in a blue font and the ones led by Donald Trump in red. For a while, the battleground states have tended to be uniformly blue, except for polls conducted by the Trafalgar Group. If you are a firm believer only in ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Some Counterfactual Thinking

Election Day is one week away. Can you believe it? On the menu today: contemplating what would be different, and what would be the same, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2013 instead of staying on the Court until her death earlier this year; a couple of flubbed words on the campaign trail; yes, people really ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Some Counterfactual Thinking

Election Day is one week away. Can you believe it? On the menu today: contemplating what would be different, and what would be the same, if Ruth Bader Ginsburg had retired in 2013 instead of staying on the Court until her death earlier this year; a couple of flubbed words on the campaign trail; yes, people really ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Whose Seat?

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. And I think there are two little things to say about it. The first is that we very likely have in Barrett the true successor to Antonin Scalia on the Court. Barrett clerked for Scalia and her articulation of his philosophy is probably the most faithful on the court. Justices ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Whose Seat?

Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. And I think there are two little things to say about it. The first is that we very likely have in Barrett the true successor to Antonin Scalia on the Court. Barrett clerked for Scalia and her articulation of his philosophy is probably the most faithful on the court. Justices ... Read More