If you read or listen to "them", "they"
will inform you President Obama's foreign policy decisions over the last five
years have been marred by indecision, waffling, quibbling, and a lack of
backbone. From regressive talk
radio, (by the way how is Hannity doing these days?), to the corporate media,
to the foreign policy elite, the President has suffered set back after setback
and numerous embarrassing missteps.
Some have even compared Obama to Chamberlin for his reverse pivot on
attacking Syria. There is plenty
to be disillusioned about with the president, but as I sit here, it hit me the
analysis has not exactly been fair and balanced.
When Obama was elected in 2008, one of the most dramatic lines of
demarcation between him and John McCain was over his promise to end the Iraq
War and get us out of Afghanistan.
He also pledged diplomacy would replace military force as the go-to
response of the White House. He
has us out of Iraq and out of Afghanistan next year. (none too soon, and it should have been sooner as the
country is a dysfunctional, corrupt, basket case not worth another American
life) Much of the isolationism we
see in American today is a direct result of George Bush, and the P.N.A.C. (Project on a New American Century)
crowd, lying and dissembling to get Americans to support the Iraq War, and
their total incompetence when it came to Afghanistan. Pundits blame Obama for the resistance to any military
action in Syria by the American people, but his hands are clean. Americans don't trust Washington, and
didn't want any more wars because of the duel debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama's critics are correct when they point out how disorganized and
disheveled his administration has been in reaction to the Arab Spring. The U.S. was late in supporting
revolution in Tunis and Egypt and looked the other way while Saudi Arabia
crushed dissent in Bahrain. Obama
seems unwilling, or unable, to pressure Israel into stopping the construction
of illegal settlements or starting new construction in East Jerusalem. While he showed some good diplomatic
skills in leading from behind on Libya, neither Obama nor any European nation
did the due diligence necessary to secure Libya's arms stores or make sure
there was someone who could produce stable political reform. Whether we like it or not, the Egyptian
people seem comfortable with a military dictatorship which protects them from
the Muslim Brotherhood, and restores some calm stability to their nation, and
Obama could not prop up Mubarak and couldn't save Morsi whether he wanted to or
not.
We will ignore Benghazi because it was a security disaster and breakdown
and not a diplomatic failure and while more heads could roll, the consulate's
destruction, and the loss of life, is an embarrassment for the State Department
and C.I.A., but not a failed diplomatic effort.
The President decided not to attack Syria after first indicating he
would use force. For this he is
accused of being wishy-washy, a coward, a defeatist and much worse. He decided to let Congress weigh in on
the decision and for this he was pilloried and accused of weakening the
imperial presidency. His White
House was in tatters and America's enemies are licking their chops at the
thought of going up against this weak-kneed, sissy-Nancy of a president.
In the last few weeks, Syria has released an inventory of its chemical
weapons stores which the U.S. and United Nation's officials say is far more
comprehensive than expected. The
international agency charged with destroying the weapons reports Syria has not
tried to prevent them from doing their work and having access to
information. Inspectors go into
Syria in the next few weeks and a new report suggests the weapons could be
destroyed in a matter of six months.
The United Nations Security Council has now passed a resolution
acknowledging if Syria doesn't continue to cooperate and make progress, force
can be used to compel compliance.
Russia is now on the hook as Syria's protector and guarantor. By agreeing to pursue Russia's
diplomatic entreaties, Obama shifts the onus onto them...makes it much easier
to go back to Congress for a resolution to use force...forces Europe to step up
against a recalcitrant Syria and even has Israeli prime minister Benjamin
Netanyahu publically admitting the approach to Syria is progress. If the chemical weapons are reduced
dramatically, or destroyed completely, a precipitous fall of the Assad
government is nowhere near as frightening since the fear of the weapons falling
into the wrong hands will be reduced.
It is a fair criticism to say the U.S. should have done a better job of
supporting the moderate elements of the rebels in Syria, but this is a 1,700-year-old
civil war which we cannot end.
Then there is Iran...no one has been more consistent on Iran than the
President. Over the last five
years, he has built a diplomatic coalition which has economically isolated
Iran. Inflation could be running
as high as 100% per year and the Iranian currency has easily lost half of its
value. Oil revenue is drying up
and middle class Iranians feel the pain and voted for a new president who built
his campaign around the promise to restart the relationship with the West and
get the sanctions reduced. The
president's critics have repeatedly pooh-poohed and made snarky comments about
how sanctions will never work and military force is the only thing the Iranians
understand. (these are the same
voices which said force could impose democracy and stability in Iraq and
Afghanistan and want force used in Syria)
Now the president of Iran says he wants to talk. For the first time in over 30 years,
high level meetings took place between the U.S. and Iran, meetings which
continue in Geneva in the month ahead and which were characterized by the British
foreign secretary as "productive".
There are still more questions than answers diplomatically. Are Iran and Syria just stalling for
time? Will Iran use these talks to
allow them to further develop a nuclear weapon? Is Russia willing to support the use of force in Syria? Will the U.N. need Russia's support to
act? Can the governments in Libya
and Egypt be stabilized? Can the
Syrian civil war be prevented from engulfing Lebanon, Jordan and Israel? Can the U.S. pressure Israel to engage
in serious peace talks with the Palestinians? However, without firing a shot, Obama could see the end of
chemical weapons in Syria...a deal to gain more transparency and progress on
nuclear disarmament talks with Iran...a more stable Egypt...talks between
Israel and the Palestinians...and in Asia, a possible return of U.S. naval
forces to the key base at Subic Bay in the Philippines part of a diplomatic
shift towards the Pacific the president has been touting.
Even if it is all because of dumb luck, it isn't a bad record of
possibilities and accomplishments and it is said I'd rather be lucky than good.
No comments:
Post a Comment