Is Niall Ferguson right? Is the “Obama Doctrine” really:
The president always intended to repudiate more than George W. Bush’s foreign policy. In a 2012 presidential debate with Mitt Romney, Mr. Obama made clear that he was turning away from Ronald Reagan, too. “The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back,†he jeered, “because the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.†Mr. Romney’s reference to Russia as “our number one geopolitical foe†now looks prescient, whereas the president’s boast, in a January 2014 New Yorker magazine interview, that he didn’t “really even need George Kennan right now†looks like hubristic rejection of foreign-policy experience itself. Two months later, Vladimir Putin annexed Crimea.
Mr. Obama also had his own plan for the Middle East. “It would be profoundly in the interest†of the region’s citizens “if Sunnis and Shias weren’t intent on killing each other,†Mr. Obama said in that same interview. “If we were able to get Iran to operate in a responsible fashion—not funding terrorist organizations, not trying to stir up sectarian discontent in other countries, and not developing a nuclear weapon—you could see an equilibrium developing between . . . predominantly Sunni Gulf states and Iran.â€
Now I see that this was the strategy—a strategy aimed at creating a new balance of power in the Middle East. The deal on Iran’s nuclear-arms program was part of Mr. Obama’s aim (as he put it to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg in May) “to find effective partners—not just in Iraq, but in Syria, and in Yemen, and in Libya.†Mr. Obama said he wanted “to create the international coalition and atmosphere in which people across sectarian lines are willing to compromise and are willing to work together in order to provide the next generation a fighting chance for a better future.â€
I think it’s simpler than that. I think it’s “Don’t blame me”, a policy always doomed to failure. I do take exception with these remarks from Dr. Ferguson:
Some things you can learn on the job, like tending bar or being a community organizer. National-security strategy is different. “High office teaches decision making, not substance,†Mr. Kissinger once wrote. “It consumes intellectual capital; it does not create it.†The next president may have cause to regret that Barack Obama didn’t heed those words. In making up his strategy as he has gone along, this president has sown the wind. His successor will reap the whirlwind. He or she had better bring some serious intellectual capital to the White House.
IMO the last thing we need in the White House is someone who brings “serious intellectual capital”. That’s the view from the Ivory Tower. What we need is someone who trusts his staff and attracts a staff worthy of trust. And I don’t mean a close circle of cronies he’s known for twenty years.
It is not that hard to figure out what Obama will do. Figure out what the neocons who ran our foreign policy in the prior administration want to do. Then figure out what we really should do. Then pick out a plan that splits the difference. That is what Obama will do.
Query- Why would we pay attention to anyone who thinks Russia is our number one enemy?
Steve
“Why would we pay attention to anyone who thinks Russia is our number one enemy?”
What! Who is wrinkling the brows of most national security people these days? Is it not Putin and his rogue maneuvers in the ME? Putin has taken over Crimea, pushed forward in Ukraine, is now dominating the air space in Syria (including a refugee crisis in Europe), generally providing all kinds of instability to the ME and beyond with brash moves that sometimes come out of the blue. In comparison to Obama, who dithers, has alienated so many allies abroad, and created a generally unreliable reputation for the US, I’m taken aback by such naivete.
How are they “rogue maneuvers”? Russia is operating at the invitation and with the permission of the Syria government.
@Dave Schuler
… the permission of the Syria government.
What a quaint notion, but they need the permission of the US.
This is the 21st Century. Get with the program, man. Toke, toke, and pass the joint or just drop a little acid, and it suddenly becomes clear.
TB, you also need to get with the 21st Century. The preferred drugs will be meth and some combination of steroids, HGH & TRT. With Oxy to handle the pain and some combination of X & bath salts for a good time on the weekend, everyone is juiced and at the ready for all your WWIII needs – it’ll be the ultimate rave!
jan- If the US national goal is to oppose anything Russia does, then they are our number one enemy. If our goal is to look after our interests, they are nowhere near the top of our concerns. We have no interests in the Ukraine. What do they have that we want or need? They are appear country with massive corruption and poor government. We have no long term ties. The Russians do. The Crimea was part of Russia. While I think we actually had relatively little to do with the mess there, what little we have done has probably hurt more than helped.
In the ME Russia actually helped us with Afghanistan. It is looking after its own interests in Syria. These actually largely coincide with US interests. Unfortunately, the neocons who dominate your party think it is more important to get rid of Assad than it is to get rid of ISIS. If they can just get rid of Assad, they can turn Syria into Sweden, just like the did with Iraq and Afghanistan. I am taken aback by such stupidity (or is it insanity?).
Steve
It depends on who you listen to. We certainly promulgated the idea of Ukraine’s joining NATO, something the Russians found inherently provocative. The Russians think that we fomented an anti-democratic revolution in Ukraine that replaced a pro-Russian government with a pro-Western government.
“If the US national goal is to oppose anything Russia does, then they are our number one enemy. If our goal is to look after our interests, they are nowhere near the top of our concerns.”
I don’t think there’s been an inclination to oppose everything Russia does. The concerns mainly revolve around Russia’s provocative aggression in Ukraine and now the Middle East. It seems that the less involved we are perceived to be, the more that Russia becomes a steamroller in the areas of the world it wants to control. This, IMO, does impact not only our national security interests but also those of our allies. If we don’t remain loyal to the latter then we become unreliable dirt bags of the world — a reputation not worthy of a so-called world leader, is it?
“How are they “rogue maneuversâ€? Russia is operating at the invitation and with the permission of the Syria government.”
Russia is acting on behalf of the Assad government — a government that our President has verbally threatened to topple. It is a government that is sanitizing it’s own population by either killing them or forcing them into fleeing and becoming refugees, creating instability in the ME, Europe and probably the U.S. when great numbers arrive here. So, I don’t give a lot of credence to Putin’s “invite,” as it is one that is self-serving to Russia as well as to keeping Assad in power. Furthermore, Russia’s maneuvers are “rogue” because they go way outside of the supposed agreement made with the U.S. to fight ISIS, by instead bombing the CIA trained rebels who are challenging Assad’s dictatorship
“It seems that the less involved we are perceived to be, the more that Russia becomes a steamroller in the areas of the world it wants to control. ”
We never had much to do with the Ukraine. We have no interests there. The Russians may think we toppled a government, but we just don’t have enough influence there to do that, and, one might argue, the competence to do so.
Syria is also a country where we have had little influence. The Russians have had aport there for quite a while. What special interests do we have in the place? Almost none. Israel wants Assad toppled. If you are an Israel-firster, then you should prioritize toppling Assad over US interests. If you place US interests first, you probably want ISIS gone.
Steve
I don’t know if anyone’s still reading this thread or not, but if wanted to post a thought about the potential threat of Russia.
It seems to me that the moves that Putin is making could threaten the stability of the Middle East, and in particular, energy supply (regionally- the pipeline through Ukraine, and globally as oil prices might be a target- does Putin really want to stabilize, or is he aiming to ratchet up the chaos to push oil prices back up?)
I understand the acceptance that Dave seems to have for Russia pursuing its own interests, and also for the realpolitik of leaving a strong (ish) man like Assad in place. But at some point other countries pursuing their interest can run into our own field of interests, and I find it hard to see reason for complacency with Putin. I will admit I have a strong anti-Russian bias (bred into me through my Polish ancestors.)
Unless you mean something different by “stability” than I would, it’s almost exactly the opposite. Russia is trying to preserve stability in the Middle East and we’re trying to upset it. Since Russia has stepped up its involvement in Syria, we have apparently done so, too, increasing our shipment of arms to “moderate rebels” including anti-tank and MANPADs. Has it occurred to no one that rebels are inherently anti-stability?
What we’re doing is supporting violent radical Islamists. If we were promoting stability, we’d be working shoulder-to-shoulder with the Russians. Since that would be very poor optics under the circumstances, the least we could do is to stop opposing them.
I knew that this was your view but I’m not sure I see it. At this point we won’t get back to the status quo ante, it will be a new balancing act between the rising influence of Iran and other Shia pitted against the regional Sunnis.
And since Putin’s economic hand could be strengthened by turmoil and rebounding oil price, I’m not sure I believe that stability is his end game.
I don’t think it’s the regional Sunnis. I think it’s the Gulf Arabs. Saudi Arabia in particular is intent on spreading its peculiar Salafist version of Islam. Without the Gulf Arabs’ assistance I don’t think there would be a Syrian rebellion. Qatar alone has spent $3 billion arming the rebels.
@CStanley
The last time the US armed rebels fighting against Russia it did not end well. An Islamist group took control of the country, and they allowed a terrorist group to train. I think this group might have conducted attacks against the US, but I am not sure. Perhaps one of the all knowing hawks could enlighten me.
Oil prices do not work like most people think. They are mostly based upon futures contracts, and the number you see is the spot price. This is the price if you need to buy a barrel today. Futures contracts are purchased by end users (refiners) and speculators, but speculators cannot take delivery of the oil they bought. They must sell it before they are supposed to pick it up (or store it in their backyard).
Since futures contracts are always expiring, it is an ongoing process. In a stable or upward market, there is no problem, but as with any leverage, the downward market causes a cascading effect. As speculators dump their paper oil, end users can pick it up cheap and store it. The demand slump in oil can drag on for a lot longer than most people imagine, and countries that depend upon oil revenue need to pump more to make up the difference further depressing the market. (There is no honor among oil revenue starved countries.)
I wanted to add but ran out of time earlier, that I don’t know of any good way for us to intervene even if it is in our interest. I accept that it might be worse to do something than to stay out of it, but I don’t feel sanguine about it.