I’m disappointed that no one, whether supporter or opponent of the president, took up the gauntlet I threw down the other day. “He either fears his fate too much, etc.”
I’m disappointed that no one, whether supporter or opponent of the president, took up the gauntlet I threw down the other day. “He either fears his fate too much, etc.”
The “gauntlet” perhaps was too nuanced.
I’ll take a stab.
What he wanted to accomplish is clear, the 1st term was to do whatever to get himself reelected. The 2nd term was to secure a legacy, its the only thing that ties TPP, Iran, Cuba, Paris Climate Agreement.
I have two yardsticks, one is did Obama advance American interests in any of the archetypes for US foreign policy. (a) boost commerce (b) spread US ideals (c) improve US security either through better relations or deterrence. The second one is “are you better off then 8 years ago”, is the world a more peaceful, prosperous place?
Overall, I think his FP legacy is mixed.
On the good side, having relations with Cuba was 25 years overdue. Getting Bin Laden showed the US could get things done.
On the too soon to know side, the deal with Iran, the Paris Climate deal
On the bad side, the whole MENA region. Obama didn’t create disasters like Bush, but his policies in reaction to the Arab spring was terrible. Here’s what Obama leaves behind, Libya, Syria, Iraq/Isis. The Gulf countries and Iran in a proxy war that fueled the Syrian conflict and empowered ISIS, Turkey’s unravelling. Except Iran, Obama has leaves with worse relations with every country in the area. The US isn’t responsible for the majority of the mess, but there 3 big mistakes attributable to Obama
1) Libya
2) Syria, Obama was right to stay out, but he funded the rebels which became Al-Qaeda / ISIS, and then letting the Gulf countries / Turkey fund Al-Qaeda/ISIS with money and fighters for far too long
3) Not taking ISIS seriously early
On the mixed side, Russia / China.
Relations with Russia were pretty good during Obama’s first term. Obama’s mistake was to misread how much power Medvedev had, and let Ukraine become a sphere of influence contest. The compounding error was to use all the non-shooting deterrence over Ukraine, so Putin had nothing to lose, and providing the incentive to mess with the election (if it is true). Relations with China slowly deteriorated, and I think a rethink of relations was in order 2 years ago — but not a major disaster yet.
In the end, I’m ambivalent. We should credit the President with what a crappy situation Obama was given, and that with a world recession, it would be more crisis then opportunity. But if he had introspected more and listened to criticism, much better results could have been achieved.
That’s an excellent response, CuriousOnlooker. As food for thought, here’s how Candidate Obama described his foreign policy objectives in 2008:
A good comment, CuriousOnlooker, though I think I grade him less favorably because he’s leaving the Middle East worse than when he started, and I think the drone-war tactics that will forever be his legacy(*) are of dubious merit without being part of a larger strategic framework.
(*) Understanding that Bush II started them.
1) “ending the war in Iraq responsibly” Grade D.
Obama took or encouraged a rosy intelligence scenario on the extent of stability in Iraq that allowed a precipitous withdrawal of troops that could have prevented the Sunni insurgency that gave rise to a quasi-caliphate. I’m probably inclined to give him an F here, given the Iraqi government and military responsibilities for what happened, but that should have been part of the assessment.
2) “finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban” Grade: C
He finished the fight again bin Laden, but we’re still fighting al Qaeda and the Taliban. He was more aggressive in Afghanistan, but with little to show for it.
3) “securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states” Grade Incomplete.
As I think Obama has recognized, whether the Iran deal worked will ultimately be known and will be credited to him.
4) “achieving true energy security” Grade B.
There has been increased domestic oil production and real productivity gains in energy efficiency, though could have done more in terms of smart grids and cybersecurity.
5) “rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.” Grade ?
I don’t know what this means. Maybe he meant make America great again?
Roughly 1,600 American soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan since 2008.
“that allowed a precipitous withdrawal of troops ”
Nope. We would have had to stay against the wishes of the Iraqis and become true occupiers, or stayed w/o immunity. Neither was acceptable. Regardless, whenever we left the same thing would have happened.
Steve
@steve, Obama didn’t want the troops to stay, he vacillated on proposing a residual troop commitment until it was close to time to withdraw and he injected a requirement for a parliamentary vote.
There is a fairly objective way to evaluate what happened or didn’t happen because the previous immunity agreement entered in 2008 was reached after fifteen months of negotiations and did not require a parliamentary agreement. With U.S. troops scheduled to leave by the end of 2011, negotiations to leave a yet-to-be-determined number of troops began in June of 2011. There were often inexplicable delays from Washington as progress was made in Baghdad. Then Obama pulled the plug in October of 2011 for lack of progress in parliament.
Obama was either negligent in leaving Iraq “responsibly” or he contrived a situation and conditions that would give him clean hands. I always choose incompetence over malice.
Leon Panetta: “To this day, I believe that a small U.S. troop presence in Iraq could have effectively advised the Iraqi military on how to deal with al-Qaeda’s resurgence and the sectarian violence that has engulfed the country.”
PD:
We ‘injected’ a parliamentary vote because it was supposed to be a parliamentary system and without the vote we had the assurance of one Shiite strongman in a desperately divided country.
And what do you suppose would have happened had we left 5000 or 10,000 men there? Happy times all around? Or do you think maybe the various terrorist militias would have spent the last 8 years blowing up our guys, forcing themselves onto our news feeds, requiring various retaliatory actions with the possibility of open breach if we screwed up and hit the wrong wedding?
No, of course you’re right: a garrison of Americans would have made everything all better and Iraq would be Vermont. Because that’s how things always work out in the ME.
@michael, How many troops are in Iraq today? Where is the status of forces agreement?
PD:
There is a difference between garrison troops in a long-term and highly-visible (targetable) deployment and special forces acting as advisers. American military doctrine would have required priority to be placed on force protection, which would have meant big, concrete-rimmed bases with patrols into surrounding areas. Special forces are a different matter.
Every time some soldier or marine wanted a 24 hour pass to go into town you’d have run up against the possibility of a problem. Look no further than Okinawa, but instead of tough-but-rational Japanese law, we’d have faced local and regional jurisdictions whose elected representatives had not had a chance to speak on the presence of US forces. Do you think the mayor of some Sunni town was going to automatically honor the word of a Shi’ite autocrat in Baghdad?
Traffic accidents, assaults, public drunkenness, blasphemy, rape by Americans living under what amounts to Sharia law, where any American scalp can be seen as a shot at the Baghdad/Teheran Shi’ites? All without the support of anyone but Teheran’s puppet? We’d have had 8 years of terror bombings and accidental shootings at roadblocks and riots.