America in the World

Obama learns the wrong lesson from Reagan

 In accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama paid tribute to Ronald Reagan:

"Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe."

The Daily Telegraph's Janet Daley takes him to task for those words, finding President Obama guilty of an "extraordinary historical fallacy":

"In fact, it was Ronald Reagan’s escalation of the arms race (through the much derided “star wars” programme) that bankrupted the Soviet Union, brought about the downfall of communism, and truly liberated the peoples of Eastern Europe."

Daley realises that Reagan's message of escalation "would not presumably have appealed much to the Nobel grandees in Oslo" and that is why the strong America of Reagan was not recognised by those grandees but the humble (some might say apologetic) America of Obama was.

The untold story of the surge that saved Iraq

This is well worth thirty minutes of your time. It's a guide to how the American military under General David Petraeus pulled Iraq back from the brink of civil war. It includes exclusive remarks from Petraeus himself.

There is more on this website including a timeline of the surge.

George W Bush made the decision to send extra troops after nearly every advisor urged him to take other courses.  It was his best, bravest and loneliest decision as President after he had stubbornly stuck with the failed Rumsfeld strategy for far too long.

Ultimately the surge was about proving commitment as Bush made clear one year after he had despatched more troops:

"One year ago, our enemies were succeeding in their efforts to plunge Iraq into chaos. So we reviewed our strategy and changed course. We launched a surge of American forces into Iraq. We gave our troops a new mission: Work with the Iraqi forces to protect the Iraqi people, pursue the enemy in its strongholds, and deny the terrorists sanctuary anywhere in the country.  The Iraqi people quickly realized that something dramatic had happened. Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country. They saw our forces moving into neighborhoods, clearing out the terrorists, and staying behind to ensure the enemy did not return."

In the context of today's situation in Afghanistan some of those words are really worth repeating: "Those who had worried that America was preparing to abandon them instead saw tens of thousands of American forces flowing into their country."

The world's policeman is disarming

A year ago Barack Obama was elected American President. At first it looked like there might be a great deal of continuity in foreign policy but, over time, the differences have become very apparent.

George W Bush was not himself consistent in foreign policy. As I've written before, he pursued something resembling neoconservatism in Iraq and then realpolitik in Pakistan, multilateralism in Iran and traditional appeasement towards Saudi Arabia. These strategic approaches - particularly in Iraq - were not always pursued competently. Nonetheless, when Obama beat McCain, one of the big messages taken by the world was that the 'war party' (the Republicans) had lost to the 'peace party' (the Democrats).

Since the victory of 'the peace party' anti-Americanism has gone into reverse in most parts of the world. The decline of anti-Americanism has not, however, translated into tangible benefits for America. Europe has not given more troops to the Afghan campaign. Russia has not signed up to sanctions against Iran. Scotland released the Lockerbie bomber, ignoring Hillary Clinton's objections. And, less seriously, the IOC did not give Chicago the Olympics despite Obama's best efforts.

A year since Obama was elected it is possible to see a consistent pattern in his foreign policy. Individual decisions may be justifiable but, added up, they send a message that the world's policeman has largely disarmed:

On Afghanistan, the President has delayed and delayed deciding what to do in response to a report submitted to him by his own commander-on-the-ground, General Stanley McChrystal. Sources in the British government are worried that the "dithering" is now hurting the mission. The people of Afghanistan will not co-operate with NATO troops so long as they think the commitment is weak but will tie their fortunes to "the strong horse" of anti-western militants.

On Iraq, Obama accelerated George W Bush's more gradual troop withdrawal.

On Iran, Obama hesitated to support the peoples' protests against the widely-questioned re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Within the last week he hesitated again to back pro-democracy protestors in Tehran. A decision condemned inside the pages of the Wall Street Journal.

The White House cancelled George W Bush's missile defend shield for the Czech Republic and Poland in the hope that Moscow would help force Tehran to end its nuclear programme. The concession was made to Russia but to no effect.

Barack Obama declined to meet the Dalai Lama for fear of offending Beijing.

Rather than isolating the government of Sudan for its genocidal abuses in Darfur, the Obama administration has proposed a mix of “incentives and pressure” in future relations.  Even the New York Times gasped: "We have difficulty accepting the idea of any outreach to President Omar Hassan al-Bashir, who has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for directing the genocide in Darfur."

The biggest sign of disarmanent has been in the new respect for the United Nations. The UN is a great talking shop with a terrible track record of confronting evil regimes or threats to security.

Obama has apologised for America on many occasions - particularly to the Muslim world.

The Wall Street Journal's overall view is that America has been more keen to truck with America's enemies than its friends:

"His Administration has sought warmer ties with Iran, Burma, North Korea, Russia and even Venezuela. But it has picked trade fights with Canada and Mexico, sat on trade treaties with Colombia and South Korea, battled Israel over West Bank settlements, ignored Japan in deciding to talk with North Korea, and sanctioned Honduras for its sin of resisting the encroachments of Venezuela's Hugo Chávez." 

Is the world more dangerous today than a year ago? Not noticeably but there is a real danger that under Obama's disarming watch the forces that grew during the equally disarming Clinton years will grow again. The final word to Mayor of London, Boris Johnson:

"It was one of the very greatest American presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, who said the duty of America abroad was to "speak softly but carry a big stick". George Bush forgot the "speak softly" bit. But Obama needs to remember the vital importance of continuing to carry a big stick. That is because the job of America is still pretty much what it was when Fleming wrote Goldfinger in 1959 - to take on the bad guys in a way that no other country is able or willing to do."

Tim Montgomerie

Decline in anti-Americanism has not yet been converted into strategic gains for USA

AmericaInTheWorld recently noted a worldwide decline in anti-American sentiment since Barack Obama's election. That important change has not yet translated into strategic gains for America. John Bolton made this point in connection with Scotland's release of the Libyan bomber. Europe's reluctance to support Obama's objectives in Afghanistan is the most important failure but Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard noted others in a blog at the weekend:

"We see the benefits of the "reset" with Russia as Lavrov shuts the door on real sanctions. While Obama is pressuring Israel on settlements and reaching out to Damscus, we learn that Syria has more nuclear sites. Hariri has given up on trying to form a government in Lebanon. And Iran has apparently stepped up its support for killing Americans in Afghanistan."

Click here to access the links within The Weekly Standard blog entry.

Popularity can never be the primary objective of US foreign policy

President-Elect Barack Obama has always been confident of his ability to tackle anti-Americanism.  He said this in November 2007, campaigning in Iowa:

"The day I'm inaugurated, not only will the country look at itself differently, but the world will look at America differently."

Early reaction to his election has indeed been very positive. We noted some of the warm response last week.

But popularity shouldn't be the primary objective of US foreign policy as Jeff Jacoby noted in Sunday's Boston Globe:

"Great nations have great interests in the world - interests that cannot always be secured through patient negotiation or Security Council resolutions. As the foremost military power, the United States must at times be "the world's reluctant sheriff," using force to maintain order or defend liberty. President Obama may speak more softly than his predecessor, but he will still be carrying a very big stick. Like other presidents, he will be loudly condemned when he uses it."

Many thought anti-Americanism - a plague that has beset every recent US administration and, for that matter, every 'top dog nation' in history - had suffered a terminal setback on 9/11.  It hadn't, of course.  Anti-Americanism resumed because of America's assertive response to those attacks and also because that response was often pursued incompetently and ineffectively.

Barack Obama's foreign policy options divide into four broad categories. We list them below with some example policies:

RIGHT FOR THE WORLD, RIGHT FOR ANTI-AMERICANISM

• An and to aggressive interrogation techniques including waterboarding and the closure of Guantanamo Bay.
• The continuation of the Bush administration's Africa policies which have included large increases in aid spending - particularly against malaria and HIV/AIDS.

RIGHT FOR THE WORLD, WRONG FOR ANTI-AMERICANISM*

• Perseverance in Iraq until the benefits of the surge are safeguarded.  Many in Europe and the Middle East will be disappointed at a measured withdrawal of forces but a precipitate exit would not just endanger Iraq's transition to stability but, in the medium term, contribute to a lack of confidence in American power.
• A surge of troops into Afghanistan and greater commitment of European soldiers to the task of defeating the Taliban.

WRONG FOR THE WORLD, RIGHT FOR ANTI-AMERICANISM

• Submission to the UN. The world will initially appreciate multilateralism but many will come to resent the lack of action that results from prolonged summitry.

WRONG FOR THE WORLD, WRONG FOR ANTI-AMERICANISM*

• Anti-free trade policies as supported by many US Democrats and union leaders. UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown is urging the President-Elect to resist protectionism.

* When we say "wrong for anti-Americanism" we only mean in the short-term. Policies that are "wrong for the world" - pursued for a long enough period - will progressively undermine confidence in US policy and power.

The whole world still needs America to tackle the bad guys

Even Syria needs America to tackle the bady guys.

So writes Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, in this morning's Daily Telegraph:

"What was the most fascinating news story of the last two days? It was the revelation that the American bombing of a Syrian village - which provoked angry public protest from Damascus - was in fact conducted with what appears to have been the connivance of the Syrian military intelligence. The reason? The village near the Iraqi border was the refuge of a notorious al-Qaeda chief.

It was politically difficult for the Syrians to eliminate this nuisance themselves. So they allowed the Americans to do their dirty work, and the al-Qaeda chief was killed from the air by American might.

It was one of the very greatest American presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, who said the duty of America abroad was to "speak softly but carry a big stick". George Bush forgot the "speak softly" bit. But Obama needs to remember the vital importance of continuing to carry a big stick. That is because the job of America is still pretty much what it was when Fleming wrote Goldfinger in 1959 - to take on the bad guys in a way that no other country is able or willing to do."