Cogito Ergo Non Serviam

History Will Judge Obama's Foreign Efforts Mostly Successful

The eight years during which Barack Obama was president were truly difficult both at home and abroad. Yesterday, this journal assessed his domestic legacy, which has largely been successful. Today, it turns to foreign affairs where the president's track record is beset by critics who largely don't understand the paradigm shift in global affairs that occurred shortly before his presidency. As a result, his accomplishments and failures are judged more harshly today than they will be in days to come.

Mr. Obama is the first president in a great many years to adopt the view that not every global problem is an American problem requiring an American solution, usually involving American weapons and even troops. The United States is the most powerful nation the world has ever seen. But the most powerful is very different from having infinite power. Despite America's strength, resources remain limited. Unlike the administration of Bush the Lesser, Mr. Obama's White House did not throw resources at problems hoping to overwhelm them into submission and thereby bend the world to America's will. Instead, he walked away from many crises because the game was not worth the candle.

First and foremost, he ended American wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While troops remain, they are not doing the fighting and dying that is rightfully the duty of the locals. At the same time, he did send Seal Team Six to kill bin Laden, something his predecessor failed to do. However, that was a special case, and he has preferred to use drones as opposed to troops. The approach poses many problems and raises many issues, but it is preferable to having dead Americans flown home in flag-draped coffins.

That brings up the second set of successes, Libya and Syria. The foreign policy establishment in Washington is appalled at the idea of leading from behind" that led to the fall of Khadaffy in the former and the red line on chemical weapons that President Assad crossed in Syria without US military retaliation. Yet, consider that the Libyan dictator was killed by his own people, and while Libya is not a successful paragon of democracy, America is not in the business of picking its government and propping it up. It is a failed state according to some, but no more failed than Iraq (which achieved that status at the cost to America of thousands of dead troops and more than $1 trillion).

As for Syria, yes, the regime used chemical weapons despite an American warning that that would be a red line. But once that happened, the diplomatic efforts of the White House forced the Assad regime to surrender the rest of its chemical arsenal. That is far preferable to going eyeball-to-eyeball with the Russians over the fate of their client. Bombing Damascus to punish it for using chemical weapons would have been a poor substitute for making sure it had no more such weapons. Moreover, the big message is that the Middle East just isn't all that vital to US interests any more (if it ever was).

In his relations with Europe, he build on the historical ties between America and Britain and developed America's core alliance with Germany. By letting the Europeans handle Libya, he forced them to assess exactly what they need America for, and increasingly, it is for logistical and intelligence support. NATO jets work just fine when Europeans fly them; Americans don't have to. A Europe more capable of standing on its own two feet is better for America because a strong ally is better than a weakened one. That internal European politics have weakened NATO and the EU are hardly his fault -- unless one wants to argue that the Marines should have been sent to Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Spain and Italy to fix their economic problems.

The pivot to Asia remains incomplete, and under Mr. Trump, it is likely not to happen, giving China a dominant position there. In Latin America, the US has kept out of most of the messes, and the breakthrough with Cuba is the first sensible thing anyone has tried there since the Soviets went broke. In Africa, he may not made as much of his heritage as he could have, but he followed the advice of those who said to let Africans solve Africa's problems.

As for Russia, managing its decline and its demographic collapse remains a problem, but the reset was always a long shot. The Putin government will do what it needs to do internationally to retain power domestically. Russia won't go away, and there is little any outsider can do to tame it.

If, as this journal believes, the Trump administration is inept and irrational abroad, by 2018, the world will look back on the last few years as The Good Old Days.

© Copyright 2017 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Ubuntu Linux.



Kensington Review Home