Obama’s Foreign Policy

President Barack Obama has said that he wants to be a transformational leader. During the primary, Obama said that he wanted to be more like President Reagan than President Clinton because Reagan fundamentally changed government and left an impact on the world. Considering the momentous change that Obama has promised, it is ironic that he is almost certain to have no foreign policy legacy. While George W. Bush liberated more than 50 million souls in Afghanistan and Iraq, President Obama seems more interested in winning the support of the world’s potentates than in spreading freedom or democracy. The differences between Bush’s transformational diplomacy and Obama’s go-along-to-get-along attitude are starkly highlighted in their respective inaugural addresses.

In his second inaugural address, George W. Bush outlined his “Freedom Agenda,” which set new goals for American foreign policy. President Bush declared, “For a half a century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical – and then there came a day of fire.” Having learned the lessons of the costs of sabbatical on the morning of September the 11th, 2001, Bush observed, “There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.”

As President Bush observed, the “great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations” and that the “difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America’s influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America’s influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom’s cause.”

President Bush simplified this foreign policy as a struggle between right and wrong. As President Bush put it, “The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.” To the world President Bush declared: “All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.”

In contrast to President Bush, President Obama’s vision of America on the world’s stage as presented in his inaugural was evasive and lacked any bold vision. While President Obama said that America remained “the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth,” he did little to say what responsibilities came with that power. Choosing to ignore the real threats presented to the United States by terrorists, and the constitutional means that the Bush administration employed to obtain information from terrorists to prevent future attacks, President Obama offered platitudes by saying that “for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.” President Obama said, “Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience sake.” (Of course, protecting the lives of tens of thousands of American citizens (I’m sure he would agree about Michelle, Sasha and Malia), are a lot more than “expedience.”)

Thus, Obama began to expand on his own foreign-policy objectives. President Obama said to “all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born, know that America is a friend of each nation, and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity. And we are ready to lead once more.” Obama pointed to past generations who “faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with the sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

Obama elaborated on these goals by saying that America would “meet those new threats that demand even greater effort, even greater cooperation and understanding between nations.” Obama said that this would be done by beginning “to responsibly leave Iraq to its people and forge a hard-earned peace in Afghanistan. With old friends and former foes, we’ll work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat, and roll back the specter of a warming planet.” Obama’s also discussed the threat of terrorism by stating that “those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken – you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you.”

Further, to “the Muslim world,” Obama said that the United States seeks “a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect. To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.” More, Obama said to “the people of poor nations, we pledge to work alongside you to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds. And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to the suffering outside our borders, nor can we consume the world’s resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it.”

While Obama’s eloquence is unquestionable, it is important to consider the consequences of and inconsistencies in Obama’s foreign-policy message. For one, it will be difficult to end the “suffering outside our borders,” “lessen the nuclear threat,” or “defeat” terrorists while at the same time exhibiting “the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” The terrorist safehaven in Afghanistan created by the Taliban would not have been removed, and Saddam Huessein’s murderous baathist regime would not have been toppled had America chosen “the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” rather than military force. In the real world, evil-doers like the mullahs in Iran, al-Qaeda in the mountains of Waziristan, and Kim Jong-il in North Korea only understand one language: the language of force. It took a precision bombing mission in Operation El Dorado Canyon against Tripoli and Benghazi in order to knock Mummar al-Gaddafi off his perch as a supporter of international terrorism. Slobodan Miloševi? was not persuaded by platitudes of “Hope” and “Change,” but by American bombing missions and troops on the ground to end ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.

Obama’s ideas on foreign policy are naive and dangerous. Closing Guantanamo Bay, handcuffing the abilities of the CIA to gather information from terrorists with the Army field manual, and trying to achieve peace and freedom by negotiation without any reasonable threat of force are a recipe for disaster. Bush kept America safe from September 12, 2001, to the end of his administration. Obama ought to try to learn the lessons from President Bush’s accomplishment rather than living in a September-10th world.