Barack Obama has been out of office for a year and four months. It is thus time to look back and take stock of what he accomplished. His was supposed to be a transformative presidency. It was going to restore the hope absent from his predecessor’s tenure. So how did he do on the international scene?
During the final several years of his administration, Barack and his subordinates were obsessed with his legacy. Time and again, they justified concessions to the Iranians by explaining that this was necessary in order to solidify Obama’s historical reputation.
Let us, therefore, start with his Iranian achievements. By now it is evident that his nuclear deal did not produce peace or safety. Sadly, the mullahs are more rambunctious than ever—but today have the cash to pursue additional adventurism. As we have learned, they continue to develop a bomb and the means to deliver it.
Whatever else is true, Obama did not deter the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power. Nor did he discourage the Russians from an aggressive Middle East strategy. Currently the latter are firmly ensconced in Syria.
The Russians were also allowed to grab the Crimea and to sponsor an incursion into the eastern Ukraine. Barack did not even supply the Ukrainians with the military hardware to resist aggression. Perhaps he feared pushback—although Trump did not subsequently encounter any.
The same applies to the Syrian civil war. Obama told us he had a red line with respect to chemical weapons. Then when this was crossed, he did nothing. He instead made a deal with Putin that has since been broken. Here too Trump eventually followed through with impunity.
Next we must look to North Korea. Its regime was busy acquiring nuclear weapons and intercontinental ballistic missiles during Obama’s entire term of office. Yet in this case too he did nothing. He did not even wring his hands. Instead he engaged in “strategic patience,” which essentially denoted rejoicing in doing nothing.
Barack and his advisors were also proud of “leading from behind.” They happily trailed after others when it came to Libya, China, and ISIS. Wait! How did they miss the fact that this was not leading, but following? It bespoke passivity, rather than vigor.
Once again, we have lately ascertained what might have happened had our former chief executive been bolder. Trump’s deal to denuclearize North Korea has not been finalized, but is much farther along than Obama and his people thought possible. The same goes for trade talks with China, Mexico, and Europe.
Barack claimed that the United States was arrogant. He wanted us to step back and allow others to take center stage. Hence, he never ceased apologizing for our self-importance. He would not condone being an international bully. Furthermore, his restraint would elevate our prestige.
Of course, in not bringing our military assents to bear, the conflicts with ISIS and the Taliban limped along without resolution. Especially with respect to ISIS, we have since learned what might have occurred had the rules of engagement been tougher. And lest we forget, he simultaneously threw Israel under the bus.
Nonetheless, Obama insisted that all would turn out well because the arc of history was on our side. We were destined to remain a superpower, as long as we stayed faithful to his liberal policies. After all, hadn’t he been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in recognition of the wisdom of this approach?
The plain fact is the Obama’s foreign policy was a wretched failure. It did not win us respect. It did not make us—or the rest of the world—more secure. Despite Barack’s boasting, it is apparent that Donald Trump, in little more than a year, has exercised far greater influence.
Obama was not admired. He was not feared. Nor were his initiatives valued. We may yet get out of the troubles he bequeathed us, but this will not be because he laid the groundwork. To the contrary, it will be due to others cleaning up after him.
This is not a legacy of which to be proud. Liberals may continue to sing its praises, but they have decoupled from reality. Merely attacking—or ignoring—Trump cannot compensate for eight years of eloquent incompetence. Weakness is not strength. Puffery is no substitute for insight or skill.
Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Kennesaw State University
No comments:
Post a Comment