Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Walter Russell Mead observes that President Obama has managed to disappoint the left, the right, and the center with his approach to the two-year-long Syria crisis:
President Obama wants it both ways: he’s demanded Assad step down and called preventing genocide “a core national-security interest,” but promised in his second inaugural that “a decade of war is now ending.” He’s also threatened war with Syria if chemical weapons are used and proclaimed a “responsibility to protect,” but seeks to slash defense spending, might withdraw a U.S. carrier from the Gulf, and vetoed his cabinet’s recommendations on Syria.
The problem is not that the President is turning his back on Syria; there’s certainly a case that one could make for such a policy. The problem is that the President has neglected to make a case at all. He’s been content to make certain rhetorical promises while pursuing contradictory lines of policy. This is not only insincere to the American people, it is an extremely dangerous strategy: Iran, Assad, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Israel might no longer know what to expect from the U.S., or believe anything its Commander in Chief says. When one of the region’s most powerful actors projects that kind of weakness, it’s a game changer.
The emperor’s new clothes are beginning to attract hostile comment from all sides of the political spectrum. This could be a long second term.
It's interesting. On the domestic front, Obama seems able to construct consistent arguments and maintain consistent positions (indeed, to take positions in the first place). With regard to foreign policy, though, he is so patently discomfited by the obligation to take any positions at all that he boomerangs all over the place, settling nowhere.
This clumsiness intrigues me. By all accounts, Obama is fiercely proud, so much so that it's difficult to understand how he can tolerate his own ham-fistedness in this vital arena -- let alone repeat variations on the same bumbling performance again and again. One theory is that his positive experience around Muslims in Indonesia as a child rendered him incapable of countenancing the existence of radical Islam, and that that myopia has fatally compromised his ability to construct a foreign policy that touches on Islam in any way. Maybe.
It could be simpler, though. I've long had the impression that on a personal level, the president -- in parallel with many Americans -- just doesn't particularly care what happens anywhere abroad, and is deeply reluctant to formulate positions that might lock him into one side or the other of conflicts he'd rather not think about, let alone be involved in. I suspect he's as unconcerned by tens of thousands of dead Syrians as he is with Israeli civilians in the flight path of Palestinian rockets, or, for that matter, in the cross-hairs of a putative Iranian nuclear weapon. To his mind -- possibly -- the parties involved should sort out their business on their own, and the US will formulate policies after the dust settles. It's been argued that the president is motivated by anti-colonialism, and is hamstrung by his own refusal to throw American weight around. But his befuddled inaction abroad could also bespeak a simple lack of interest in who the ultimate winners and losers are destined to be. If you feel an equivalent contempt for all parties, why stick your neck out for any of them?
This is obviously speculation -- much as I would enjoy it, I've never had the opportunity to grill the president personally on any of this -- so it might be a wildly unfair extrapolation. What do you think?
- Comment (20)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (8)
Comments:
Apr '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
I wonder though if Obama is not an accidental genius about this. I mean lets face it. America is blamed for everything in that part of the world. For 10 years we did our best to give Iraq and Afghanistan a chance to be respectable nations and faced nothing but scorn, criticism, and hate from everyone for it. I personally waffle between a strong interventionist mindset (on account of my families own experiences with dictatorial regimes) and the desire to just let everyone go to heck.
As a resident of Israel I can see how the events in Syria are far more imminent to you, but you are right that to most Americans 40,000 dead Syrians doesn't mean much. I mean I don't loose any sleep over it. A more responsible president would take a more active interest, but maybe what the Middle East needs is to see the effects of American disinterest. Some times you can't appreciate what you have until you loose it.
There is one last thing to consider, maybe he is just a narcissist who can't see that he is incompetent.
Jan '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
It's difficult to analyze the difference between
Jun '10
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Obama's inability to make decisions has a long history. You will remember that his legislative record consists of voting "present" more times than not. We seem to have a contradiction. The president is said to have boundless self-confidence, yet he dithers at decision time. My best guess is that the man is simply lazy. He enjoys the limelight, but he finds the leadership part of his duties to be a nuisance. Or perhaps it's the fear that a wrong decision will make him look bad, narcissist that he is. His self-confidence may in fact be a facade to disguise a genuinely weak personality. I'd love to see his psychological profile from the files of the world's various intelligence agencies. Ironic that Americans are still guessing while our enemies probably have the full measure of the man. Dangerous, too.
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Valiuth, my point wasn't to advocate for a US intervention in Syria. It was to inquire why Obama's foreign policy is so spectacularly incoherent. There are compelling reasons for the US to get involved, but also strong arguments against it. I'd expect the US president to be able to articulate one or the other and then stick to the argument.
We're going to have a terrific guest on International Edition next week, by the way -- the investigative journalist Jonathan Spyer -- who should have some great insights on the Syria situation.
Sep '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
My theory doesn't require any psychoanalysis but is simply this: So long as Obama accrues no political costs for his policies, foreign or domestic, failed or miserably failed, he can play both sides of the street, have his cake and eat it too, etc.
Let's face facts: Obama doesn't have to face facts because our supine, worshipful press refuses to report facts. Until they do, and until the medium and high-information voters outnumber the low-information voters, Obama can do Orwell one better and say that right is both right and wrong, up is both up and down, but Republicans are always evil and divisive racist-sexist-bigoted-homophobes bent on sticking it to the least of these on behalf of the rich, etc.
Not so?
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Judith: It is a good question. I think your original post hints at some of the truth, and I think Paules below touches on some of it as well. I also think, if you look at the Libya intervention, that Obama, despite his rhetoric, was largely cajoled into that by Rice, Clinton, and Panetta (among others) and was equally incoherent there (I don't get the sense he's a particularly strong manager of his people). It may also have something to do with a chastened sense of what can be accomplished based on his experience in Egypt, as well as simply being a Democrat who is adverse to the use of force generally and the fact that he never wanted to be a war President.
(continued below)
Sep '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Hi Judith,
You do miss the ideological component of this. Obama clings to a very powerful ideology - formally known as progressivism - but known as many other things too.
That ideology speaks to how a government should interact with its people. It says very little about how a government should interact with other governments. It does prefer other governments to be progressive too, but in many of the countries you mentioned, that is not an option. Getting involved in those countries involves choosing between several ideologies, none of which are progressive.
If that is the case, then Obama would have no interest in what happens in those countries. His only interest would be in keeping his popularity in order to implement his ideology at home.
The left (read - progressives) heaped all sorts of scorn on W for attempting to fix Iraq. It did so mostly to hurt Republican electoral chances in the US. Had President Al Gore invaded Iraq (I know - implausable). progressives would have praised the leadership and commitment of the act - much like FDR won WWII. Its easily predictable, progressivism doesn't know what to do with a Saddam Hussein, so do whatever makes progressives most popular at home.
Mar '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
But I also think something else is at work in Obama the man.
You can see it by studying the man's meteoric rise and what got him to the position he now occupies: in no small part, a compelling biography and the ability to deliver a speech.
Obama in many ways is the incarnation of what might be called the Rhetorician's Fallacy--the over-estimation of what speeches alone can accomplish; the notion that problems can be dialogued out of existence or solved merely through the making of an argument; that leadership primarily consists only of the "vision thing" as expressed in speeches and not in actions; that compulsion and coercion are never necessary.
In classical terms, in case anyone happens to be interested, this is at the heart of the argument in Plato's Gorgias, and it also plays a very important role in Xenophon's Anabasis (Xenophon was an Athenian general, student of Socrates, and a man who found himself the unlikely captain of an army in Persia when other more senior officers failed to lead it effectively. Anabasis is the story of the campaign and a tract on leadership).
Edited on February 13, 2013 at 3:59pmApr '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
I think Lavaux is right. Obama is a moral coward. He has never once taken any brave position on anything either for or against.
I am interested to hear the latest news from Syria. I you don't really hear much about it on any America News. Last I heard the opposition was fighting in the Damascus suburbs and pushing in. I guess the Israeli bombing (of the chemical plant?) got news coverage.
May '10
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Judith Levy, Ed.:
I've long had the impression that on a personal level, the president -- in parallel with many Americans -- just doesn't particularly care what happens anywhere abroad, ...
The motto of the City of Chicago is "City in a Garden" (classier than "Place of the Stinking Onions" which, I'm told, is more or less what Chicago meant in the language of the tribes that met here to trade). The late observer of the Chicago scene, Mike Royko, suggested it should be changed to "Where's Mine?"
PBO came up in Chicago where it's all about taking care of yourself first, then your family, then your cronies. He, Michelle, and the kids will be fine in their island redoubt in Hawaii surrounded by heavily armed guards after he leaves office. No peasants with pitchforks at the gates, no EMP from an Iranian nuke over Kansas to worry about. By his lights, why should he care about Syria, or Israel, or Chicago for that matter? It's somebody else's problem.
Thinking is hard, especially for a profoundly lazy, risk-averse, narcicisst.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
@James B, #7 above, has written what we also intended, and done a really good job of it. The progressive mind in America is aimed at supplanting that nuisance of a Constitution and defeating the republican governance model, in order to bring the next great era, progressive technocracy. Obama, as a doctrinaire progressive, has never had to think about policy, especially foreign, other than how it can achieve control of his own country.
Having no real interest in foreign affairs, his policy is entirely reactive. Our enemies define the battlefield and the terms of the battle. Syria is just one of those infernal distractions that get in the way of the real goals. Decisions are made with the hope of simply taking the issue off the table, or happening upon a success as defined by the media in America.
If the political opposition coalesces around a candidate who can win against the progressives, then the avalanche of foreign chaos can be expected. Iran WILL attack Israel, the Islamists WILL attack Europe, and China WILL make a run on Taiwan. But no-one will bring their efforts directly against the US. They cannot afford to allow this moment to pass unexploited.
Nov '11
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
I'm having a hard time coming up with many examples of nations whose leaders or populations have cared about what happened abroad, except when their own survival seemed at stake, so I do not believe that this is relevant to the case of Mr. Obama. I do agree with those who have written here that it comes down to the Progressive ideology, and particularly its modern version (as distinct from, say, the FDR version) in which America is thought to be a source, if not the source, of evil in the world. It appears to me that the President would prefer not to be an American, but is stuck with making the best of it. Sometimes, perhaps for domestic reasons, he must make certain declarations or demands, such as those Mead cites, but there is nothing behind them, and the world now knows it.
Dec '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Obam's strategy is seen through only 3 prisms and in this order.
1. Does it make Obama more or less popular at home and abroad?
2. Does it move the progressive movement forward or backward?
3. Does it make America stronger or weaker?
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
"It's been argued that the president is motivated by anti-colonialism, and is hamstrung by his own refusal to throw American weight around."
I favor Mark Steyn's idea that people like Obama who want to "fundamentally transform" a nation cannot afford the cost of a big military or of defending freedom. The prohibitive costs of an inclusive welfare state rule out a large military.
Edited on February 13, 2013 at 9:17pmAug '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Sometimes studied ambiguity is a good option. Both diplomatically and domestically.
Incoherence, not so much.
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Zafar: Sometimes studied ambiguity is a good option. Both diplomatically and domestically.
Incoherence, not so much.
Zafar, bingo. Israel practices studied ambiguity (great phrase) on such matters as, for example, her nuclear capability, and it serves specific strategic goals. Obama's incoherence seems to be completely haphazard -- the opposite of strategic. This clumsiness belies his reputation as a vaunted thinker and seems to suggest either a total lack of interest, a philosophical aversion, or a combination of the two.
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Simon Templar: Obam's strategy is seen through only 3 prisms and in this order.
1. Does it make Obama more or less popular at home and abroad?
2. Does it move the progressive movement forward or backward?
3. Does it make America stronger or weaker?
Your third prism is particularly interesting. I gather Obama yearns for America to be a nation like any other, that we put the notion of American exceptionalism behind us as backward and tribal. I sincerely wish I could ask him how he feels in his heart of hearts about the inherent virtue of American strength. So much has been said and written speculating about this; I'd love to get an honest answer straight from the source.
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Oh yes, certainly. And this points to something else I've always suspected about Obama: that he very much wants to have been president, but doesn't particularly want to be president. Jodi Kantor's interesting book The Obamas largely confirmed this suspicion for me: Obama doesn't really enjoy the job.
The contrast to his predecessor is striking. Obama is heaped with adulation and is cranky on the job; Bush was heaped with scorn and yet seemed to enjoy and appreciate the job anyway.
Edited on February 14, 2013 at 7:32amDec '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Judith Levy, Ed.
Simon Templar: Obam's strategy is seen through only 3 prisms and in this order.
1. Does it make Obama more or less popular at home and abroad?
2. Does it move the progressive movement forward or backward?
3. Does it make America stronger or weaker?
Your third prism is particularly interesting. I gather Obama yearns for America to be a nation like any other, that we put the notion of American exceptionalism behind us as backward and tribal. I sincerely wish I could ask him how he feels in his heart of hearts about the inherent virtue of American strength. So much has been said and written speculating about this; I'd love to get an honest answer straight from the source. · 15 minutes ago
If you asked him, even under truth serum, he would lie because that's what he does. Not understanding Obama is like observing the universe and not seeing the hand of God. Obama’s heart of hearts is only revealed by his actions not his words. On balance, do the following actions strengthen or weaken America?
Continued...
Dec '12
Re: Obama's Non-Strategy Strategy
Continued from #19:
1. Applying 50% of sequestration budget reductions to DOD.
2. Legislating via Presidential fiat, e.g. DREAM Act.
3. Undermine the Constitution, e.g., illegitimate recess appointments.
4. Refuse to secure our borders.
5. Undermine rule of law (e.g., Obama Motors/bankruptcy laws turned on their head during auto bailout fiasco).
6. Deplete military resources and readiness by spending hundreds of millions of dollars to remove Kaddafi without consulting Congress.
7. “Responsibility to Protect” Libyan citizens but not American diplomats in Benghazi or Syrians.
8. Undermine industry & finance.
9. Congressional & Constitutional contortions for Government to takeover medical care.
10. Block initiatives that lead to energy independence.
11. Massive borrowing and unsustainable debt.
12. Go on an America apology tour and bow to despotic leaders.
13. Fast & Furious.
*late adds
14. (Openly) Gays in the military w/benefits for “life partners.”
15. Women in “front line” combat units.
16. Supporting the overthrow of our allies during the Arab spring, replaced (in Egypt) by Muslim Brotherhood and armed with F-16s & Abrams tanks.
17. Not supporting the Green Revolution in Iran.
18. No apparent policy or effort to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
Edited on February 14, 2013 at 11:40am