Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Is Barack Obama a Grand Strategist of the Very First Rank?
In The American Conservative, Alfred W. McCoy — Harrington Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, author of Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation, and co-editor of Endless Empire: Europe’s Eclipse, Spain’s Retreat, America’s Decline — argues that this is so, and this is how he begins:
In ways that have eluded Washington pundits and policymakers, President Barack Obama is deploying a subtle geopolitical strategy that, if successful, might give Washington a fighting chance to extend its global hegemony deep into the 21st century. After six years of silent, sometimes secret preparations, the Obama White House has recently unveiled some bold diplomatic initiatives whose sum is nothing less than a tri-continental strategy to check Beijing’s rise. As these moves unfold, Obama is revealing himself as one of those rare grandmasters who appear every generation or two with an ability to go beyond mere foreign policy and play that ruthless global game called geopolitics.
Since he took office in 2009, Obama has faced an unremitting chorus of criticism, left and right, domestic and foreign, dismissing him as hapless, even hopeless. “He’s a poor ignoramus; he should read and study a little to understand reality,” said Venezuela’s leftist president Hugo Chavez, just months after Obama’s inauguration. “I think he has projected a position of weakness and… a lack of leadership,” claimed Republican Sen. John McCain in 2012. “After six years,” opined a commentator from the conservative Heritage Foundation last April, “he still displays a troubling misunderstanding of power and the leadership role the United States plays in the international system.” Even former Democratic President Jimmy Carter recently dismissed Obama’s foreign policy achievements as “minimal.” Voicing the views of many Americans, Donald Trump derided his global vision this way: “We have a president who doesn’t have a clue.”
But let’s give credit where it’s due. Without proclaiming a presumptuously labeled policy such as “triangulation,” “the Nixon Doctrine,” or even a “freedom agenda,” Obama has moved step-by-step to repair the damage caused by a plethora of Washington foreign policy debacles, old and new, and then maneuvered deftly to rebuild America’s fading global influence.
I am inclined to think that McCoy must have been smoking some dope laced with acid, but you may think otherwise. You should read his argument and respond.
Published in Foreign Policy
Paul Rahe quoted A.W. McCoy:
This is a fundamental misunderstanding, both of Obama and of American influence.
Obama has indeed, “step by step” moved to advance his vision of world order, but far from repairing past damage, he has allowed bad situations to become much worse through intentional neglect. His vision for the world is one of egalité among nations, one where the U.S.A. has no more influence than Benin, and the former colonial powers are reduced to being equivalent to the rabble that makes up the back benches at the U.N.
Obama has been deliberately bringing America to a position of weakness, and he has had great success. It appears that A.W. McCoy is an idiot.
I’ve always felt there is a strong wiff of “Chauncey Gardner” about Obama. There’s not nearly as much there as some people seem to think….
So pre-west democracy that have been staunch allies of America and the west are thrown under the bus (see Poland, Israel & Ukraine). Yet all his deal are with dictatorships that hate America and oppress its people. No Obama strategy has been to prop up authoritarian regimes with the exception of Libya and undermine small free countries. Other than Russia and China I can’t think of a more important ally to authoritarian nations than Obama.
Double post—how does this happen? See below.
Yes, absolutely. But his goal isn’t to strengthen the United States; his goal is to destroy it. Barack Obama is infinitely smarter than most conservatives give him credit for (and, incidentally, that makes him infinitely smarter than most conservatives). In fact, I think that that’s one of Obama’s most effective tactics: to make his enemies believe that he’s an incompetent, simple minded, but well intended fool instead of the tactically brilliant and insidiously malevolent force that he actually is. You think that a Trojan horse presidency couldn’t happen in the good ‘ole US of A? News flash to those who’ve enjoyed getting boiled slowly over the past 7 or so years: It already has. You’re welcome.
What browser are you using? In most current versions pressing Ctrl F will open a search field, usually at the bottom of the window. Enter your search item there to search the page you are viewing.
OK, I read the article. It is neither left nor right. It’s full lunatic. The potted history of Iran, Burma and Cuba sounds like it was cribbed straight from Howard Zinn. For anyone with a passing knowledge of American history it’s fascinating to see what the author chose to leave out. And hovering over it all is this smug “I can see the grand hidden pattern because of my superpower x-ray vision” attitude (that part reminds me of the deranged Noam Chomsky, whose obsessively dense prose is imitated by the author).
Let’s not forget that he had the wisdom to bring into national prominence such eminences grises as Valerie Jarrett and David Axelrod. To have seen their potential early is evidence of profound insight and judgment.
My sentiments precisely. At first, I wondered whether it was a send-up. When I knew better, I began to think about what happens when you mix cannabis and acid.
Although I “Liked” your comment, I think you give him too much credit for his “brilliance.”
When destruction is your aim, you can appear to be sloppy and inept because, well, you can afford to be sloppy and careless and still accomplish your goals. It’s building something — like the greatest representative, constitutional republic in human history — that requires intelligence, effort, and self-sacrifice.
But, I agree with you, Americans (not just conservatives) misunderestimate his malevolence.
The Iran treaty is his one major move that will define his statesmanship. If it works out, he will be hailed a Grand Strategist of…. If not, then not.
The rest of his actions are those of an agent for a much more cautious electorate, an electorate that saw the reality of what happens when too much imperial hubris crashes up against the monolithic anarchy (neat word play for a part of the world singular for its authoritarianism) of the Muslim/Arab mind.
Some serendipity has to be credited to Divine Agency, and not BO’s design. Take for instance the exposure of the Egyptian people to the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood. For a year it was total catastrophe, bringing Egypt to the brink of starvation (the Saudis and Gulf States no longer subsidizing food aid out of mortal fear for the MB). The Egyptians now having experienced the MB, have sobered up. Does BO get the credit for this generally propitious development? Well, for not propping up Mubarak, yes. But how to distinguish an accident of Fate from strategic thought? There is the rub.
Manfred, very good example of unintended consequence of Egypt going in the plus column. Not the way Obama wanted it, is it?
Mr Obama is indeed a grand strategist of the first order. His goal being the destruction of American greatness, he has conducted his administration and policy in such a way as to flatter the center, please the left and ignore the right. American greatness is close to dead in the water; all goes well for Mr Obama.
I take your point about brilliance and building vs destroying—of course it’s impossible to know for sure what is really going on. Certainly Obama has had a lot of help thanks to a sociopathic media and a degenerate GOP (topics for another discussion), but I feel that things have gone too smoothly for Obama to attribute his success to simple sloppiness—I can’t help but think that a grander vision or strategy is at work. Whether Obama played a key role in developing that strategy is open for debate (America has been on its current downward trajectory way before Obama came into the picture), but he has certainly played a key role in recent times in implementing it. And on that last point I think Obama has done a brilliant job.
I can’t help but think this man’s administration is some sort of plot from an unpublished Allen Drury novel.
Yes, even if his motives aren’t those of the Great Destroyer, the outcomes are indistinguishable from one whose motives are to destroy America and the American system. “Fundamentally transforming” indeed.
Mr. C and I were just commenting to each other last night about the dramatic increase in panhandlers and grifters in Obama’s America. There’s the stench of sulfur all about since 2008’s “Perfect” Storm.
He is the ultimate vessel containing Alinsky’s particular formula of poison. His race just happened to be the perfect veneer. I’m not sure I’d attribute it to intelligence, so much as talent. He said it himself. He has a gift.
BHO is like having the quarterback on your team shaving points for the bookie.
utterly ridiculous and not worthy of discussion…Obama is a human wrecking ball
Strategic masterminds never blame a lack of situational awareness on not watching enough cable news.
Obama is so brilliant he is going to get us all killed or enslaved. Which is what he wants. After GWB & Obama, to be followed by Trump or Hillary, it is clear that 51% of America has lost all virtue .
simmer down. “killed or enslaved?” What kind of fungus is growing on your bagel there?
I think whatever drug it is is far stronger than a cannabis/acid combination.
I just had to quote this WC. Nailed it.
“Obama is revealing himself as one of those rare grandmasters who appear every generation or two with an ability to go beyond mere foreign policy and play that ruthless global game called geopolitics.”
So says the author. But let’s go beyond the immediate parameters of the article. Has BHO “revealed himself” to be a “rare grandmaster” on any other presidential issue? The Middle East? Immigration? Ferguson? Trayvon Martin? The economy? The national debt? Healthcare? On these issues, and others, BHO has, at best, been disengaged, and, at worst, shown a decided lack of judgment. But, apparently, on this issue, he’s a master. How compelling is that argument when placed in context? One could see this as the idiot savant theory of presidential capabilities.
Ah, I finally get it. Obama is trying to prevent WWIII by encouraging and supporting smaller-scale wars the world over, so everyone so inclined kills each other. That must be it.
But he did not do that. Pravda-on-the-Hudson cut that report from its article — which means that it must be untrue. Right?
Truth is now a time function? Yes, I guess so. He only did it until the New York Times undid it for him. I wonder if an editor caught it, or if a phone call from the Ministry of Truth was involved.
Actually not much. As a veteran of both, the acid tends to overrule the cannabis and thus you are simply just smoking. It’s a bit better than cigarettes though, particularly the next day.
This might be obvious, but an old friend of mine (and graduate of West Point) once argued, essentially, that “The nation that wants peace must prepare for war”.
This is not new, as I’ve stated, but this was for a high school class, I think, not college. Countries that desire peace can’t leave themselves open for attack. You may be well prepared for attack, have strong defense, and desire peace, and that’s still no guarantee of peace, but still – it’s less likely. Kind of like brandishing a gun at a knifefight.
I think Barry invites war on the west by defunding the DoD and by demonstrating, repeatedly and loudly, that the US is dangerous and unreliable as an ally. Maybe we have been, regardless, but he has, through words and policy, made it undeniably clear that for the 8 years he’s at the helm, he will do everything possible not to intervene militarily, anywhere, at any time.
Drones? Sure. But that’s not war. That’s window-dressing to hopefully at least keep domestic terror attacks at bay, and to be used as a fig leaf in case a major attack does happen. What’s readily transparent is that the immigration “process” is so broken you could guarantee fanatics could enter and attack – and the first response is “don’t be islamophobic”.
I think he’s inviting war.
Doesn’t square with this: