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.
Obama has Destroyed American Credibility: Can We Recover?
In just eight years, our nation’s credibility has been damaged beyond my wildest imagination. President Obama made our punishment his mission, and he has been successful. Now that the damage has been done, what will the next president do? In Saturday’s Wall Street Journal (still behind a firewall at this writing), Dick and Liz Cheney describe the havoc that Obama has wreaked in our global relationships. Below — and in no particular order — I’ve some speculations regarding what the next president, no matter who is in office, can take to rectify the situation:
- Re-establish active relationships with our European allies, particularly the United Kingdom, to let them know the ways (beyond words) that we are prepared to step forward.
- Throw out the Iran agreement. Let the Iranians know that we are no longer going to tolerate their lies and that any further payments to them are off the table. Also let them know we will respond to threats to our navy in international waters.
- Clarify who are our allies in the Middle East, and meet with them to reach agreements on how we are willing to support them in fighting terrorism.
- Mend our relationship with Israel, and let Hamas and Palestinian Authority know that we will no longer tolerate their lack of cooperation and their ongoing aggression in that part of the Middle East.
- Provide arms to Ukraine so that they can make a decent effort to protect themselves.
- Determine strategies for dealing with North Korea, Russia, and China, and hold to those decisions through our actions.
- Assess the military and determine funding that is needed and where it is needed; if necessary, “retire” those who have been known to manipulate information and mislead our citizens.
The list could go on, but those are some of the steps I see in front of us. Most of them will be difficult, but we must be internationally strategic and assertive to let the world know that the United States is “back in town” and willing to rejoin the community of international power and responsibility.
As Dick and Liz Cheny said:
As Americans calculate the costs of leadership, we must remember that the costs of failing to lead—or of inaction—are much higher. Imagine a world where Russia, Iran, China and North Korea set the rules; where militant Islam spreads its evil ideology unchallenged across the globe; where parts of Europe are once again enslaved by Russia, our NATO alliance impotent; and where China achieves military superiority over the U.S. and dominates Asia and beyond.
Finally, imagine a world where the terrorists and their leading state sponsor have nuclear weapons. Fifteen years after 9/11, we can say with certainty that this is the world that will be created by withdrawal and retreat—by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s policies—if we don’t reverse course.
What do you think the next president will need to do to rebuild our international effectiveness and credibility?
Published in Foreign Policy
I don’t think it would be hard to restore credibility. Under a principled President who states a clear policy and demonstrates that he adheres to it.
So, not this time around. Maybe in 8 years.
Do you have confidence that either candidate would fit your description? In eight years there might be even more destruction to our reputation in the world.
The trouble with ‘the rest of the world,’ at least as exemplified by the United States’ special relation, the Brits, is that they have already bought into all of the mainstream media output about both 2016 candidates. They will formulate their ideas about the next President accordingly.
And once they’ve done that, it takes years for the effect, whatever it is, to wear off.
They could not get past George W Bush, the cowboy. Then along came Barack Obama, cool, well-creased pants, sounded articulate, looked good in a suit, seemed to say the right things. They loved him.
And it is only now that they seem to be realizing what an utter disaster he has been, and how contemptible he is. So you get former Conservative Leader, Iain Duncan Smith saying, “Who cares what he thinks. He’s going. Bye bye,” after Obama yet again insulted the Brexiteers at the recent G20 talks. But it has taken Britain years to recognize this.
They think Trump is a racist. So no matter what Trump does, they will view him through that filter, and he will be portrayed negatively, even if he turns out to be the second coming of Ronald Reagan (who many Brits think was a joke anyway).
They think Hillary will be much more competent and rational (I’m just reporting what my spies on the street tell me. Heck, most of them even like John Kerry.)
Really, the political proclivities of my countrymen vex me, although I’m quite favorably disposed towards Theresa May.
I’m not sure, in the short term, if it will matter much to the rest of the world what the next President does abroad. And much as I would like to see him (or Her) obliterate ISIS in the first five minutes, I wonder if the focus shouldn’t be to start to fix what’s going on at home first. Because, abroad, the slightest bit of bad press about something here is blown hugely out of proportion, and then becomes the narrative for the entire country. “Racist US cops” is a huge story in Britain. They really do believe the BLM stuff. (Sort of like most of my British friends had to have it explained to them that not all Americans live like JR Ewing, in a mansion with a swimming pool). If you have to start somewhere, start there.
They really didn’t. Remember his early massive Olympic games fail? They always knew Obama was a lightweight.
If they thought he was a lightweight, that was another mistake. I still think they loved the superficial image he projected, though. That was my point. They don’t generally go beyond the superficial, or diverge much from US mainstream media opinion.
I think the world is in a free fall.
In the world I grew up in, this would be front-page news and someone would be trying to fix it:
I blame John Kerry more than anyone else for this.
He is the moral relativist extraordinaire.
His anti-war movement that embraced communism as the way to end the Vietnam War has been the most destructive force in the world, in my opinion.
You bring up a good point, She. And I see I left something out of the OP. If we don’t have credibility abroad, people will not take our input seriously. They will blow us off. They won’t want to work with us. It isn’t so much that I care what they think of us, but rather that that perception determines whether we can influence them to work with us. Otherwise, we’re just another feckless country.
I agree, Marci. And where there was a time that they would look to the US for input, if not for guidance, they will simply ignore us.
Absolutely, Marci. The only question is whether this means the apocalypse or just slumping into greater chaos and misery; the retreat of free markets and the broad benefits that brings. Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg think its not the apocalypse. As Jonah says, “If America is one election from death, it is already dead.” That’s kind of a negative optimism that this election cannot fundamentally end things.
Will my pension and assets evaporate with a Clinton win? (Will it be secure with a Trump win?!) No, but the forces that undermine both my property rights and the fundamentals of economics we are rely on to maintain value in our assets will continue un-arrested. The country will continue to be “hollowed out” and the future will be less amazing in terms of personal liberty, security, and satisfaction.
I agree, Rodin. The question is, can we afford to wait until after the next eight years to start taking action? No one can predict how bad things will go, domestically or internationally, and I must admit, patience is not one of my virtues!
Having met the South Koreans, they are a country largely of ingrates and not worth a single drop of american blood. We should remove our bases and let nature take its course.
I assume, Guru, that at least in part that you are referring to their hope that they will rejoin their North Korean brothers in one united country? And of course a lot of them are unhappy that we are there to protect them. You have a good point.
The flavor I’m getting from some folks (although this is still a young post) is two things: that we need to muddle through the next eight years internationally, and our domestic issues need our attention. In a sense, I agree. I don’t trust either candidate to make things much better internationally, and we are in dire need of changes domestically in terms of the economy, security, and other critical areas. I propose to you, as difficult as it is to imagine, that we need movement in both areas; how we do that only overwhelms the mind.
Its going to depend on how europe, israel, etc. react to the nation and the sentiments. Do they take this as a warning and start doing some relationship management and rebuild frayed relations with the american people? Or do they go the route of shaming hectoring and lecturing.
If the former, things will probably get better. If the latter they can take their chances with Putin.
Unhappy is an understatement.
Riots when we open bases, riots when we close bases, riots because adashi starts a fight and loses, riots over traffic accidents, annual riots to commemorate riots, and so forth.
It will not be that difficult, but it can’t be done by undoing what Obama did, which will merely look partisan and unsubstantial. Remember the world gets its information about the US primarily from US media so it does not share conservative bias. Of course rebuild the military especially the navy and deploy the latter, but we must also cut the Pentagon’s bureaucracy along with the rest of government because it needs to be cut to make us lean and mean, and the dollar financially credible and ready for the long term. It also shows we aren’t just feathering the military industrial complex interests, e.g. change of cronies and are serious about our debt. We will restore our credibility primarily by the way we respond to the first challenges. This doesn’t mean bellicose, and it depends on the unknowables of how we are challenged and by whom. We already have challenges with ISIS, Syria China and Iran and the debt and deficits we have to deal with. These must come out of a clearly articulated policy vision. We have to relearn how to project power without unleashing violence, engaging in nation building, or falling into the progressive/liberal/ interventionist trap that we can remake the world to our liking. We can’t.
This caused me to ponder: How would we feel if a massive Korean army had been stationed along the Mason-Dixon Line for 60 years to keep the Union and Confederate states from fighting each other again? I expect there would be a great deal of animosity regardless of how much they felt they deserved our gratitude.
The way to “reestablish” credibility and/or relationships with the rest of the world, whether allies, enemies, neutrals, et al, is to:
1) Set clear priorities that require no direct cooperation with another country (e.g., “Throw out the Iran agreement. Let the Iranians know that we are no longer going to tolerate their lies and that any further payments to them are off the table.”); and,
2) Act decisively: The United States will fire directly and lethally on any foreign ship or plane which threaten US military operations in all circumstances. And, then act on that directive. This will ‘tell’ our friends and foes alike our new policy, under our new executive leadership, more then any large diplomatic “smart” diplomacy could ever do.
It also removes the “narrative” lag that Western (read: European allies) suffer from, viz a viz the George Bush is a moron and Reagan is war mongering cowboy nonsense, because it simply by-passes the chattering classes and their opinions. Other examples would be the arming of the Ukrainians and the re implementation of the restrictions on Cuba. What’s the old maxim, “Show’em, don’t tell’em.”
Agree. I like your list, Susan.
The utter disaster in the Middle East, the new rising risks of conflict in the Baltic, South China Sea and the new global contempt for America will take a long time to repair, if ever.
Trump is pop-off who nevertheless probably has far better diplomatic and negotiating instincts that the superficially suave but delusionally solipsistic Obama.
I don’t see how anybody could be worse for our traditional allies and the world than the current POTUS. Would it be possible, for example, for Trump to be more gauche, classless and hostile than Obama in his dealing with the British? Recall how the British presented the new US president a gift of a handmade pen made from wood from the old anti-slavery patrol Royal Navy ship (HMS Resolute) that was also used to make the desk in the Oval Office, itself a gift from Queen Victoria. Our classy president’s return gift to the Brits was a stack of movie CDs that could have come from the bargain bin at Walmart. He followed that with a gift to the Queen with a iPod with Obama speeches. Imagine the MSM outcry if Trump were to do the exact same thing?
There’s only one solid way to restore credibility, and that’s to actually do what you say you’re going to do. Responsibility means responding … of doing something in response to someone else’s move.
The difficulty in the short term is that we have to restore our ability to respond. We don’t have to accumulate macho weapons or obsolete battleships – terrorism has made big weapons less effective – but we have to demonstrate that we have the information, the intelligence, and the means to forcefully respond to any threat. If the main threats are cyber-based, then we’d better show that we can respond to them. Letting various agencies get hacked is a lousy way to inspire confidence. If the threats are “terrorist-cell” types, we need to show that we can stop those as well.
Strategically, the only way to restore credibility is to actually stop threats and then retaliate effectively. That takes a big team, not just swaggering words from a politician.
Four words:
Sink the Iranian navy.
Depends. If the army was stationed in the south, and had kept the union out… Hard to say how the south would have treated them, probably pretty well for awhile. Now if the Union were still making noises about invading the south in 1915 (World War 1), and the Koreans were still there, probably still pretty well.
It depends do you think that in 1915 there would be a reunification desire in the south?
Only for the duration of any given administration. They will always wonder what the next guy will bring.
You ask this as if it is possible that Clinton might or could accomplish any of your list. She has shown that her priority to Clinton. End of the line for all of us. Only Trump would or could do any of it.
Are you just trying to be fair minded, or are you trying to keep this topic separate from the electoral frenzy? That said, I do agree with all the items on your list. The Cheney editorial was powerful, too.
BTW, I think Trump would make positive steps on each item, or at least not actively block attempts by others.
The American people, by electing Obama twice and nominating Hillary and Trump, have made it very clear that they do not care about American credibility specifically or foreign policy in general. Isolationism rules the day as voters seek to feed from the government trough and avenge perceived grievances. The grown ups are no longer in charge.
There is a good joke in there about sending Trump Wine to France, Trump Steaks to India, and Trump Ties back to China.
That said, for someone who received a Nobel Peace Prize on day 8 of his presidency, Obama
ironicallyappropriately has terrible diplomatic instincts. It’s to the extent it would be worth Trump’s time to keep Obama as a consultant on foreign affairs, just to know the worst possible response to any situation.Yes we need to do all the things you list, no I don’t think the next President will do them. I’m not without hope in the future but it’s pretty hopeless for the next 4 years. One candidate is partially responsible for the mess that is our foreign “policy” right now and the other has never thought seriously about any of the issues we face and shows no desire to now. These are serious times but this is a reality show election, not a serious one.
This is 100% correct
Not without boots on the ground. Cannot see pajama boy manning up for that mission.