y job as commander-in-chief,” an “M exasperated President Obama told critics last week, “is to deploy military force as a last resort, and to deploy it wisely. And, frankly, most of the foreign policy commentators that have questioned our policies would go headlong into a bunch of military adventures that the American people had no interest in participating in and would not advance our core security interests . . . .
“Many,” he went on, “who were proponents of what I consider to be a disastrous decision to go into Iraq haven’t really learned the lesson of the last decade, and they keep on just playing the same note over and over again. Why? I don’t know.”
Thus our president, whom ex-administration officials say privately is all-too-cloistered among White House acolytes, dismisses his foreign policy critics as robotic force-first neoconservatives, and he makes clear that he views Iraq as the all-consuming cautionary tale of contemporary U.S. foreign policy.
But, in absorbing a lesson from one troubled engagement, the president ignores a host of other lessons from foreign policy challenges that date back decades-about sending clear messages, fulfilling commitments, confronting aggression, understanding adversaries, and viewing the world as it is.
Thus, notwithstanding Obama’s belief, his critics span both parties and include not just neoconservatives but also liberal internationalists and realists; their complaints extend far beyond Obama’s reluctance to use force; and their concerns run from the Middle East and North Africa to Russia and the Baltics, and to China and the Pacific.
Our allies in Jerusalem, Riyadh and elsewhere don’t trust this president, while our adversaries in Beijing, Moscow, Teheran and elsewhere don’t fear him.
Obama warns other global leaders against this move or that, and he threatens them with serious consequences, paralyzing sanctions, or even military action. But at crunch time, he backs away or acts meekly.
The message-of promises not kept-is received clearly in Teheran, which continues to maintain its right to pursue its nuclear program; in Jerusalem, which fears an Iranian nuclear weapon and says it will do whatever is necessary to prevent it; and in Moscow, where Vladimir Putin dreams of a restored Soviet empire, has annexed Crimea, and is orchestrating chaos in Ukraine to serve as a pretext of invasion.
Putin will happily accept U.S. disdain to reap expansionist success. He will as well scoff at diplomatic pressure as long as Obama refuses to impose the kinds of sanctions that would truly bite him or threaten his hold on power.
To be sure, Iraq is a cautionary tale about the limits of U.S. military power. But in applying its lesson to challenges so far and wide, Obama is leaving the United States decidedly weaker on the world stage.
-
———◊-
———
Lawrence J. Haas is a senior fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council.
Editorial, Pages 12 on 05/05/2014