By virtually every metric, George Bush’s foreign policy was a disaster. Although his failures were mainly due to bad policy and incompetence, many of the challenges he faced—e.g., North Korea, Iran, and Islamic extremism—would likely prove nearly intractable to even the best foreign policy team. The reality is that there are often no good options when dealing with rogue regimes, especially if they’re heavily armed, have strategic resources, and are intent on fomenting disruption and chaos.
Obama promised a new and better direction in foreign policy, and given how low the bar is he should be able to deliver—but that’s a weak standard to measure him by. While he’s already greatly improved America’s popularity and standing in the world, the question remains whether his brand of diplomacy will lead to tangible benefits for the United States and its interests.
Foreign leaders have so far directed plenty of gracious talk, but only minor commitments, toward Obama and the United States. Britain has just agreed to send 500 additional troops to Afghanistan (with qualifications), numerous countries have agreed to accept prisoners from Guantanamo, and both Russia and China have hinted that they may be prepared to support tougher sanctions on Iran.
But while the tone of foreign affairs seems to have changed for the better, the hard realities haven’t. Iran conducted a violent post-election crackdown and still seems intent on pursuing nuclear weapons; Israel continues to do little to stop its illegal settlement activity; North Korea keeps behaving like a spoiled toddler (but with nukes!), and the situations in Afghanistan and Pakistan continue to deteriorate.
Ironically, one area where Obama has seen marked success has been in his continuation of the drone attacks against the top leadership of Al Qaeda. These have apparently been extremely successful, despite the civilian deaths they’ve caused.
It’s way too early to tell whether Obama’s more nuanced approach will ultimately achieve more for U.S. interests than the unilateral and more belligerent foreign policy favored by the right. Obama will be judged in part by whether he can complete the Iraq withdrawal without the country reverting to chaos, and by whether he can prevent further deterioration in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Above all, of course, he needs to prevent another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
There is still a chance that he may bring about some dramatic breakthrough in world affairs, such as the beginning of a lasting Israel-Palestinian peace or a verifiable end to Iran’s nuclear program. If these should occur, he will likely be judged a great president.
But there is only so much that words, no matter how reasonable and conciliatory, can influence events. This is particularly true when the events are driven by ruthless thugs and religious extremists, in a world where most countries are content to free ride on American leadership and military might.
The Obama years will be an interesting test of competing views of foreign policy, and the outcomes are far from certain.
Jason Scorse