Wednesday, April 27, 2011 - 10:59 AM

Ryan Lizza has a lengthy and hilarious exposé in The New Yorker about foreign policy in the Obama administration. It sets out to be a portrait of nobly serious people bringing American national security into line with our diminished influence, "remaking" American foreign policy. The administration clearly thought it was a good-news story, since Secretary Clinton and National Security Advisor Tom Donilon went on the record.
What makes the article so funny is the pompous self-regard of the administration officials and the complete lack of appreciation for how woefully inadequate their performance has been in meeting these challenges. They are "not cursed with self-awareness," to quote Annie Savoy from the movie Bull Durham. Secretary of State Clinton compares herself as a collegiate Vietnam war protester to the young Egyptians who brought down the Mubarak government. Both Tom Donilon and Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes explain the importance of reducing involvement in the middle east because our strategic interests lie in Asia ... as the administration engaged in combat operations in Libya. A presidential memo is cited as wisely anticipating the middle eastern revolutions, except that the memo calls for tailored country by country programs that the administration's policies clearly did not have. The author even unwittingly adds to the humor, saying "Obama's instinct was to try to have it both ways."
The richest portrait in this regard is unsigned: a senior official describes the president's doctrine as "leading from behind." I am not making this up.
Ask any young Marine what "leading from behind" means. They probably won't know; they've only ever seen leaders out front, sharing in the greatest risks because that is the responsibility of command. To the extent they will even understand what you're asking, those Marines will probably say that a leader in the back of the formation is a coward, because they are making their Marines take risks the commander will not expose himself to.
Which is pretty close to what President Obama has done in regard to the demands for democracy in the middle east. He allows others to take risks for which he then claims credit -- as Secretary Clinton tried to do taking a "historic walk through Tahrir Square" in Cairo, except that her brethren in bringing down governments would not play along because they resented her trying to take credit for their revolution when we supported the Mubarak government even during their uprising. As the White House did when the U.N. resolution on Libya passed: the British and French governments did the hard work of preparation and consensus building, but the White House crowed about it's "reset" policy delivering Russia. Same story on the air war: The White House did the flashy work at the start, took credit, and handed the slogging work of achieving our president's stated objective of regime change over to the NATO allies.
Let us try for a moment to take the administration as seriously as they take themselves, though. In the article, Secretary Clinton described the administration's policy as "wanting to help the international community accept responsibility." Their objective is sound: to reshape America's foreign relations so that others bear more of the burden of achieving outcomes in our mutual interest. Vice President Biden is actually right that our allies underestimate their strength but want us to step in and make it easier because of our superior power.
But "leading from behind" doesn't produce that outcome. It produces resentful allies who feel we set them up to fail, resentful rebels who feel we would not help them win, resentful victims who continued at great danger to resist despots. It produces governments that ponder whether another powerful state should be assisted because it might prove less aggravating than we are.
The way to achieve the different burdensharing arrangement the Obama administration is angling for is to set allies up to succeed, not question their will to achieve our mutual objectives while we sit safely on the sidelines.
ANTONIO SCORZA/AFP/Getty Images
Team O Answers The Wrong Questions
By Peter Brookes, New York Post, April 22, 2011
"National Security Adviser Tom Donilon this week published an opinion piece on the administration's efforts toward global nuclear disarmament -- a presidential priority. OK, nuclear non-proliferation is important, and I imagine some of the Financial Times' (mainly European) readers liked Donilon's piece, 'Iran will not hinder plans for a nuclear-free world.' ...We should welcome commentary from the president's innermost circle on Washington's plans and intentions -- but we'd have been far better served this week by a piece outlining exactly that on Middle East/North Africa hotspots. It's certainly not too much to ask for -- and we're still waiting."
Surely this is the crisis for which Obama will be remembered in history, yet we hear very little about it from the administration.
The thing which concerns me is that there is always the possibility that Iran's program is more advanced than even our intelligence services know. After all, the Manhattan Project was the most expensive US project in history, yet it was kept secret from some of the highest levels of our own government.
Ms. Shacke calls for more of the same
How is her analogy of the good US leader as military commander leading the troops, helping them to succeed any different from decades old US policy in which the US continues to subsidize other countries' defense (and medical safety nets)?
What does helping an ally succeed entail? What does helping a rebel succeed entail? Decades long tutelage. defense, and patronage? If so, then be honest and admit you wish for little or no changes to US foreign policy as it has been practiced since 1945.
We are not the world's squad leader.
I don't remember George W kicking any doors in either, it's easy to be a tough guy when it's somebody else's ass.
Barack Obama’s 'leading from behind' foreign policy
No wonder the US president looks weak and confused by Nile Gardiner World April 26th, 2011
"The Obama White House must be the first US presidency in living memory that actually prides itself on following rather than leading on the world stage. As even Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski noted in the same New Yorker article, President Obama 'doesn’t strategize. He sermonizes.' That’s a pretty strong indictment from one of the most influential Democrats in the world of US foreign policy, and himself a former adviser to Obama. In reality the Obama doctrine represents little more than the humbling of a superpower, and the stunning abdication of US leadership in an increasingly dangerous world."
...is a blogger on a deadline, carving out kneejerk reactionary images to snippets of statements or phrases from various people to falsely support a pre-arrived position. Schacke is apparently hoping it's being done fast enough that no one notices there's nothing tying together all these reactions, or anything in them to justifying their legitimacy.
... big stick, but not big! ...big stick, but not a stick! What is it? Colonial, Neo-Colonial, Imperial aspiration, fight for Human Rights or simply securing oil resources and North African territory for future expansion? You bet...
Total disarray will follow, due to the amateurs behind the scenes and lack of strategy. Camp David accords, peace in the Middle East, Israels security is at stake, but some people obviously do not care at all for world peace. But do not forget foreign policy and international relations must not always relay on military force, there are plenty of other methods to do foreign policy, prior using military force in a matter like colonial interventions of the Yangtze river more then a century ago.
Forget the birth certificate. The real question is: by John Hughes, Christian Science Monitor, Apr 28, 2011
"By many accounts, Obama has proved to be a president of aloofness and withdrawal on issues both at home and abroad – an approach that defies attempts to define his vision and leaves us so far with a fuzzy picture of his leadership. Is he an overcautious politician, practicing a sphinxlike reticence to avoid damaging his aura? Or is he simply incapable of the resolute decisionmaking that a President Ronald Reagan or even a President Bill Clinton would have brought to these turbulent times? In the end, the president will have to demonstrate an involvement and leadership that has so far been elusive."
Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.
Read More
(8)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE