Giving Obama credit -- when he's followed Bush's footsteps

Posted By Peter Feaver Monday, October 31, 2011 - 12:01 PM Share

I would like to join, however belatedly, the lively debate about how to assess President Obama's foreign policy and whether this will be a campaign asset or liability. Some of FP's own worthies have contributed as well (see Drezner's take here and here and Walt's take here). Perhaps the most provocative assertion is Thomas Friedman's claim that "Barack Obama has turned out to be so much more adept at implementing George W. Bush's foreign policy than Bush was, but he is less adept at implementing his own."

I am persuaded by the larger claim that Obama has had more genuine successes in foreign-policy than in domestic policy and so when it comes to the 2012 election, his campaign boasts will resonate more in the former arena than in the latter. By "genuine success" I mean when a president accomplishes something that he sets out to do and that something is actually beneficial to the country. Obama has had many policy achievements in domestic policy (in the sense of getting a Democrat-controlled Congress to pass things he wanted them to pass) but they have turned out not to have the beneficial effect promised (cf. "jobs saved or created"), or at least not yet, and so do not (yet) count as "genuine successes." By contrast, there are some undeniable successes in the foreign policy arena, such as ramping up the drone strike program he inherited from the Bush administration and thereby decimating the al Qaeda leadership. There have been many foreign policy failures, too, but his batting average is better in foreign policy than it has been in domestic policy.

What explains the overall pattern? Friedman points to the correct answer: where Obama has continued along policy lines laid out by Bush, he has achieved success, but where he has sought to make dramatic changes, he has failed. The bigger the change, the bigger the failure. Not surprisingly, Friedman presents this as a critique of Bush ("Obama and his national security team have been so much smarter, tougher and cost-efficient in keeping the country safe than the "adults" they replaced. It isn't even close, which is why the G.O.P.'s elders have such a hard time admitting it."). Friedman's sneer about the "adults" is unmistakable and it causes him to miss the obvious: where Obama has embraced that "Bush adult" worldview, it has gone well for him and for America. Where he has not, it has not. Indeed, where he has listened to Friedman and other bien pensant types, it has gone very poorly indeed (cf. Israel-Palestine peace process). And where he attempted a major shift in American grand strategy (elevating climate change to be a national security threat co-equal with WMD proliferation and terrorism) he has made almost no progress whatsoever.

President Obama campaigned on a scorched earth critique of the foreign policy he inherited from President Bush. He promised to undo all of it. Some of those promises (withdrawing all combat troops from Iraq in 16 months) barely survived the first few days, while others (unconditional talks with Ahmadinejad or closing Gitmo) were only jettisoned after months of failed efforts. The correlation is almost perfect: the longer Obama hewed to his campaign critique, the less well it has gone in foreign-policy. And, by the way, the supposedly hyper-partisan Republican opposition actually has chalked up a record that compares very favorably with the recent past: where Obama has pursued a genuinely bipartisan policy, he has enjoyed strong bipartisan support.

Of course, Obama deserves credit for jettisoning foolish campaign promises. And in some cases he and his team have been able to build on the policies he inherited with effective innovations. Nor would it be fair to conclude that every point of overlap with the Bush administration is worth applauding (I will have more to say on this latter point with respect to his recent Iraq decision in a future post). Yet on balance the conclusion for fair-minded observers is obvious: perhaps it is worth reconsidering the policies that have not worked so as to borrow a few more from the stockpile that has produced the best results. 

Brendan Smialowski/Getty Images

EXPLORE:FLASH POINTS, BUSH'S LEGACY, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
 

FRED MERTZ72

5:49 PM ET

October 31, 2011

Single Term President.

Obama has been a failure to the people who voted for him.

The will of the people want us out of Iraq, both Americans and Iraqis. Only the war hawks think this is important.

The will of the people stop us from starting another failed war with Iran, even as the Israel Neocons push us for that.

The will of the people want Palestine to enter the UN, but Obama, the poodle of Israel is too coward to stand up for that.

It is the NEOCON scum that needs to be hunted down like dogs. Bolton is the mouth for the American Enterprise Institute and its pro-Zionist Israel policy. Bush candidly admitted they are pro-Israel and made the case for the IRAQ war, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, and Richard Pearl among other war-monger NEOCONS were the ones who lied about WMDs in Iraq.

 

DR.RAHUL.DIXIT

12:23 PM ET

November 4, 2011

Just an unrelated thought

See its very easy to see things from one angle. But have you ever analyzed that solving the problems the way you are advising, will it lead to real peace or more wars? Even though what you are suggesting is not appeasement but wont it be seen as appeasement by radical forces that are fighting against USA. Remember Chamberlain's peace overtures or appeasement lead to WW II.

 

ZORRO

6:03 PM ET

October 31, 2011

You Are All War Criminals

So who gives ---- who becomes the next president. It'll be more of the same.

 

KEYBASHER

5:45 PM ET

November 1, 2011

RE: You Are All War Criminals

ZORRO,

Don't forget to vote.

 

SCOOP

7:00 PM ET

October 31, 2011

Iraq not capable of defending itself until 2020

English.news.cn (Xinhua) 2011-10-31

"A report Monday from the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) quoted Iraqi Army's Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Babakir Zebari, as saying that his country would not be fully able to defend itself from external threats until at least 2020. SIGIR is an independent government agency created by the U.S. Congress to provide oversight of the use and potential misuse of U. S. financial aid programs for Iraq's reconstruction. The agency reports directly to Congress, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. U.S. military forces are to pull out completely from Iraq by the end of 2011, according to a security pact, named Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), signed late in 2008 between Baghdad and Washington."

 

WOLFBOY

7:01 PM ET

October 31, 2011

Peter Feaver is not a War Criminal

But his posts are, all too often, crimes against reason and history.

To wit:

ARRA did most likely save or create 1-3 million jobs (see for example http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=2204) notwithstanding Republican insistance that this did not happen.

Obama has had just as much success on Israel-Palestine as his predecessor: not a helluva lot.

Please tell me, when and by what specific actions did Obama "attempt[] a major shift in American grand strategy (elevating climate change to be a national security threat co-equal with WMD proliferation and terrorism)"?

As to hyper-partisanship of Republicans- yes, they really are. I believe that if Bush had asked Congress, in the name of the national interest, to close Guantanamo, and to continue to allow terrorism suspects to be detained and tried in the civilian justice system, Republicans would have respected that. I believe their different response to Obama is a consequence of sheer partisanship - and yes, Sen. Lieberman is a Republican partisan on national-security issues.

 

ZATHRAS

3:09 AM ET

November 1, 2011

Tom Friedman's gibe

Tom Friedman's gibe at the "adults" who ran the Bush administration's foreign policy seems to have caused offense here. Perhaps he should have tried less hard to be clever and referred instead to the "screw-ups" who ran the Bush administration's foreign policy.

I think Will Inboden still has a narrow lead for the title "Voice of the Screw-ups" at SG. Peter Feaver still leans a little too much on the idea that pointing out the myriad ways he and Bush -- sorry, let's be fair-minded observers and reverse the order there -- screwed up foreign and national security policy is just mean. This is really weak tea, a continual plea for sympathy on the part of an administration that got nearly everything it wanted for years during the last decade, and left office with a record of thousands of Americans dead and maimed in Iraq to no purpose, the nation's honor disgraced, and incidentally an American economy in ruins.

The naked intellectual dishonesty offered in the main post here would not be worth considering if it did not reflect the majority opinion among the leaders of one of the two great American political parties. It does, as we all know -- a troubling reflection in light of the closely divided electorate, which could next year return to office the same kind of people who ran the country so hard off the road during eight years in power.

 

KILGORE_NOBIZ

10:53 PM ET

November 1, 2011

Backhanded and backslapped

I've seen some backhanded compliments in my day, but this whole column takes the cake. Basic premise I get is Obama has simply been brilliant in following the Bush plan and should stick to it because he has just been gawd-awful with his own plan. Not sure if Obama should be sorely offended or be grateful to take a compliment when he can get it.

 

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