iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Obama's Foreign Policy Successes May Help Little In 2012

CHARLES BABINGTON   10/22/11 11:04 AM ET  AP

WASHINGTON — By declaring the Iraq war over, President Barack Obama scored what his allies see as a fourth big foreign policy success in six months, starting with Osama bin Laden's killing.

But in his re-election bid, these events might play a discouragingly small role even if they burnish his eventual place in history.

Voters tend to focus heavily on domestic issues, especially in times of high unemployment. That will limit Obama's campaign options.

His supporters are seeking ways to make the most of his foreign policy accomplishments. One approach is to contrast them with Congress' partisan-driven gridlock on taxes, the deficit and other domestic issues.

"Look at the progress the president can make when he doesn't have Republicans obstructing him," said Karen Finney, a former Democratic spokeswoman who often defends the party on TV and radio.

Democratic strategist Rebecca Kirszner Katz distributed a similar remark on Twitter this past week: "Terrorists and dictators, lacking the filibuster, have no effective defense against Barack Obama." It referred to the stalling tactic that Senate Republicans frequently use to kill Democratic bills even though they hold only 47 of the chamber's 100 seats.

These Democrats hope people will see a bold and capable president who keeps his promises when Republicans don't create roadblocks. They note that he approved the raid to kill bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1 and policies that led to last month's drone-missile killing of American-born al-Qaida figure Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen; backed allied actions that led to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's ouster and death; and ended U.S. involvement in Iraq on schedule.

"It is very important for any incumbent to be able to talk about promises made and promises kept," Finney said. The list of achievements, contrasted with President George W. Bush's erroneous claims about Iraq's weaponry in the first place, should help Democrats shake their image of being the weaker party on national security, she said.

"That baggage is finally lifted," Finney said.

Translating that claim into votes for Obama 13 months from now may be difficult, however. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll confirmed that Americans place far greater emphasis on domestic issues, especially the economy, than on foreign matters, including the fight against terrorism.

The poll found Obama's overall approval rating at a new low, 46 percent, for the second straight month, even though 64 percent of adults approved of his handling of terrorism. Only 40 percent approved of his handling of the economy.

Ninety-three percent of those questioned said the economy was an extremely or very important issue. By comparison, 73 percent put the same emphasis on terrorism.

Democratic officials believe Obama's foreign policy record will look even better when the Republican presidential candidates hold a debate on that topic Nov. 15. Leading contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are current or former governors, and businessman Herman Cain has never held public office. None has extensive foreign policy experience.

But voters routinely accept that. In recent presidential elections they have chosen governors from Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas, plus a first-term senator, Obama.

On Friday, Romney and Perry criticized Obama's handling of Iraq. Some Democrats found Romney's remarks exceptionally harsh.

"President Obama's astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women," Romney said. "The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government."

Obama's defenders fired back. "Is there anything more hollow than Mitt Romney decrying `political considerations' in decision-making?" said former White House spokesman Bill Burton.

Perry said in a statement: "I'm deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year's end." He said Obama "was slow to engage the Iraqis and there's little evidence today's decision is based on advice from military commanders."

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, was more generous. "American forces not only freed Iraq from a vicious tyrant, but – under the strategy developed and implemented by our generals, and the leadership of both President Bush and President Obama – ended a violent terrorist insurgency," he said.

Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama "kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan, and eliminated key al-Qaida leaders." He said Romney "didn't lay out a plan to end the war in Iraq."

Republican strategist Rich Galen said the economy clearly will dominate the 2012 election, and it might undo Obama. As for Obama's foreign record, however, Galen said, "they're doing exactly the right thing" by highlighting every success they can.

Galen said Obama clearly deserves credit for the raid on bin Laden's compound.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Filed by Melissa Jeltsen  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8,919
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (161 total)
11:43 PM on 10/29/2011
It's raining again, that damn Obama!

Bush (the guy that called the Constitution "just a piece of paper" )crapped all over the Constitution even before he got lucky with the WTC attack. Gary Trudeau did a strip about GW at he credibility bank: Got war? unlimited credit.
A President's powers are limited by the Constitution. Even a Harvard lawyer knows this.
Of course he couldn't deliver his campaign promises, credit that he remembered some of them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
donp700
History has proven the failings of the left.
03:47 PM on 10/25/2011
Secretary: "Mr. President. Libyan rebels just killed Gaddhafi!"
Obama: "This is great news! Now how can I take credit for this?"

NOTE: Before you sling "Tea-publican" comments my way, I'm not in the GOP. I'm a Democrat whose sick of a fraud!
02:50 PM on 11/06/2011
Well, many Democrats feel disappointment with Obama. But, are you going to vote Republican this time? If not, then why pile on Obama? Things could get a whole lot worse with a neocon President.
01:09 AM on 10/25/2011
Okay, let’s give the man some credit, but not too much.

President Barack Hussein Obama is claiming his drawdown of America’s forces in Afghanistan enabled the capture and summary execution by Navy Seal Team Six of Osama bin Laden and he has announced the complete withdrawal of American troops from Iraq by year’s end.

The former is a stretch but plausible even if then-CIA Director Leon Panetta actually gave the order to get Osama while Obama went to bed. At least the president didn’t obstruct the operation.

The Iraq bug-out will constitute an accomplishment only if our departure doesn’t send a signal to neighboring Iran to fill the vacuum, a distinct possibility that terrifies many Iraqis and may make them long for the good, old days of Saddam Hussein and his sadistic sons.

When Obama concludes what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan and withdraws our troops from that sorry land, a comparable disaster could ensue.

Demonstrating his contempt for the nation that put him in power, Afghani President Hamid Karzai has already declared an alliance with another former U.S. friend, Pakistan, and when his government implodes under the weight of corruption, America will find itself back to square one in the region.

Yet another questionable plus in the Obama column is his non-interference with the drone that took out the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki. Obama hasn’t boasted much about that action . . .
(Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=5779.)
03:04 PM on 11/06/2011
I bet you are the first one to blame Obama when things go wrong!! if they hadn't gotten Bin Laden you wouldn't have blamed Leon Panetta!!

The removal of troops from Iraq was an agreement signed by Bush towards the end of his reign. The date was chosen and written, and it was signed by Bush.

Obama also didn't invade Afghanistan. He inherited both wars. No matter whether he believes in the war in Afghanistan or not, he inherited it. I have never heard Obama boast, it is not his style. He is an intellectual, not a braggart.

When you write his full name, Barack Hussein Obama, it is obvious code for how much you hate him. It makes your intention very clear.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MyResponsibility
Action over hope
02:30 PM on 10/24/2011
So, when did Obama declare "the war" in Iraq to be over, anyway. I just want to get this straight. Was it September 2010 when he declared the end of Combat Operations, leaving some 10,000 personnel behind to train Iraqis to take over for security? Or is it now that those 10,000 support personnel are coming home? Unfortunately for PresBO, Sept 2010 was just too long ago to be able to use it in an election that is still over a year away. Hence the resurrection of ending the war that already ended. He is pretty pathetic - what else can he run on? I suppose October Surprise 2012 will be really exciting.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
opmik75
05:47 PM on 10/24/2011
What you see as Obama declaring war over is actually a Bush-era presidential executive order that Obama has chosen to not mess with. Obama does have the power to draft another executive that supersedes Bush's exec order but Obama is sticking with the original timeline.

To be frank, I personally think Iraqi leaders rejecting legal immunity for American military soldiers was big deal breaker. It's too much of an enormous geo-political legal liability for the US to allow for soldiers who might be in a situation that they have broken the laws of another foreign country to then be subject to that country's jurisdiction. No US president would accept no military immunity.

No tricks or gimmicks for Decision 2012. Candidate Obama always said he would kick up troop numbers in Afghanistan to get bin Laden while bring troop levels down in Iraq. President Obama is just following through.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
MyResponsibility
Action over hope
10:15 PM on 10/24/2011
I think you missed my point. In September 2010 Obama declared combat operations to be over in Iraq. Then he left 10,000 security troops there to train Iraqi security forces. Now he announces that these forces will come home.  So, which event actually signaled the end of the war? Sept 2010 or now?  
02:11 PM on 10/24/2011
No matter how people like the author of this article try to spin things there is very little to be proud of. Health care reform didn't even come close to providing a real universal health care system, financial reform is an empty shell which has left the too big to fail banks bigger than ever and still gambling away people's money, Geithner and Bernanke have conspired to give away many billions of dollars to corrupt wall street institutions getting nothing in return, Obama decided to extend the Bush tax cuts and offered to put social security and medicare on the chopping block. Obama's foreign policy has been Bush on steroids starting wars in many different countries even killing American citizens when he feels like it. His so called fixes to the mortgage crisis have been only on the bank's terms so he could continue to take their campaign cash. Two right wing parties working to destroy the poor and the middle class is hardly something people will get excited about.
01:59 PM on 10/24/2011
What is not to love about our President? He has killed and bombed more people than any other Nobel Peace Prize winner in history.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
01:18 PM on 10/24/2011
I think that this argument that Obama has been successful when there are no Republicans to block what he is trying to do is a great way to focus the domestic problems on the obstructionist GOP. And, it highlights Obama's success in national security. Under Bush, bin Laden escaped while we expended blood in treasure in a pointless war. Under Obama, bin Laden is dead; as are Al-Awlaki and Gaddihfi and others. It is not unreasonable to think that if the GOP worked toward what is best for the country instead of merely opposing Obama, we would not be in this horrible shape we are in. I love the line about terrorist and dictators lacking the filibuster.
01:12 PM on 10/24/2011
I do like his policy on "water boarding", Do not waste time just ki!! them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Playlist
Ain't nothing like the real thing
01:00 PM on 10/24/2011
Obama is head and shoulders above anything the GOP has or EVER will have running for POTUS..thats why he wins big in 2012...MSM keep trying..but its no contest..
12:43 PM on 10/24/2011
The fact these republicans continue to criticize this President's success in foreign policy tells me they have no ability to handle foreign policy.
Charles W Noble
Reason with eachother
12:12 PM on 10/24/2011
Here is why this article is wrong. Americans like a "strong" leader. Obama's success in foreign policy shows a strong leader who can make tough decisions. This has the power of transference into any issue. If he can stand up to dictators, he can stand up to big business leaders. If he can stand up for the rights of the oppressed, he can stand up for the rights of the unemployed. The problem with this article is that it is too one dimensional. Americans don't look for issues but for examples of leadership and how that can translate in other area's.
02:15 PM on 10/24/2011
Strong leader? Obama's only success as president is the killing of these terrorist thugs. However, he did this while violating everything he said he was against. He, and the entire left, were calling for criminal charges against Bush and Cheney for waterboarding. It appears killing people, Americans and others, around the world and without any trial or Miranda rights given is perfectly legit to the left... as long as it is a Democrat pulling the trigger. Your hypocrisy is astonishing but predictable.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
javajava
Pastafarian Liberal Progressive Socialist Hippie
11:10 AM on 10/24/2011
I cast my first vote and walked precincts for McGovern. Nixon won in a landslide, even after Watergate had been in the news for months. I have had little faith in the discernment of the electorate since. It's not the fact that the candidate I supported lost it was that evidence was overwhelming to anyone paying attention of the criminal acts being commited by the Oval Office and it didn't seem to matter.

Americans really don'r delve too deeply in policy to inform votes. If it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker it's pretty tought to get through.

Lies that aren't believable are more attractive than the truth.

Go figure..
Charles W Noble
Reason with eachother
12:18 PM on 10/24/2011
I don't think that's it. McGovern simply failed to move the people - the majority. Nixon had a better position. He was fighting for the current power structure and McGovern was fighting aginst the current power structure. Nixon was on top of the hill with clear view while McGovern was in the valleys and vulnerable. McGovern lost. But, this type of negativity is self-indulgent. It serves absolutely no purpose. We've heard of moments when the improbable happens. It will happen again. But it is rare. The only thing that increases the probability of it happening again is a few people who hold the faith and keeping pushing to make changes that is better for their community, better for the nation, and better for the world. Another words, you just keep telling the truth over and over and over again. But not the same way. Tell it rationally. Tell it with a story. Tell it in a way that engages all the senses. Keep searching for the right way to tough the passions of the majority. You won't see the big results right away. But you'll feel the cracks starting to take hold as you hit that big boulder with your little hammer and eventually the big day will come and the big boulder crumbles.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
javajava
Pastafarian Liberal Progressive Socialist Hippie
12:42 PM on 10/24/2011
The truth is the the Oval Office engage in criminal acts that many were sentenced to prison for. There was ample evidence of before that election. If you consider a "clear view" the total abrogation of constitutional responsibilities by the President then our view point differs greatly.

American electorate have shown no proclivity for electing truth tellers. Where truth and common interest intersect are totally coincidental in my opinion. It's enough to influence opinion, it requires no proof.

As evidence, most Americans consider themselves persons of religious faith.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
01:27 PM on 10/24/2011
I agree on the electorate not being really involved in politics. To be honest, I really did not start paying attention until Bush was elected. I was alive during Nixon but I was not even a teen yet and I had very little understanding of the political process. With Bush, I got the sense that I was watching history in the making and that historians would remember Bush as the worse President of all time. So when Bush started talking about invading Iraq, I started paying attention b/c I knew that enormous problem. Then he announced the second round of tax cuts while we were in our second war.

F&F
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
11:10 AM on 10/24/2011
Ending the War in Iraq was never in the Bush and Cheney Plan. Elect a Republican to the White House and the first they will do is go back Iraq and look for WMD's.
12:56 PM on 10/24/2011
What part of "we are being kicked out of Iraq" do you not understand?
photo
Gestas
Mountain Man
03:06 PM on 10/24/2011
That can't be true...Bush and Cheney went there to win Hearts and minds..
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stonemann
To argue with an idiot, can mistake you for one.
10:40 AM on 10/24/2011
The President's successes may not, no, definitely will not matter to Republicans and righties since they must constantly portray the President as a complete and abject failure, it is what it is. However, that argument is moot with the Presidents successes. As far as the economy goes, with 33 blocked job bills, 200 filibusters and being blamed for the debt ceiling debacle, resulting in the downgrade of our credit rating, the perpetually sad state of our economy is a major success for Congressional Republicans. Think about it.
10:22 AM on 10/24/2011
What success? The man is pulling us out of Iraq, leaving a vacuum that will do absolutely no good. He helped overthrow Egypt and Libya, opening up the door for domination by radical Islam. What success? He's totally offended Israel and Great Britain. What success? This man is a foreign policy disaster. Oh well, at least he campaigns well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
01:36 PM on 10/24/2011
Bush created the vacuum when he invaded Iraq on made up charges. Before that, Saddam Hussein would have never allowed religious extremist in the country for fear of a populist uprising. By deposing Saddam, we became less safe b/c Al-Qaida moved in.

You don't consider killing bin Laden a success? How about Al-Awlaki? Yes, he helped overthrow the Libyan dictator Gaddhifi, who supported the Lockerby bomber. Gaddhifi was also behind the Achile Laurel terrorist attack. If you can't see those things as successes, then please don't vote until you have made a promise to turn off the GOP misinformation / spin machine and you have done a little more reading from unbiased sources.