Obama's Boldest Move Yet

President Obama wants to redraw the global partnership map, risks and all.

As ambitious as its $10 trillion domestic agenda has been, the Obama administration has been even bolder and more creative abroad. Led by Secretary Clinton, the U.S. isn't just talking to the bad guys. From Russia to Afghanistan, China to Syria, the administration has put some mind-bending partnership proposals on the table that, if successful, could transform the world and help our economy. Fat chance? Suspend your disbelief for a moment and imagine Iran as a partner in the Iraq/Afghanistan theaters. How many lives, how many trillions in military spending and nuclear deterrence efforts would that save? Imagine reading about how Syria helped turn Jerusalem and Gaza into a global biotech hub, instead of about how Israel and Palestine turned the region into a biohazardous wasteland. Imagine a China that buys $100 billion worth of U.S. clean air and water technology each year, both lowering global asthma rates and creating tens of thousands of U.S. jobs for high school graduates.

If you think this sounds like "happy talk"--by all means, take a seat. Some of the less charitable folks in Obama's circle would certainly invite you to sit on the sidelines and doubt them as you did in 2007. They would argue that the failed U.S. economy and our huge deficit demand that we radically rethink one of the biggest items in the federal budget: close to $1 trillion in annual military and war spending. A kinder contingent of Obama supporters (or perhaps just a group of smart historians) would point you to those so-called "sudden" transformations we've seen before: South Africa in the early 90s, Northern Ireland in the mid-90s, India in the 40s, even Japan post-World War II.

Of course, as in each of those historic reversals, Obama will need to take great risks to achieve great change. He's initiated the conversation with Iran by inviting them to a summit on Afghanistan. They'll want a favor in return. To work with the moderate Taliban (assuming moderate Taliban exist), Obama and Clinton may have to sacrifice some generally non-negotiable principles, namely women's rights. And that's if he even gets to the table. This is an administration still feeling its way through the art of diplomacy; clearly, they have yet to master the subtleties of international gift-giving. Entering into so many arenas at once, with such an ambitious agenda, increases the chances of a blunder far worse than a mistranslated word.

Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs, Wilson the League of Nations. Even if Clinton & Company are dramatically successful abroad, a continued recession at home would expose 44 to the same political fate as Jimmy Carter, Bush the First, and Winston Churchill. He'll need favorable outcomes in upcoming overseas elections (the U.K. this summer, Iran and Germany this fall, Iraq in December) and a healthy dose of luck for the gamble to work. But the upside is clear: if Obama can redraw the global partnership map and stave off a depression at home, the U.S. may spend (and deserve) another 50 years as the world's leader.

Twitter me to let me know what you think could be Obama's toughest foreign policy obstacle: twitter.com/carloswatson.

Comments

[mommasigma]

GREAT article!

[SangZe]

All this nice blather. Who's sending warships into China's seas? Who's extending sanctions against Iran? A new direction? Empty garbage. Pap for the masses. Let's see, who can we now accuse of having weapons of mass destruction? Who is now a threat to U.S. security? Has anyone taken a good look at Canda recently? At Mexico, where the drug business is taking over? Talk is cheap. Like so much of Obama, there's no substance, and maybe questionable truth.

[Z2221344]

Are you really trying to say that "Canda" (sic) is a thread to the US? That Mexico is a threat to the US? Are you crazy? How are we supposed to take your post, and your ideas seriously?

[chaos4700]

He's being sarcastic, if you hadn't noticed. Canada is as much of a threat to the US as Iraq was in 2003. Mexico? Well that's another matter. I wish the media talked more about what's going on down there right now. The Mexican government forces are fighting an all-out war against the drug cartels -- and from what I've heard, they might be losing. This does not bode well for the US.

[Octoberon]

It's hard to get a clear perspective on the world from where I sit, but I have to say that it's very much One World these days - rather than First, Second or Third. At least, that's how it ought to be. If we can communicate around the world in an instant, we should be talking to all parties and addressing all problems - not drawing divisive lines in the sand.

[Teamster]

I very much appreciate your comentary , and looking to see more

I feel the move is mind bending, a shift of movement
does it change the economic diress of the world ?

[LeftWingX10]

At Least One part is Correct! . . Mind Bending? . . may I suggest Mind BENT!

[MilwaukeeDan]

Mr. Watson, good post but not enough depth. The last administration was still fighting the Cold War and with the appointment of Clinton, I though President Obama was goint to stay the course. I hope not. It's good to hear we want to communicate rather than just threaten.

[gdogs]

"Of course, as in each of those historic reversals, Obama will need to take great risks to achieve great change."

I didnt' see any description of what happens when these risks don't work in your post. It seems to me that one must weigh the success and failure of these risks he is taking. It is unfortunate that his diplomatic efforts will not succeed, as they are being made with the best intentions. My fear is what the affects will be when they do fail.

[Z2221344]

I think it's fortunate that you're so well versed in international affairs that you can see the inevitability of Obama's failure, yet you still take the time to post vague comments on a news site message board.

[melponeme k]

He must talk to Russia and China because they collectively hold our future oil barrels and keep our rubber currency afloat.

He talks to them out of desperation not out of the kindness of his administration's heart. We would never survive a war with either of them.

[amistad]

So?
The fact that President Obama wants to talk to Russia and China is some how a criticism?
Wow.

[melponeme k]

It isn't a criticism.

He has to do it. We are bankrupt and need their money or their oil. Match said item to the aforementioned countries.

[FrankenPC]

Russia China and the US would never survive a war. Why even bring up global annihilation? Talking to Russia and China is about money infusion. Not war.

[melponeme k]

There were crazed people in the last administration and no doubt some stragglers in the current one that are all for crazy wars.

Unfortunately for us.

And we shouldn't be borrowing more money but trying to reign in spending, especially in our military and silly bailouts.

[MPeter]

Prez Obama is already succeeding. His efforts are being welcomed by every leader around the world, most of all, the people. World leaders who are inclined to oppose the Prez are being cajoled by their own people to do so. Obama's agenda is a world agenda. This makes him the leader of the world, not just the free world or the U.S.

[VoiceOmmAfar]

Wishful thinking and [always chilling] sound of self-entransing - propaganda.
Obama has just started. As much as we and many others in the world want him [for set of fairy tale inclinations] to start turning the world around for the better - he is not a leader of the world let alone of Russians, Chinese and many other peoples and places.
Pride is to be somewhat contained; more can be acheived with humility [Obama's example and strategy] then with overstatements.

[Kassandra]

I love the way men always throw women's rights on the block as a bargaining chip. "Oh, sure, you can keep throwing acid in your girls faces when they try to get an education.­..........­.just help US with Osama ( who's dead) and that nasty hero-in. No problemo! MAN!"

[ddDinah]

I noticed that as well. At the VERY HEART of everything that is wrong IN OUR WORLD or HAS BEEN WRONG, you well FIND MEN.

[CrustAlmighty]

Come on...you're not helping.

[partyofone]

and women have no influence in what type of people their sons become?

[juangault]

"From the rivers of Babylon, where we Saddam, oh yes we wept, when we remember Saigon".

W changed the world. We became the wicked. It would be a major triumph of tomorrow's people to turn the newest carrier into a castle for coral.

[CHRIS337]

"oh yes we wept, when we remember Saigon"
Yes, we wept!
When we cut and ran and left 57,000 of our dead behind because Walter Cronkite called the war "Unwinnable" after one of the greatest US military victories in history (Tet)
Yes, we wept!
When we abandoned the Vietnamese people to the commie scourge who assassinated over 30,000 (known) people at will and sent 1,000's to re-education camps and now 30+ years after "Saigon"
To a regime so oppressive that people put their children into leaky boats, never to see them again, just so they might have a chance to live free!
The Vietnamese are begging to get back into the real world instead of the Marxist-Leninist world that you subscribe to!

"We became the wicked"
No! YOU were always the wicked!
YOU will always be the wicked!
Don't try and paint someone else with the stain of YOUR existence!

"turn the newest carrier into a castle for coral."
How about, turn the newest NYT buildng into a castle for coral?
How about you lead the way?

[onlinesavant]

You seem to care so much about Vietnam, but apparently, you have NO understanding of history, which is typical of a regressive. You do realize that the South Vietnamese government led by Diem ,was corrupt, and did it's fair share of crimes against humanity don't you? You do realize that LBJ and Nixon were given information that the war was unwinnable by intelligence services, and yet both continued to add troops don't you? You do realize that THIS government supplied dictatorships that have done to their people as bad or worse things than Vietnam did to her's (Saddam, Contras, the Shah's Iran.)?Silliness is your forte', obviously, but you need to work on your critcal skills.

[Kassandra]

Ah! so it was the "liberal media's" fault again? Were you even alive during that war?

And speaking of "oppressive regimes"..­..........­.....well

[Zenith1959]

Ah yes, that lefty liberal Nixon doing the cut and run. and which Hollywood celebrity decided to cut and run after a terrorist attack against US marines in the middle east?

[BottomLine2008]

Neat little piece, but shallow.

[VSamuels]

As Ali said to Cosell, ". . .and, I spoke to your wife and she said you were a [neat little piece, but shallow". Just can the nonsense, brevity shouldn't pass for an excuse of not understanding something. I personally find Watson to be one of the more serious voices on MSNBC and being basically one of the few men of color on supposedly the 'liberal' sounding off channel has been extremely disappointing, especially in light of both CNN and Fox News having more AAs in remarkably more visible roles.

Now on to some important stuff: Obama's choice to stake out some bold positions on many different fronts does leave him open to mistakes, but this to a measure does demonstrate that his critics are wrong about his ideological leanings; in that he could take far more easier routes that do not leave open the possibility for early mis-steps or embarrassing mistakes that could derail his second term.

[helpthemiddleclass1]

I have heard the President and Vice President utter the words 'moderate Taliban' several times during the past week and I'm curious what does that mean? Do 'moderate Taliban' have an eighteen and over age limit when it comes to suicide bombers? Do 'moderate Taliban' only use one bullet when they shoot you in the brian and not two? What is the 'O' man talking about? Is sending 17,000 more troops into Afghanistan a change? And next year when the Iraq war ends (ha ha) the President spoke of redeploying those troops. To where? Afghanistan of course. Is that change? Seems to me a continuation of the war, he's just changing the enemy. They don't call Afghanistan the "graveyard of empires" for nothing. But then again, like Bush, Obama is just arrogant enough to think we could win and change history. His policies aren't bold, just more extended rhetoric. www.helpthemiddleclass.com for extended commentary.

[mmsaretasty]

Obama said repeatedly during his candidacy he would redepoly Ameircan troops from Iraq to Afghanistan. He's doing exactly what he said we would.

[atoonce]

It does make sense to redirect our resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, however we need to demand accountability on what is going on. We need to know what our goals are. It's a messy situation but we need to know why we are there.

[islandsox]

I, too, heard Obama and Biden mention "moderate Taliban." Biden went so far to say only 5% of the Taliban were hard-liners and that most of them were in it for the money. That seems ludicrous to me; they are in it because they believe all who are not for Islam/hard line Muslims, must be eradicated from the planet. Now, here is what is funny. The Taliban actually responded to Obama/Biden's mention of talking to the moderate Taliban. They said this: There are no moderate Taliban.

[Cord]

Umm, I don't see this as a bold move. Considering what just happened to Chas Freeman only a day ago, I doubt the Obama administration is willing to debate issues form new perspectives. Remember much of Bush's foreign policy is still in place, but we've changed the tone and given a fresh image, but the script remains the same.

In addition, sacrificing women's rights, children's rights to get ahead on these issues which eventually come back to get Obama's legacy later on.

[billbb]

This is another place where Bush had it wrong. With Bush's with us or against us policy, it was easy to demonize W's cartoonish view of the world. Obama makes it far tougher for these governments by being unexpectedly reasonable and fair. While I have no illusions that some of them are and will remain our enemies, plotting for our downfall, that becomes all the more obvious to the rest of the world when we have acted reasonably. By not demonizing our opponents, Mr. Obama will force them to cooperate on some level, or demonize themselves.

Pretty much the same thing he has done to the Rpublicans, come to think of it, and look how that is going: opposition split into small, warring camps; no cohesive strategy and leadership twisting in the wind. And that vain and bombastic little twerp in North Korea isn't even as funny as Rush Limbaugh.

[ExxonMcBushCo]

fanned.