Need Another 100 Days To Grade Obama's Foreign Policy

Obama has had a remarkably productive first 100 days on the foreign policy front. He has sought to rebuild fractured alliances, toss out bad acronyms (GWOT, among others), and restore America's tattered image abroad, even if it means having grip-and-grin sessions with adversaries. It's hard not to like what I see.

But let me try. The most dangerous place in the world is probably Pakistan, something Obama has addressed both rightly and wrongly. He was right to dispatch someone with a strong ego like Richard Holbrooke to the region and work on Afghanistan and Pakistan as a tandem. He was wrong to continue the Bush policy of predator drone strikes, which invariably kill civilians and are counterproductive. It also means that Obama now has innocent blood on his hands.

Obama has done remarkably little on Africa (except to shoot down a few pirates), which was maybe his predecessor's only achievement abroad. Nothing has been done on Darfur. Nor is there much hope of things changing anytime soon in Sudan, Congo and other wartorn places.

Frustratingly, too often Obama's foreign policy has focused more on the metaphor and less on the meaty stuff. I'd prefer to see less talk of "smart power" and "reset buttons," neither of which I really understand, and more talk about substance (How much soft power is necessary? Does resetting U.S.-Russian relations mean turning a blind eye to journalists getting kicked out of windows?).

But let's face it: 100 days is too soon to tell, especially when Somali pirates and swine flu keep distracting this administration and the media from larger foreign policy concerns. This summer is crucial. Once we know election results in Iran and Lebanon, we'll get a better read of Obama's Middle East policy (and Israel's), which will keep his hands full for the next few years. How will Obama respond to a hardliners' return to power in Iran, or a Hezbollah-majority parliament in Lebanon? We'll have to wait another 100 days to find out.

Comments

[jaysan]

The problem is that without the Predator drone strikes, the US currently has no way to strike at Taliban/AlQaeda. A better alternative to the Predator strikes would be to put US troops on the ground in Northern Pakistan, to go after AlQaeda directly. Pakistan can either like it, or else be held accountable for letting the Taliban/AlQaeda get away, as they all too often do. It seems to me that Pakistan doth protest too much. They don't seem to realize that sovereignty is a 2-way street. If you want your sovereignty respected, then it's your responsibility to keep your territory from being used by terrorists attacking others. If you can't do that, and can only offer excuses instead, then you're not meeting your sovereign obligations.

[Rog49Thomas]

First, I know that as a nation we have a short attention span and like the protagonist to settle affairs within the confines of a 60 minute TV show, but our current President is not "Neo" and this is not "The Matrix".

The utlimate test of Neo's foreign policy is going to require more than 100 more days. Perhaps 4 years perhaps longer.

Second, it is really important to distinguish between reform and revolution. Reform tinkers with the margins. Revolution is a fundamental change. Despite the paniced cries of Sister Sarah and Joe the Plumber about an impending socialist apocalypse, the fact is that President Neo is a reformer.

Third, sadly, we are truly a banana republic - where rhetoric is often mistaken for reality. If Lewis Cheskin politics work in our own country, we assume that they will work overseas. Sad fact is they don't.

[jeanrenoir]

You're right: Pakistan is "the most dangerous place in the world," because of the imbecilic neocon diversion in Iraq, which may well put nukes in Al Qaeda's hands and vaporize Tel Aviv AND NYC. We've had this completely crazy politics in America since Reagan, in which ALL foreign policy issues end up: But is it good for Likud Israel? There are lots of signs that Bush was the dead end of this stupid way of calculating America's national interests, which may sometimes be at odds with Israel's, just as they are at odds with all of our friends from time to time. Israel's AIPAC veto power in foreign policy should end now. J St. wants that, and so do I.

[IndyReader]

Why don't you let Obama have his full 1460 days before you grade anything, especially his foreign policy.

[freshnotbitter]

Let Pakistan take care of Pakistan without the overbearing Holbrooke interfering, the Clintons ensured that it was too late for reset in Russia ten years ago, Afghanistan needs technology and our position should be that we don't want the Taliban in power because they welcome foreigners into Afghanistan who attack us, we are too corrupt to do anything about Israel and Palestine, and I would lead Iraq into battle against Iran starting in the shatt el arab waterway.