Obama's First 250 Days: Defining a President's Foreign Policy
The Obama foreign policy era officially began last week in Geneva. William Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, met face-to-face with Iranian counterparts, enacting the president's inaugural promise of engaging with strategic adversaries. Such diplomatic endeavors are only one part of a two-pronged strategy, however, as Washington also pursues military options to defend against an Iranian attack. Not long before diplomats met in Switzerland, Obama decided to abandon the Bush administration's plan to station a long-range missile defense system in Eastern Europe, instead planning to place sea and land-based missile interceptor sites closer to Iran, in the Balkans and Turkey.
But in focusing on what these actions say about Obama's still-emerging non-proliferation strategy, we risk missing their true significance. The decisions to sit across the table from Iran and to pull the plug the Bush version of European missile defense signal the end of the Bush-Obama foreign policy transition.
Pundits are fond of using the "first one hundred days" as the standard benchmark of presidential transitions. This practice dates back to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who came into office on March 4, 1933 and confronted the Great Depression head-on by immediately introducing a record-breaking amount of legislation to Congress. By June 16--one hundred days later--FDR had laid the groundwork for the New Deal.
For contemporary observers of the presidency, however, the one hundred days metric has little utility. In foreign policy in particular, the transition is a three-step process.
First, the new administration must learn about the substance and history of the policies in place on January 20. Though some familiarization occurs during the pre-inaugural transition, a president-elect's under-strengthened foreign policy team does not have full access to the intelligence underlying past foreign policy decisions until Inauguration Day.
The Kennedy administration and the Bay of Pigs invasion is the classic example of this process. Prior to Kennedy's inauguration, only JFK and his vice president, Lyndon Johnson, knew that the CIA was planning a covert operation to overthrow Fidel Castro's Cuban regime. It was not until January 22, 1961 that key players such as Kennedy's Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, and National Security Advisor learned of a major foreign policy that had already been set in motion.
In the Obama case, it is too soon to tell what his advisers knew and when they knew it. We can be sure, however, that Obama's foreign policy team only gained unhindered access to intelligence about Iraq, AfPak, and covert operations once they took charge in January.
Second, the incoming administration must assimilate the new information, and use it to further develop a strategic vision that is only sketched out on the campaign trail.
Take, for example, the Reagan administration's "rollback" strategy. When Ronald Reagan assumed the presidency, he inherited the Carter administration's program providing secret aid to mujahedeen fighting Soviet forces in Afghanistan. Examining the success of the Afghanistan effort, once in office, Reagan decided to step up the operation, providing even more aid to the anti-communist fighters. Before long, covert assistance to global anti-communist resistance movements became a centerpiece of the Reagan Doctrine.
True, we are still waiting for Obama's National Security Strategy and Quadrennial Defense Review. But anyone who has been paying attention could describe the guiding tenets of the Obama foreign policy.
Finally, the transition ends when the new administration decides which of its predecessor's policies--not values--to keep and which to dismantle. Changes of tone and rhetoric are easily accomplished, but wholesale changes of policy are much more complicated.
This September, on the eve of President Obama's historic chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the transition ended with two major policy shifts. First, on missile defense. After learning the details of the Eastern European program and conducting an extensive review--50 internal meetings and nearly 100 meetings with allies, according to the Washington Post--the president decided that the policy did not align with the strategic objectives of his administration.
Second, following through on talks with Iran. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was a major concern of the Bush administration, one shared by the Obama administration. But Obama has taken the opposite approach in addressing the Iranian issue: whereas Bush insisted that his government would not negotiate with its enemies, Obama has welcomed engagement. The Obama administration completed the policy turnabout on October 1, when direct talks began.
After 250-plus days in office, President Obama is prepared to confront the foreign policy challenges of his presidency. On the campaign trail and during the transition, Obama promised a great deal to the American people, and to the world. Now that the transition is over, the international community will find out whether President Obama can deliver on his commitment to bring a fresh, effective approach to American foreign policy.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The context of the article is correct. Policy changes of this magnitude take time and must be done right. Meetings upon meetings upon meetings will be the future before movment. That is the way it should be done.
Obama's foriegn policy is Bush's foreign policy. No change here, keep moving.
Impeach Obama. Stop the War
Obama=Bush
Can the President have a Foreign Policy without a Secretary of State?
This is not Obama's presidency, this is still george bushes! Obama has done nothing to change the bush corruption, nothing at all, but added to it. Mr. Obama that is why you are so ineffective, and you are going to bring other democrats down with you.
Democrats in the congress, the american people gave you both the house and senate, and all you "Airheads " have done is squander that authority to no end. Your shame is also your ignorance, and stupidity, try and forget the clones on your right and do what you were put in power to do, and that is to "Represent the American People . Writing legislation with the people at the forefront of the bills and only the people first.
The People don't need your double talk, slithering lies, forked tongue nonsense. Do your jobs or step down, represent the people and not the republican jackals.
He's not gonna bring the democrat party down and he is not going down either, like the republican party has done. First, the democrats have to get some backbone and the only one I see with that is Congressman grayson, so no he won't pull down who has already been down he's trying to pull them up to another level and we have bluedogs who need to go.
The President has my admiration & thanks for the efforts he is trying to make and is working his heart out trying to address with the enormous array of crises he was confronted with upon taking office.
Any President who tries to work as a statesman and with other countries, respecting their views, and trying to move the US and the world to a safer and better place is a good thing and certainly better than the alternative we all had to accept the from the last Administration.
But ... is anybody else concerned about the Repubs that have been going to other countries and speaking against the US, such as the one that went to China and told them not to trust the US with regard to our debt, Or the ones who are going to Honduras, a country the US currently does not acknowlege? First, who is paying for this and second, what is their authority to be there representing the US? What is the purpose of the visit officially? Next, if they are speaking against the US to foreign leaders, isn't that at the very least ,a national security issue?
Rachel Maddow did a good segment on this tonight. I wonder if any of these guys are part of that "C" Street cult.
Obama is not fixing Bush's mistakes. Obama is continuing Bush's crimes.
That makes no sense.
It all come's down to Afghanistan. I know he promised more engagement there during the campaign. But good president's are flexible and God knows he's flip-floped enough on issues from "the other side" of the aisle. I voted for him, I've been critical of him. Let's see what sort of decision he makes there. An escelation would be unfortunate. Ask the Russians how that went? (And GB). We can fight terrorism through other means but ground forces in Kabul and elsewhere will not solve the problem and will probably make things worse (see Iraq).
no country hates america just to hate america. these people hate america because we fail to keep our promises. we promised if you fight with us against extreme elements we would protect you from them. well, they start to believe in the promise and we leave. we have been in Afgan for over six years but we placed all of our major resoures into Iraq and left the people of Afgan to defend themselves after we left them unprotected. therefore, the extreme elements come back with extreme force because the people were helping the americans. now, once again, people are talking about leaving. which would leave the people in a worst position then when we arrived.
we need to stay and secure Afgan, build up its people and security forces. give them a chance a freefom...
Sorry, not worth making the ultimate sacrifice for, Most want us out of there anyway. It's a sprawling, tribal nation. A million troops won't make a difference. Plus, our nation is about to go bankrupt and the suffering is real. We have prorities here. Terrorism can be fought more discretly and effectively by other means.
He's a loosah and the whole world is laughing at him. He told us he didn't qualify for the job. Do we believe him now?
Barack Obama is a "loosah". I think you might be on to something there, genius.
And why exactly is the "whole world" laughing at him?
The Obama foreign policy era began within twenty four hours of his election when he signaled to the world the selection of Joe Kennedy as EPA head and that international cap and trade was the most important foreign policy issue.
Although Joe Kennedy would make a good frontman, he was not asked first.
That is some hubris!
Joe Kennedy did not accept. I like to believe because he did not wish to waste the political capital of the Kennedy name on cap and trade schemes.
If the Obama foreign policy era began with Iran, it should begin with his numerous unanswered invitations to talks before the election, or the time he said Mousavi was no different than Ahmadinejad, which "the world" forced him to change his position, and calibrate with Europe and the Gulf Arabs.
Here's a summary of Obama's foreign policy to date:
"deer in headlights"
In the beginning I had so much hope for our new President. But I now think your description is correct.
He means well, but he's an empty suit, more concerned about his image than in what he actually accomplishes.
please name a foreign policy success of GWB
a list of failures: can into the office with a budget surplus - left with the biggest deficit in history.
started 2 wars within the first 24 months of his terms - left two wars for the next president
ignores IRAN - IRAN gets closer to a nuclear weapon
ignores KOREA - KOREA test fires long range missiles
need major help with the wars - but only a few countries help with limited support
gives no support on gobal warming issues
snap shot of 8 years of GWB
9 months under OBAMA
the world agrees to financial rules (in theory)
1.1 trillion dollars to support loans for poorer countries
IRAN on OCT 01 sits at a table with U.S. representatives
foreign leaders like the new president
failure - didn't get the olympic games
I thought it began in Cairo?
Think about Russia. Think of this as an Obamaphile's "reset button" to erase the prior nine months.
The reason Iranian regime seemed to do something different is that they were caught with the secret cave near Qom. They got a leak, maybe from the UN?
Agreed. Huge oversight of this article.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
