Does Obama Actually Have A Foreign Policy?

Crisis manager. Realist. Idealist. Pragmatist. Internationalist. Practical politician.

At this early stage of the Obama presidency it is difficult to see a comprehensive foreign policy agenda. While Obama has been chiefly focused on health care reform and a dire economy with high unemployment the world has not stood still while we contemplate our domestic ills and how to solve them.

Starting with Afghanistan the Obama administration seems to be in a hiatus at the moment. After changing generals and calling Afghanistan an important place for the United States to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda now we are re-assessing our policy of sending more American troops to the growing conflict.

Is this a sign of weakness and caving into his liberal base who seem to have turned against the war or is it a serious sign of contemplating our next move in a very dangerous part of the world that is increasingly taking more American soldiers lives on a daily basis.

Why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Is it worth the human and financial costs? Is Obama afraid of a Vietnam-type stalemate? Right now America seems to be engaged in the conflict half-heartedly with no apparent direction forward. We owe it to the soldiers and all of us to explain why we are over there fighting and what are our exact objectives.

And, if we scale back and another terrorist plot is planned in Afghanistan and we are hit like in 9/11 will there be recriminations for the Obama administration that we didn't put everything we had to wipe out the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

The administration needs to come out front and center and explain our policy and objectives in Afghanistan. We have been fighting over there for nearly a decade and there has to be a good valid reason from the administration why we are continuing to send troops into harms way.

It is all well and good to pass a meaningless resolution at the United Nations saying how much we dislike nuclear weapons but that is not really a foreign policy.

The war in Iraq continues. What is the objective in Iraq? If it is to get out then why continue an endless war and why not pull out all American troops immediately. Or if there is some other goal then let the American people know exactly what that goal might be. Do we have a contingency plan for sending American troops back into Iraq? After all this time, money spent and lives lost what exactly are we getting for our efforts? Define what constitutes success for America in Iraq after all these years.

Iran continues to pursue its nuclear plans with little or no thought to the Americans and Europeans. We seem to have no visible policy other than discussing how tough economic sanctions will be if the Iranians don't follow what we ask.

They are going ahead with their plans while we sit through endless discussions that appear to be leading nowhere while they continue building nuclear facilities. Big talk from the Obama administration with little follow through seems to be the policy. If it is something different then it needs to be explained.

Every American president strives for real peace in the Middle East and all have come up short. It is wonderful to have good intentions but the rest of the world doesn't always share our good intentions. The administration has to have a back-up plan for negotiating in the Middle East. Alienating the Israelis might not be the best way to have started these negotiations.

George Mitchell is a very able diplomat and negotiator and we all wish him well but the administration needs to state more clearly its goals in the Middle East besides a general view of wanting peace. A few more specifics might get genuine peace talks going again.

Changing direction on the missile defense in Europe seems to have made sense. But, hopefully, it was not caving into the Russians in order to get them to help us in other parts of the globe. They may not be the most reliable of partners and we need to define our policy towards Russia.

What is our overall policy on terrorism now that the Obama administration is not using the term "war on terrorism"? The recent disclosures of three different terrorist plots across the United States is not particularly encouraging. Do we have a new policy to thwart home grown terrorism? Do we have a new policy against Al Qaeda?

Have relations with North Korea gotten any better since former President Bill Clinton's successful trip bringing back the American reporters?

The Obama administration needs to spell out its foreign policy goals. At this point they seem to be all over the board with no central theme.

We need to know that the foreign policy of the United States is based on more than the presidents' celebrity status. While I approved of Chicago getting the 2012 Olympics the president's star power certainly did not sway the IOC in Copenhagen.

Obama needs a coherent and comprehensive foreign policy that he can explain clearly to us and to the world. And, it might be good to have a plan B and C if plan A does not work.

After all, as the president is discovering quite a few foreign leaders see the world quite differently than we do and talking rational, calmly and intellectually often does not move them to change their views.

We hope to hear plan A for Afghanistan very soon with other foreign policy goals of the administration following soon after.

Follow Robert Guttman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cpfr

Comments

[Igniter]

obama the incompetent doesn't have a plan - he's winging it and playing at being president. This country is in big trouble. bush, obama! What's the difference? Oh, I know. Unlike bush, obama can string words together in a comprehensible, empty sentence.

[swift goat pet for truth]

1- Afghan.
Many think the elections highlighted a situation many were not aware of. Mass corruption of the main government. Many think the elections signaled a need to totally reassess our situation there. Do you agree? Apparently not. Why not?

2- Iran.
Many think that the recent UN speech, resolutions and talks necessitated a reevaluation of our role and the world's role with Iran. Do you agree? Apparently not. Why not?

3- Israel.
Alienating the Isrealis. Do you think this situation needs an honest broker, or one that blatantly favors one side? Apparently you go for the "one-side" option. Why is that?

4- Europe.
Bush left this in such a mess. Any you want this cleaned up in anything less than a year? Unreasonable expectations.

[swift goat pet for truth]

Did W?

[Sumocat]

Pfft. Just as with everything else he inherited from Bush, Obama was handed a scattered mess of broken pieces to reassemble into something cohesive. Expecting him to have the pieces put together is like expecting a completed puzzle right after throwing the pieces at someone.

[larry1234]

All I really expect from him is for him to actually accept the position of President of the United States. He has chosen to spend his time blaming the last guy instead of working on the current guy. So far his moves are little less than encouraging.

[gonzie46]

I blame the last guy too. I alway told people that GWB was going to mess this country up and he did. If McCain was president, he would be going through the same thing right now there is no way you can fix the mess in only 9 months and Obama never said it was going to be easy. I do remember Obama saying it might take 1 yrear or 2 he just didn't know. When bush took office didn't everything that was going wrong in the beginning Clintons fault (your all the same)

[Seldon]

After all, as the president is discovering quite a few foreign leaders see the world quite differently than we do and talking rational, calmly and intellectually often does not move US to change OUR views.

Fixed the second to last paragraph for you

[swift goat pet for truth]

i agree with you.

You manage things. You work with people.

[1will]

Obama's Foreign Policy:
1) Bow to terrorist funding Islamic monarchs
2) Insult our allies
3) Apologize to everyone
4) Get made to look like a punk by South American dictators
5) Work to make the dollar worthless thus weakening America
6) Repeat

[iburl]

Bush's Foreign Policy
1) Bow to Saudi Arabia, the country where 90% of the 9/11 hijackers were from. Give Pakistan billions and billions of dollars while they establish an independent region where the terrorists are completely free and autonomous.
2) Insult our allies. Remember Freedom Fries? Remember "with us or against us?" Remember "Old Europe".
3) Apologize to no one. Even when caught illegally spying, invading the wrong country, and torturing.
4) Be shown to be a punk by the simple facts.
5) Destroy the economy utterly
6) Repeat.

[larry1234]

Do you think it is only a coincidence that all of the following are happening right now:

a) Iran's in your face nuclear ambitions
b) Iran's open hostility to its own people
c) Iran's launch of a missile
d) Chavez on world tour with Iran and Russia
e) Russia publicly reporting an arms deal with Chavez
e) Increasing death toll in Afg
f) Release of new tapes from AQ
g) Increased terror plots at home

As for our position with our allies....Mr. Obama is quickly turning them all aside with his self-absorbed intellect.

[swift goat pet for truth]

"So, how about, in honor of the American soldier, you quit making things up."

[mergina]

What a radical idea. Defining why we are there. Gee, who'd a thunk?

[BuzzingAlong]

Did you ask this question of George W. Bush?

[Lynwood Walker]

Yes, I seem to remember many asking those questions of bush continuously. People hated the guy. By the end of his 6th year in office, he was a laughing stock the world over. What short memory you have

[iburl]

Yeah, LIBERALS were asking that question, now that the black man is in power, all of a sudden these conservative war hawks, that never met a war they didn't like are all 'concerned' and want to know what the mission is. They NEVER had any of these questions for Bush. The difference is that liberals still want to end the war, as always, but the conservatives have just discovered that they are closet hippies now that it's Obama's mess.

[jhamm1]

Oh, he had a foreign policy alright: "When in doubt, invade."

[FrozenNorthObserver]

Kind of describes him in general.

"half-heartedly with no apparent direction forward."

[S1m0n]

"Is this a sign of weakness..."

No. It's the opposite. The fear that people like you will make this assumption has been the engine of a great many military disasters.

One of the present president's greatest strengths is his 'no freakouts' rule. It stood him in great stead during the primary and election, and it's working for him here. He's reevaluating his earlier strategy in light of the present circumstances, and with the understanding that last winter's promises that victory was attainable with the extra troops the generals were calling for at the time, and which are now in theatre. They've come back with a request for even more, with a likely call for even more after that. The President has taken a time out to decide if we even want to be there at this price, which is exactly what he should be doing.

[DaveVentura]

He fired McKiernan and installed McChrystal. Obama campaigned on Bush not doing enough in Afghanistan and that he was going to escalate it, which bringing in McChrystal with his COIN background fit in perfectly. Now that he's got the general he wanted with the background he wanted and he's now the President, he's looking at turning things around 360 degrees and treating Afghanistan the way Bush treated Afghanistan by instead doing CT. If now that Obama is in the WH he now decides to follow yet another Bush policy, I'd hardly say getting Bush's 3rd term is a good thing.

[gonzie46]

Bush didn't do enough I thought we were going after the mastermine of 9/11. But instead bush had a hard_on for Saddam and he went the direction of Iraq. Remember bin laden putting out a statement letting bush know that he had him cornered but we went the other way, maybe just maybe if bush would have stayed the course we wouldn't be where were at right now I want my nephews to come home

[NC4Obama]

Indeed making the right choice is much more important then making any choice quickly.

[larry1234]

Maybe he should actually talk to the guy who is in the middle of the theater. Just a thought....

[swift goat pet for truth]

and you know he does not .... how?

btw, ever hear of a telephone?

[LizM]

If I could hazard a guess as to why the Obama foreign policy seems to be all over the board...the President still hasn't learned to trust his Vice President or to fully understand and appreciate the value-added that he represents.