Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, October 28, 2016

WASHINGTON — Over the last decade, the views of Americans on foreign policy have swung sharply from support for intervention to a profound mistrust of any military engagement overseas. Over the same period, political debates on foreign affairs have been bitter and polarized, defined by the question of whether the invasion of Iraq was a proper use of the nation’s power or a catastrophic mistake.

This contest for public opinion has taken place in the shadow of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. For understandable reasons, the United States was thrown off balance by the horrific events of 13 years ago, and we have never fully recovered.

The emergence of the Islamic State and its barbaric beheadings of James Foley and Steven Sotloff have shaken public opinion again. It is, of course, possible that the public’s guardedly increased hawkishness is another short-term reaction to an enraging news event. But there is a strong case that after all the gyrations in policy and popular attitudes, we are on the verge of a new politics of foreign policy based on a steadier, more sober and more realistic view of our country’s role in the world and of what it takes to keep the nation safe.

And it has fallen to a politically weakened President Obama to lay out this new vision and to build a durable consensus that can outlast his presidency. The paradox is that while polls show Americans more critical than ever of the president’s handling of foreign affairs, the strategy he is outlining toward the Islamic State has the potential of forging a unity of purpose across a wide swath of American opinion. In many ways, it is an approach that goes back to the pre-9/11 presidencies of George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton.

Two things are clear about where the public stands now: It is more ready to use American power than it was even a few months ago. But it remains deeply wary of again committing American combat troops to the Middle East. Thus the wide popularity of using air attacks to push back the Islamic State.

Obama’s extensive bombing campaign threads this needle. It is aimed at supporting Iraqi forces — including the Iraqi army, the Kurdish pesh merga and possibly Sunni militias and others — doing the fighting on the ground. Although the circumstances are quite different, Obama’s reliance on air power is reminiscent of Clinton’s actions in Bosnia and Kosovo. Obama is willing to send additional American troops to Iraq to advise and strengthen the Iraqi army and other allies, but not to carry the burdens of battle.

More generally, Obama is pushing a tough-minded multilateralism. His administration’s aggressive courting of allies in both the Middle East and Europe recalls the intense rounds of diplomacy that former Secretary of State James A. Baker III led on behalf of the first President Bush before the successful war to drive Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait in 1991.

Obama’s diplomacy has included pressure on Shiite politicians in Iraq to create a new government that Sunni Muslims could regard as inclusive. Secretary of State John Kerry’s news conference in Baghdad on Wednesday, just hours before Obama’s scheduled speech to the nation, underscored the importance of this initiative.

Above all, Obama is trying to distance his policy toward the Islamic State from the Iraq War, nation building and promises of sweeping change in the Middle East. He speaks of this new engagement more narrowly as “counterterrorism,” tying it back to the cause large majorities of Americans embraced after the Sept. 11 attacks and have never stopped supporting.

Some backers of the Iraq War will object to this implicit criticism of the past, and others will demand, as Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) did Tuesday on MSNBC, that the “president go back and say ‘I made a mistake'” when he confidently touted the successes of his early anti-terrorism efforts. In the meantime, anti-interventionists — who still loom large in the president’s party and in Republican libertarian quarters — will continue to be wary of any re-escalation of American military engagement. And a bitter election season is hardly an ideal moment for building bipartisanship.

Nonetheless, circumstances have presented Obama with both an opportunity and an obligation to steer American policy toward a middle course that acknowledges a need for American leadership and the careful use of American power while avoiding commitments that are beyond the country’s capacity to sustain. It is the balance we have been seeking since an awful day in September shook us to our core.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is [email protected] Twitter: @EJDionne.

AFP Photo/Brendan Smialowski

Want more political news and analysis? Sign up for our daily email newsletter!

  • Dominick Vila

    Excellent article, but I believe the mistrust that so many Americans have with military “solutions” probably go back a lot farther than the fateful decision to invade Iraq. We have to go no further than consider the sacrifices made in Vietnam, remember the dire predictions of a domino effect that would transform much of the world into an evil empire, and what has actually happened since our hasty departure from that country to understand that the arrogance – and narrow goals – that influence our foreign policy decisions have more to do with economic expansion than actual threats against the homeland. Today, textiles and gadgets made in Vietnam can be purchase in most of our stores, and instead of Vietnam embracing communist doctrine it is pursuing capitalist goals to satisfy the wishes of its population.
    The naivete and arrogance of those who believe that a permanent presence in Iraq and other Muslim countries would end the cycle of violence than began centuries ago with the emergence of the Shiites as a powerful force in the Islamic world, cannot be described with words. If anything, the decisions made towards the end of the British mandate, when the ancient animosity between Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds was ignored and a fragmented nation was created, the removal of a ruthless dictator who managed to transform his fragmented country into one of the most prosperous countries in the region, and the replacement of Sunni Baathists with Shias aligned to Iran, destabilized the entire country and are the root cause for much of the violence and anti-American sentiment we see today.

  • Whatmeworry

    Sorry Dijon we have a president who never understood foreign policy let alone the constitution. Remember is 1st blush “we are all equal” and there is no American excellence. then it was moooslims are a religion of peace and there is no moving song then the call to prayer by the Imams.
    Then it was the moooslim spring and disaster after disaster every time he got involved, then Benghazi.
    And now this just throw something against the wall and see if anything sticks. Its a direct of his naivety and his picks of light weights for Sec of State

    • WhutHeSaid

      Yes, with Obama’s relative inexperience regarding foreign policy, what hope does he really have of matching the horrible mess that the Bush administration was able to achieve?

      • Whatmeworry

        When W let office he war in Iraq over and the surge had fixed Afghanistan. It was your boy wonder in the WH that managed to turn the Middle East into a tinder box. His parting line the other night was “did I do that” the little irkle just doesn’t get it

  • howa4x

    The reality is that after spending trillions of taxpayer dollars on equipping the Iraqi army we expected them to repel a smaller force of ISIS insurgents, and not runaway. That took everyone by surprise even the old war dog McCain. Obama had to develop a crisis policy or Bagdad would have had street fighting, since ISIS was attacking both north and south. We had to help the Kurds and the Iraqi army immediately so air power was used as a stop gap measure. Now a more rational thought out policy can be developed. We got rid of Maliki and a new more inclusive government has formed and there is a plan to create Sunni regiments to also fight ISIS. We helped them regain control of the Dam and prevented the Kurds from being run over, and saved the Yazidis. Now we need to build a coalition and Obama demanded that the Gulf states step up. Don’t forget its money from wealthy oil sheiks that funded ISIS. By taking these immediate actions we prevented the Iranians from sending an army across the border which would have created the largest sectarian war the area has ever seen. Of Course Obama gets no credit for any of this.
    What is lost in all this is that Obama ordered the killing of the leader of Al Shabab in Somalia which was completed. This is the group that is destabilizing Africa and carried out the attack on the Kenyan mall.