The National  Memo Logo

Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.

Monday, December 09, 2019 {{ new Date().getDay() }}

WASHINGTON — President Obama’s foreign policy now seems to be defined by a series of ironies.

Having pledged to pivot from an emphasis on the Middle East to a focus on Asia, he has announced that the two large public initiatives of his closing years will involve Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Having begun as a foreign policy realist, he found himself at the United Nations on Tuesday defending U.S. global commitments in the name of an idealistic American exceptionalism.

The last month has subjected Obama’s international strategy to turbulent tests and his performance drew the most sharply negative reviews of his presidency. His foreign policy ratings took a tumble. The Economist magazine splashed the provocative words “The weakened West” across the cover of a recent issue.

On Syria, the president (rightly in my view) proposed military action in response to a violation of his red line against chemical weapons. But he failed to prepare the public for his move and was left facing a bipartisan rebuke in Congress. He was rescued only by a Russian diplomatic initiative that the president’s allies insist was the product of the administration’s own groundwork.

In the meantime, years of very tough sanctions that left Iran’s economy in shambles and altered the country’s internal balance of political power have opened an opportunity for negotiations over curbing Tehran’s nuclear program and creating a new relationship between longtime adversaries.

In a matter of weeks, talk of war has been replaced by the promise of diplomacy. What happened?

There was an important clue in Obama’s U.N. speech when he expressed the impatience of the American people over the world’s ambivalence about U.S. power. Americans, he said, were tired of being criticized simultaneously for meddling too much and for engaging too little, especially in the Middle East.

“The danger for the world is not an America that is too eager to immerse itself in the affairs of other countries, or take on every problem in the region as its own,” he said. “The danger for the world is that the United States, after a decade of war, rightly concerned about issues back home, aware of the hostility that our engagement in the region has engendered throughout the Muslim world, may disengage, creating a vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.”

Presidents rarely tell the world to put up or shut up. But that’s what his countrymen need to hear now. The core fact of American foreign policy is that the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan have left most Americans utterly exasperated by war. The Iraq syndrome will prove to be far more traumatic than the Vietnam syndrome.

As it was, it took 16 years after the fall of Saigon before Americans were ready to see the United States lead a major military effort — George H.W. Bush’s successful campaign to evict Saddam Hussein’s forces from Kuwait. With Syria, Americans were called to an act of war even before U.S. troops were out of Afghanistan and less than two years after our armed forces were withdrawn from Iraq.

The public’s reluctance to support Obama’s effort to punish the Assad regime does not mean the American people want the United States to give up on its global role. But it was a cry for more time — and a demand that the case for American global responsibility be made afresh.

The problem does not extend to Asia and the Pacific, where many nations welcome the United States as a force for stability and prosperity. Obama’s “pivot” continues. But there is no escaping our commitments to the Middle East. In the wake of what Obama spoke of as our “hard-earned humility” after Iraq, the president is now trying to achieve through talks what the American people would prefer not to achieve through force.

As long as he was pulling out troops from old conflicts and dealing with terrorist threats through drone attacks and the deployment of Special Forces, Obama maintained popular support because his approach abroad kept the costs at home relatively low. Recent events have upset that arrangement.

The president’s U.N. speech suggests that he knows full well that the most vital negotiation he faces is not with Iran or Syria but with his fellow citizens. Thus the largest irony: Having pledged to end wars and focus on problems at home, Obama finds himself defending a robust American role around the globe — to other nations, yes, but above all to his own people.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com.

AFP Photo/Jewel Samad

Advertising

Start your day with National Memo Newsletter

Know first.

The opinions that matter. Delivered to your inbox every morning

Donald Trump

Image via Twitter

A year after former President Donald Trump left the White House and Joe Biden was sworn in as president of the United States, Trump continues to have considerable influence in the Republican Party. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a former Trump critic turned Trump sycophant, recently told Fox News that having a “working relationship” with Trump must be a litmus test for anyone in a GOP leadership role in Congress. But an NBC News poll, conducted in January 14-18, 2022, finds that many Republican voters identify as Republicans first and Trump supporters second.

Analyzing that poll in the New York Times on January 21, reporters Leah Askarinam and Blake Hounshell, explain, “Buried in a new survey published today is a fascinating nugget that suggests the Republican Party may not be as devoted to Trump as we’ve long assumed. Roughly every month for the last several years, pollsters for NBC News have asked: ‘Do you consider yourself to be more of a supporter of Donald Trump or more of a supporter of the Republican Party?’ Over most of that time, Republicans have replied that they saw themselves as Trump supporters first.”

Keep reading... Show less

Ivanka Trump, right

Image via @Huffington Post

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s select committee on the January 6, 2021 insurrection moves along, it is examining Ivanka Trump’s actions that day — especially the former White House senior adviser urging her father, then- President Donald Trump, to call off his supporters when the U.S. Capitol Building was under attack. This week, Ivanka Trump’s importance to the committee is examined in a column by liberal Washington Post opinion writer Greg Sargent and an article by blogger Marcy Wheeler.

Sargent notes that the committee’s “new focus on Ivanka Trump” shows that it “is developing an unexpectedly comprehensive picture of how inextricably linked the violence was to a genuine plot to thwart a legitimately elected government from taking power.”

Keep reading... Show less
x
{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}