Nicholas D. Kristof / Is it Obama’s weakness on foreign policy, or ours?

He has handled Iraq, Russia and other international matters more deftly than people think

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

The odds are that you think President Barack Obama’s foreign policy is a failure. That’s the scathing consensus forming, with just 36 percent of Americans approving of his foreign policy in a New York Times/​CBS News poll released this week. Foreign policy used to be a source of strength for the president, and now it’s dragging him down.

Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, warns that Mr. Obama “has weakened the national security posture of the United States.” Trent Franks, a Republican member of the House from Arizona, cites foreign policy to suggest that Mr. Obama is “the most inept president we have ever had.”

This emerging narrative is absurdly harsh. Look at three issues where the GOP has been jabbing him with pitchforks:

• Trading five Taliban prisoners for Bowe Bergdahl was unpopular and the Obama administration may have made the trade in the incorrect belief that Sgt. Bergdahl was near death. Then again, here’s a U.S. soldier who spent five years in Taliban custody, some reportedly in a cage. If we make heroic efforts to bring back American corpses, how can we begrudge efforts to bring back a soldier who is still alive?

There are risks, but the five Taliban prisoners have probably aged out of field combat, and, if they return to Afghanistan after their year in Qatar, they would likely have trouble finding U.S. targets because, by then, the United States will no longer be engaged in combat.

More broadly, there’s nothing wrong with negotiating with the Taliban. The only way to end the fighting in Afghanistan is a peace deal involving the Taliban, and maybe this deal can help make it happen.

• Russian aggression in Ukraine was infuriating, but it’s petty Washington politics to see it as emanating from Mr. Obama’s weakness. After all, President George W. Bush was the most trigger-happy of recent presidents and he couldn’t prevent Russia from invading Georgia in 2008 and carving off two breakaway republics.

Mr. Obama’s diplomacy appears to have worked better than military force would have. Contrary to early expectations, Russia did not seize southeastern Ukraine along with Crimea, and Russian President Vladimir Putin this week called on his parliament to rescind permission to invade Ukraine. Be wary, but let’s hope the bear is backing down.

• The debacle in Iraq is a political and humanitarian catastrophe, but it’s rich for neocons to blame Mr. Obama after they created the mess in the first place. Mr. Obama was unengaged on Iraq and Syria, but it’s not clear that even if he had been engaged the outcome would have been different.

Suppose he had kept 10,000 troops in Iraq as his critics wish. Some by now would have been killed; others injured. We would have spent another $50 billion or so in the Iraqi sands (more than 25 times what Mr. Obama requested for universal prekindergarten). And Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki might have felt even less need to keep Sunnis on his side. Would all this really have been the best use of U.S. lives and money?

Yes, Mr. Obama has made mistakes, especially in Syria, where he doesn’t seem to have  a policy. Partly balancing that, he helped to defuse the Syrian chemical weapons threat.

Look, the world is a minefield. President Bill Clinton was very successful internationally, yet he bungled an inherited operation in Somalia, delayed too long on Bosnia, missed the Rwanda genocide and muffed the beginning of the Asian financial crisis.

As for former Vice President Dick Cheney complaints about Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, that’s like the old definition of chutzpah: killing your parents and then pleading for mercy because you’re an orphan.

In the Bush/​Cheney years, we lost thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, we became mired in Afghanistan, Iran vastly expanded the number of centrifuges in its nuclear program and North Korea expanded its arsenal of nuclear weapons. And much of the world came to despise us.

Blowing things up is often satisfying, and Mr. Obama’s penchant for muddling along with restraint is hurting him politically. But that’s our weakness more than his.

Mr. Obama’s foreign policy is far more deft than the public thinks and he doesn’t deserve the harsh assessments. If there’s one thing we should have learned in the Bush/​Cheney years, it’s that swagger and invasion are overrated as instruments of foreign policy.

Nicholas D. Kristof is a syndicated columnist for The New York Times.



Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here