The Foreign Policy Mess, and Yes, Obama Built It

Thanks to the indispensable Instapundit I read an interesting article by David Francis in the "Fiscal Times," on "Why Obama’s Foreign Policy Process Is Broken." I recommend that the six or so readers of this humble blog read Francis's article. There certainly is nothing in it with which I disagree, not much, anyhow. He does an excellent job of succinctly laying out what has happened: The US, under Obama, is reduced to reacting to events; under Bush, the world had to react to the United States. That is a neat observation. It is almost always better to be the driver and not some helpless passenger.

As stated above I do not disagree with much in the Francis analysis of the Obamista foreign policy fiasco. I, however, would note Francis states that the Obama team's,

[L]ack of preparedness has been apparent in recent weeks. The White House took a hands-off approach to the Libyan conflict. It failed to act quickly after reports of the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It allowed Edward Snowden to escape from Hong Kong to Moscow, keeping the NSA leaker in the news for weeks. And it’s dithering on its long-term plans for Afghanistan.

I would argue that the "lack of preparedness" has been apparent since the start of this misadministration's coming to power. Those six readers might recall that on March 16 I wrote (emphasis added for dramatic effect),

[T]he disaster that is Obama's foreign policy, a policy of defeat. In its defense, let me say that to call it a policy designed for America's defeat gives it too much credit. My experience at State and the NSC, has shown me that most Obamaistas are not knowledgable enough to design anything. Foreign policy for the Obama crew is an afterthought. They really have little interest in it; many key jobs went vacant for months at State, DOD, CIA, and the NSC. The Obama foreign policy team is peopled by the "well-educated," i.e., they have college degrees, and as befits the "well educated" in today's America, they are stunningly ignorant and arrogant leftists, but mostly just idiots. They do not make plans; they tend to fly by the seat of their pants using a deeply ingrained anti-US default setting for navigation. They react to the Beltway crowd of NGOs, "activists" of various stripes, NPR, the Washington Post and the New York Times. Relying on what they "know," they ensure the US does not appear as a bully, or an interventionist when it comes to our enemies: after all, we did something to make them not like us. Long-term US allies, e.g., Canada, UK, Israel, Japan, Honduras, Colombia, on the other hand, they view as anti-poor, anti-Third World, and retrograde Cold Warriors. Why else would somebody befriend the US? Obama's NSC and State are staffed with people who do not know the history of the United States, and, simply, do not understand or appreciate the importance of the United States in and to the world. They are embarrassed by and, above all, do not like the United States.

The chaos we see throughout the world results from the Obama misadministration's lack of preparedness and manifest incompetence from the start. Or does it? Either that or we are left with a much darker possibility: This misadministration deliberately has sought to undermine the power and influence of the United States throughout the world. Increasingly I am of the view that there is a noxious mix of both tendencies, or that we have two-sides of the same coin. I might have been wrong when I stated in the March 16 excerpt above that, "to call it a policy designed for America's defeat gives it too much credit." I am reluctantly coming to conclude that the Obamistas do not prepare, and do name inept National Security Advisors and ignorant Secretaries of State and Ambassadors precisely because it fits in with their world view, to wit, that all would be better with a less active, less effective, less influential United States. They want a post-American world.

Make no mistake about it. The economic and political turmoil we see in Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, and increasingly in Latin America (I will post about that in more detail) provides a glimpse of how a post-American world would look. Bush and his foreign policy team were not perfect and made mistakes. When Bush spoke, however, leaders and people around the world knew he was serious. You ignored or defied the American President at your peril. Those leaders might not always have liked what Bush said or demanded, but they certainly did not laugh him off. From personal experience I know that when I would go see a senior foreign official on a sensitive topic and said, "The United States asks for your help on this and President Bush would be grateful" that meant something, in fact, it meant a lot. It was very heartening to see the sort of help we got on a range of issues.

Our stupid leftists at home and in Europe referred to Bush as a "cowboy." Nope. They had their Western character wrong. He was the sheriff, and when the sheriff asks you to join his posse to nail the bad guys, well you have a choice. Bush made clear what that choice was, "You are either with us or you are against us." The Bush administration put together some amazing coalitions. This misadministration has thrown that all away. 

It will take years to repair the damage, if it can be repaired.

WLA