Obama on US foreign policy: principled realist or failed isolationist?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/29/obama-us-foreign-policy-isis-syria-iraq-ukraine

Version 0 of 1.

Inside the White House, president Barack Obama’s aides believe the history books will ultimately judge his foreign policy more favourably than the action-hungry US media currently writing him off in the first draft. Outside the White House, there are many who are still not sure they are ready to credit him with having a foreign policy – let alone a successful one.

In a week that has seen him sucked ever closer toward military engagement in two countries where he made his name opposing US intervention (Iraq and Syria) and publicly trolled by Vladimir Putin over Russia’s unchecked intervention in a third (Ukraine), Obama let slip a verbal gaffe that suggested even he is not so sure if there is an overarching plan.

“We don’t have a strategy yet,” the president said on Thursday when asked if he needed approval from Congress for strikes in Syria against Islamic State, or Isis, rebels. “We need to make sure that we’ve got clear plans, that we’re developing them. At that point, I will consult with Congress.”

Obama was, just after he said that, due in the White House situation room for a meeting with his National Security Council to formulate the US response to Isis in Syria, so he may have felt his answer was a narrow and temporary one, but the ambiguity didn’t go unnoticed. Many in Washington are now asking what the US strategy is, and not just regarding Isis in Syria, but so many of the other troubled countries in the region where Western intervention has such a chequered history.

Ostensibly, Obama’s foreign policy is the opposite of that of George W Bush. The unofficial White House motto “don’t do stupid shit” refers to his belief that rushing to intervene militarily in the world’s problems is often the worst thing American presidents can do. He gave this doctrine a less profane gloss in a speech to cadets at West Point military academy last May when he emphasised the need to build international coalitions to tackle security threats with political and economic influence instead.

This week’s decision to dispatch secretary of state John Kerry to rally Sunni governments in the Middle East in a new alliance against Isis is the latest example of this, as is Obama’s plan to orchestrate new economic sanctions against Putin when he travels to the Nato summit in Wales next week.

The trouble is not all of America’s opponents seem as willing to play by the rules of this new world order. Economic sanctions on Russia, painful as Obama claims they are, do not seem to be deterring Putin from invading Ukraine. In the time it has taken the US to apply political pressure in Iraq, Isis forces have captured up to a third of the country.

Instead, Obama seems dragged inexorably toward the default position of US presidents for much of the last 60 years: huddled with his generals in the situation room analysing the merits of air strikes over ground engagement in another far-flung country.

Despite initially insisting that the US was not returning to war in Iraq and was merely protecting American personnel in the country, Obama has launched over 100 air strikes this month, targeting everything from dams to Isis artillery pieces.

Despite his insisting no boots would be on the ground, dozens of US special forces conducted rescue missions on Mount Sinjar, where thousands of Yazidis were trapped by Isis.

And despite his insisting last year that intervention against Assad in Syria’s civil war would be counter-productive, the US is now openly considering attacking Assad’s opponents.

The opportunities for immediate escalation in Ukraine are thankfully more limited, with Obama adamant he has no plans to provoke direct military confrontation between Nato and Russia. But a stated US goal for next week’s Nato summit is to “refocus” the alliance on containing Russia in the future and reassuring its eastern European members that the same fate will not befall them.

Obama’s critics at home – especially the more hawkish members of Washington’s foreign policy establishment – believe his slow response to both Ukraine and Iraq has emboldened enemies who perceive him as weak and only complicated the eventual steps the US will have to take to contain such threats.

White House advisers are predictably more charitable, insisting in private that Obama has not received credit for important successes. Putin is more isolated and economically vulnerable than ever before, they say, and is himself the one forced to act out of weakness. In Syria, they point to the successful removal of chemical weapons as a sign that diplomatic pressure (ironically with Russian assistance) was ultimately a more fruitful way of dealing with the threat than air strikes would have been. Iraq remains a mess, not because Obama withdrew too soon or failed to go back quick enough, his allies claim, but because Bush took the US in with no clear vision for what would happen next.

In this context, the president’s foreign policy achievements – including the killing of Osama bin Laden – certainly look less messy so far, but it leaves even his supporters wondering if trouble has just been stored up instead. Is this a principled realist, they ask, buffeted by a challenging legacy and doing just enough to keep the peace, or this is a failed isolationist who has only exacerbated the mess left by his predecessor?