-
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
Imperial Secrecy
-
GEORGE MITCHELL
Trapped
-
NATO
Twilight for Qaddafi?
Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Monday, March 22, 2010 - 9:53 AM
Share
Will yesterday’s passage of health-care reform give a positive jolt to U.S. foreign policy? Is Obama the new “comeback kid,” with new clout at home and a more formidable hand to play abroad? Will he now pivot from domestic affairs to foreign policy and achieve a dazzling set of diplomatic victories? My answers: no, no, and no.
As others have noted before, journalists and commentators find it easy to rely on an essentially narrative style of analysis. It’s easy to tell a story largely in terms of day-to-day events and process, and to frame it all in terms of the rise or fall of different personalities. First Obama can do no wrong, then he’s a failed president, then suddenly he bounces back and is a transformational figure once again. Or Rahm is in, then he’s out, then’s he bigger than ever. Pelosi is dismissed, then she’s hated, then she’s ineffectual, and then suddenly she’s vindicated and revered. Analyzing politics in this way is certainly exciting, but it's not very informative. It also creates the sense that political fortunes are always swinging wildly back and forth, instead of stepping back and looking for the larger structural forces that are shaping events and constraining choices.
My sense is that yesterday’s House vote isn’t going to translate into a lot of new political clout, especially when it comes to foreign policy. Passing the health-care bill may mean that Obama doesn’t need coddle quite as many congressmen on foreign-policy issues they might care strongly about (such as trade policy or the Middle East), and that might give him a bit more flexibility to do what’s in the national interest. But overall, I don’t think yesterday’s vote in the House will have much impact at all.
To begin with, Obama’s No. 1 concern still has to be the U.S. economy. The Democrats are going to lose seats in the midterm elections, which will make pushing domestic reform efforts much harder. It might be tempting to focus on foreign policy, therefore, except that everyone knows Obama’s re-election hinges largely on getting Americans back to work. If the economy and especially employment turn around by 2011 he’s golden; if it doesn’t, he’s in trouble.
More importantly, there isn’t a lot of low-hanging fruit in foreign policy. He might get an arms-control agreement with Russia, but there aren’t a lot of votes in that and there’s no way he’ll get a comprehensive test-ban treaty through the post-2010 Senate. Passing health care at home won’t make Iran more cooperative, make sanctions more effective, or make preventive war more appealing, so that issue will continue to fester. Yesterday’s vote doesn’t change anything in Iraq; it is their domestic politics that matters, not ours. I’d say much the same thing about Afghanistan, though Obama will face another hard choice when the 18-month deadline for his “surge” is up in the summer of 2011.
Passing a health-care bill isn’t going to affect America’s increasingly fractious relationship with China, cause Osama bin Laden to surrender, or lead North Korea to embrace market reforms, hold elections, and give up its nuclear weapons. And somehow I don’t think those drug lords at war with the Mexican government are going to go out of business because 32 million uninsured Americans are about to get coverage. And even if Obama does seize the moment to push Middle East peace talks -- a risky step in an election year -- only a cock-eyed optimist would expect a deal in short order.
So I’d ignore any stories you see about how this "historic legislative victory" gives the president new clout, greater momentum, or an enhanced ability to advance his foreign-policy agenda. Today’s euphoria will pass quickly, opponents at home will regroup, and enemies abroad don’t care. Bottom line: Obama's foreign-policy in box will look about the same at the end of the first term as it did when he took office.
JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images
Well-composed, -articulate and -organized
but surprising from a realist? "looking for the larger structural forces that are shaping events and constraining choices."
What about at least *weighing* alternative possibilities - e.g., as Drezner did, the externalities of the bill itself, or as one might do, at least considering the soft power of an America with health care. I know you'll ultimately dismiss it - and your comments about media construction of narratives resonates well; I liked it - but this seemed like just "the typical realist take." I know you're paid to be the in-house realist, but I might expect something more.
Prof. Walt always writes a very interesting and topical column, which I read to understand how such an otherwise cerebral and rational man can believe and publish the things he sometimes does. In essence, I generally categorically disagree with what Dr. Walt publishes in regards to the Israel-Palestine dispute, but am nevertheless humbled by his FP expertise and therefore take his other work seriously.
As such, I found this piece to be extremely succinct, interesting, informative, and impartial. Frankly, it is the most objective and no-punches-held analysis I have encountered. I commend you Dr. Walt. While I still suspect you harbor some ill-will towards Israel, in the sense that I wouldn't doubt that as an American "realist," you would oppose supporting Israel in a confrontation by rationalizing the reason's for avoiding involvement at all costs -- even if leaving Israel to its own defenses would prove cataclysmic and unsustainable.
** Anon, who I generally agree with, I believe is just slightly missing the point. If Walt had intended to release a technical analysis (and I suspect he might) of the bill's causal impact on American Grand Strategy, he would have. This was meant to be what it was: concise and calculated but wide in breadth.
Clearly, English is not your first language, so I will tread lightly. But any unilateral measures by Israel at this juncture vis-a-vis Gaza is simply laughable considering the state of Israeli affairs. Why does everyone forget what happened when Israel last left Gaza? Give me a damn break, man. I get it, your pro-Palestinian, irrespective of the circumstances. That's fine; I am partial to Israeli security myself. However, at least I veil my partiality with reason, whereas you cannot even produce a cogent point other than "remove the blockade on Gaza." And what has Hamas done to deserve this? Meshal just returned from a "war council" with Iran, Syria and Hezbollah's Nasrallah, portending an even more aggressive strategy against Israel.
Oh yeah; what a stupendous time to make unilateral concessions to Hamas. Oh wait, was my sarcasm too implicit?
I must not have had my coffee and read the wrong post, because I apologize for my abrasive manner. While I disagree with your politics, it was juvenile of me to take such a defensive stance. Further, I just said english wasn't your first language because of the poor structure of that particular post, but in hindsight, everyone makes typos. I meant nothing negative by my comment, as abrasive as it was. The situation in Gaza is a tragedy, but one befallen on the Palestinians due to their own inability to contain rocket fire into Southern Israel. If Hamas had simply waited-it-out, they could have had their own sovereign state to launch attacks into Israel from of their very own! Instead, they took their first tangible opportunity of statehood and turned a shanty-town into a war-zone, by not resisting the urge to indiscriminately fire rockets into Israel. I mean, how does killing civilians for sport entitle a group to statehood, let alone the lifting of a trade embargo and the removal of security check-points.
No wonder this conflict will never end. Everyone seems to have their own "facts." I wish I could just stop caring about the issue; i'd be a lot happier if I didn't fear for Israel's existence every day. Sure, gimme the "qualitative military edge" line. How long can that last?
Israel's sustainability or lack thereof is in large part victim to the actions of others and the unintended consequences of their responses. Simply dropping the siege on Gaza will not all of a sudden convince Assad to make peace with Israel. On the contrary, he'd be in Washington the next day demanding the Golan Heights and all the water rights of the Galilee. I wish I could stop there, but you'd have Hezbollah and Hamas proxies having back-channel talks of their own, demanding land back that they certainly haven't earned through terrorism.
Gotta love intractable and visceral issues that are capable of turning rational people into obstinate lunatics.
How can I coherently absorb the multitude of information out there if I don't edit the facts to fit a simplified narrative model? The narrative style of analysis is the only way to understand our political culture, our history, our economy, our foreign affairs. What conglomeration of facts is understandable without a narrative model? How else can we organize them?
Aren’t the variety of political and economic theories just variations on narrative styles of analysis? Structural forces are just parts of the narrative too.
There's a division of labor going on in the White House
The movers and shakers of foreign policy are Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, both of whom are incredibly powerful in their own right and experienced, realistic, and well respected overseas.
While Obama continues to focus his energies on job creation and domestic policy, the dynamic foreign policy duo might find that things are going more smoothly overseas due to the increased stature of Obama from the halo effect he gets from this health care victory. And Joe Biden might find himself with more time and energy on his hands due to the fact that he doesn't have to do any lifting on the health care bill in the Senate.
Good post.. It's such an important "reality" (wink) check, one which we all know every 'TV pundit' will not talk about.
From now on, I'm going to use the wonderful term 'narrative style of analysis' !
...immigration reform. Yes, the majority of the public doesn't want it, but this only means the majority has yet to come to terms with how our flavor of capitalism works. Meanwhile, Obama keeps scoring smaller victories to please the base on the left while pushing the big ones towards the end of his mandate when he badly needs a re-energized base.
On the international stage, I would like to think he can pull off a good surprise with Netanyahu, however there is so little we can tell from the margins that I cannot pin my hope too high on this. Why am I saying this? Because Obama has obviously gotten an agenda and he seems to be very careful about choosing his next battle.
Winning on health care reform makes President Obama a lot stronger than losing would have.
Foreign policy isn't made in a vacuum. A President's ability to sustain policy over time depends on a grant of the public's trust to him and to his administration to manage aspects of governance it is poorly placed to judge itself. Americans more readily grant that trust to Presidents perceived as strong than those it sees as weak and ineffectual. Spending a year on health care reform without getting anything enacted would have put Obama squarely in the latter category -- a disaster for his foreign policy, and not a great thing for his country, either.
You need to look out:
Please look up Narcissistic Personalty Disorder + Obama
I lived with, was a business partner with , and still working to get away from the damage from 40 of troubles.
if you think hillary is respected overseas they got a room at south oaks for you.didn't they laugh at her in pakistan?biden is shamed in tel aviv?thats respect?i'm sorry'my impression of all our leaders is one of overrated ivy league mediocrity.yuppies who wear their self importance on their phony smiley faces as they strut around the world dictating insanity to other sovereign nations,bribing them to murder their own citizens so we can sleep safely at night.being that our insecurity is definitely increasing their efforts are laughable.what ever happened to live and let live?21st century madness.btw;hillary and gates remind me of the bobsey twins.
if you think hillary is respected overseas they got a room at south oaks for you.didn't they laugh at her in pakistan?biden is shamed in tel aviv?thats respect?i'm sorry'my impression of all our leaders is one of overrated ivy league mediocrity.yuppies who wear their self importance on their phony smiley faces as they strut around the world dictating insanity to other sovereign nations,bribing them to murder their own citizens so we can sleep safely at night.being that our insecurity is definitely increasing their efforts are laughable.what ever happened to live and let live?21st century madness.btw;hillary and gates remind me of the bobsey twins.
Article on 2009 Iran Presidential Election
The definitive analysis of the 2009 Iran election:
http://iran2009presidentialelection.blogspot.com/
You'll see immediately that the statement above is biased, but I stand by it, and stand ready to take on critics.
I hope you enjoy it.
Well these kind of issues are simply creating problems for the Democrats, from the beginning Obama's administration is facing issues. Firstly Democrats come up with bailout plan, criticized too much and then health care bill. Now democrats loosing a lot of seats in midterm elections, so again hard work required and truly focus must on economy. Thanks good morning wishes
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2011
-
Cover Story
-
Feature
-
Think Again
(14)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE