Obama’s Report Card
The terrifying prospect of a Mitt Romney foreign policy has somehow obscured just how badly President Barack Obama has performed. When Obama took over as the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world” in January 2009 there was a war going on in Afghanistan, a lesser war continuing in Iraq, and smaller interventions in Yemen and Somalia. The global war on terror meant that there were also ongoing operations and military assistance programs in places like Colombia and the Philippines. Most of America’s allies were under friendly though frequently despotic control, with the key exception of Pakistan, which was becoming dangerously unstable due to the George W. Bush administration’s assertion of its own version of democracy promotion. Iran was the enemy du jour then as now with an alleged nuclear weapons program that somehow never actually produces a weapon. Obama, in his run for the presidency, had even criticized outgoing Bush for being soft on Iran. Relations with Russia and China were, if not friendly, at least non-confrontational.
So Obama did not have anything like a tabula rasa to build on, but he did have the option of going in a number of different directions. His early decision to begin calling the global war on terror by another name, overseas contingency operations, appeared to suggest that he understood that what had started out as a global crusade on phony principles was essentially both untenable and overblown for political reasons. A little toning down of the overly muscular description of what Washington had been doing was long overdue. Obama’s Cairo speech, which also came early in his administration, suggested that there might also be a recalibration of relationships with the Muslim world. President Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize, hardly merited based on actual performance, was perhaps a suggestion that the world community hoped for a new United States minus its delusions of world dominance.
But then Obama discovered the hubris that comes as part and parcel of the presidency. Someone must have whispered in his ear and told him that America really could set standards for the remainder of the globe, or so it seemed. So let’s see how he did on his foreign policy report card. The easiest grade is for Iraq. Obama wanted to retain a force of thousands of U.S. soldiers in the country after December 2009, but Baghdad refused to agree to a status of forces agreement that would have given the troops immunity from Iraqi law, allowing them to stay on. The Republicans have accused the White House of mismanaging the negotiations leading up to the departure, but it is now clear that the Iraqis wanted the U.S. to go and there was, in truth, no good reason to stay. The Iraqi government is increasingly autocratic, terrorism is surging, and Baghdad is now friendlier with Tehran than it is with Washington, all of which would have happened anyway. So Obama gets a “B” because he did, in fact, remove nearly all American soldiers from Iraq even though he wanted to do otherwise. The fact that Iraq was the greatest foreign policy disaster ever, trillions of dollars were wasted, and 5,000 U.S. soldiers died in a war fought on a lie that also killed hundreds of thousand Iraqis is the fault of the Bush administration, not of Obama.
But then there is Afghanistan. Obama did a Bush by surging a force of 33,000 soldiers to defeat the Taliban in 2010. He had some short-term successes but failed to eliminate the enemy and is now trying to stitch together a political agreement that will save face and enable him to meet the end of 2014 self-imposed deadline for the removal of most American soldiers. Taliban leaders know he has to leave and are waiting him out. They are confident that they will again rule over Afghanistan in about three years’ time. The Afghan adventure will cost the U.S. another cool trillion dollars plus and Obama has pledged to continue a high level of assistance even after the troops leave. Two thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Afghans later Afghanistan will return to the state it was in before 2001. There is a net gain in that the Taliban will not be so foolish as to allow a group like al-Qaeda to set up shop again inside its borders and invite massive U.S. retaliation, but that objective could have been attained in 2002. Obama gets an “F” for continuing the war and even increasing it when he could have cut his losses and gotten out. The end result will be the same either way, and all he did was add to the costs and death toll.
And then there is the war on terror, which includes Pakistan, the war’s epicenter. Pakistan was in terrible shape in 2008, and its situation is, if anything, worse now, with a corrupt government that is also ineffectual and not respected by the Pakistani people. The Pakistanis have also been reviled and punished repeatedly by the United States for various perceived infractions, and their border region and tribal areas have become free-fire zones for Hellfire missiles fired from drones. Obama has launched 283 drone strikes in Pakistan alone, which is six times more than George W. Bush authorized in his eight years in office. This was a deliberate choice on the part of the administration to fight a war without making it look like a war is being fought. Obama believed, probably correctly, that no U.S. boots on the ground would mean no public perception that the U.S. is actually at war, but the damage to the relationship with a destabilized nuclear armed Islamabad has been severe and Pakistan is central to any political settlement to end the fighting in Afghanistan. The death of Osama bin Laden is a plus, though it’s offset by the extralegal way in which he was killed. Overall, Obama gets another “F.”
And then there is the rest of the war on terror. The U.S. is now more heavily involved with advisers in Yemen, has increased its drone strikes and spec ops directed against Somalia, and has advisers in Kenya, Mauritania, and Uganda. Drones have become the weapon of choice in all these conflicts, and their use has now extended to the U.S. border areas and police forces in the United States. One police force in Texas is mounting shotguns and grenade launchers on its drones. The war on terror, under its new name, has expanded even though the State Department’s annual report confirms that there are fewer terrorists running around loose. But the few remaining terrorists have found new places to operate due to the chaos resulting after US interventions: Libya, Mali, and increasingly in Iraq. That certainly deserves an “F.”
Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who might be a worse secretary than even Madeleine “it was worth it” Albright, have frequently criticized Russian internal politics. They have supported the efforts of U.S.-government-funded NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy to teach Russians and other Eastern Europeans about how to behave like good Americans. They have done the same with the Arab Spring nations, leading the Egyptians and Russians among others to demand that the American advisers leave or face the consequences. Washington would not tolerate “foreign advisers” interfering in U.S. national politics, and it is incomprehensible that the United States, which is rapidly becoming something like a national security state, can give advice on democracy to anyone. Russia has also responded to the criticism by refusing to renew Nunn-Lugar, which is one of the few good foreign policy initiatives engaged in by the U.S. Nunn-Lugar funds the dismantling of nuclear arsenals in the former states of the Soviet Union. Give Obama a “D.”
And then there is the world’s most dangerous nation, Iran, at least according to the U.S. media and Congress. Obama has avoided a war, and it appears that he is reluctant to give in to Israeli demands to start one, but he has not attempted in any serious way to negotiate with Tehran and come to a settlement of outstanding issues. Obama has had to bribe the Israelis into not attacking Iran, whereas George W. Bush had sufficient authority to order them not to do so, one of the few areas in which W. outshines his successor. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, has more-or-less promised to do whatever Benjamin Netanyahu wants, so he makes Obama look good. Obama gets a “C,” but if he wants to improve his grade he has to tell Israel to take a hike while admitting that Iran is really not much of a threat before sitting down and discussing Tehran’s nuclear program in an adult fashion.
And finally there are the wars of humanitarian intervention, which is a new category with this presidency, though it is a revival of what fellow Democrat Bill Clinton did in the Balkans. Obama has even created a new bit of govspeak to conceal the reality of what he does: “kinetic humanitarian action.” Libya, the unnecessary war, which fortunately turned out to be cheaper and with less bloodshed than Iraq, was the test run of the concept. The foreign military intervention deposed a dictator but left behind a broken country with a dispersed arsenal that is showing up in places like Mali. And then there is Syria. The United States has no national interest that compels it to encourage regime change in Syria, which will certainly bring about a situation like that in Libya with the added potential for becoming much, much worse. Insistence on interfering in Syria has created something approaching a civil war and has also soured relations with Russia, which opposes intervention. The turmoil could easily spill over into Lebanon and Turkey is starting to panic now that it has foolishly opened Pandora’s box and supported the insurgents. Humanitarian intervention deserves an “F” plus double secret probation.
Obama’s grades are somewhat disappointing: a B, a C, a D, and four F’s. He will likely have trouble getting into a good college, and I recommend that he instead learn a useful skill such as basket weaving or pottery design.
Read more by Philip Giraldi
- A Dream Dies, but the Beat Goes On – October 10th, 2012
- Why I Dislike Israel – October 3rd, 2012
- The Ubiquitous New Yorker – September 26th, 2012
- Rumors of Wars – September 19th, 2012
- Once More Into the Breach – September 12th, 2012
Johnny in Wi.
October 17th, 2012 at 9:46 pm
If Romney wins he will have much less room to operate then Obama. The left will be in the streets and the antiwar movement will be back in action. Romney has been pandering to the neocons on foreign policy. In no way do I expect him to listen to them if he wins. They ruined Bush because he followed them. He does not want to end up like Bush. I expect him to be far more realistic then he is looks like right now. It will take a Republican to make peace with iran just like Nixon did with China. Obama has had his chance and blew it. I am rolling the dice and going with Romney. He won't attack Iran any more then Bush or Obama did. It makes no common sense. Both candidates are terrible but I am willing to go with the rich guy with executive experience. We have had 4 years of the original amateur. He has been terrible on both domestic and foreign policy. Enough is enough.
mickperry
October 17th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Doesn't the US president just manage US foreign policy? He doesn't seem to own or even help form it, and what struck much of the world when Obama took over was how little changed, other than in matters of perception.
(On the subject of perception management, people would do well to dig out Julian Assange's interview with Moazzam Begg to understand just what the effect of Bush's use of the word 'crusade' had on the Islamic world. Obama's Cairo speech was a belated, pathetic and ultimately futile attempt to whitewash over this stain.)
All in all the question seems to come down to whether the US wants to continue on its destructive path with a smart guy or another Bush in a china shop at the helm? Does it ultimately make one bit of difference to the eventual outcome?
Meanwhile the conflating of terrorism with dissent and truth telling has accelerated on Obama's watch and for this he gets an A+, with distinction, and people should be very afraid.
JLS
October 17th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
"When Obama took over as the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world”…"
That is really is a badly outdated expression.
robert emmet
October 17th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
What anti-war movement are you reffering to? Under recent Dem & Repub administrations no effective anti-war movement was visible? The shallow-thinking average American is now part of the herd, i.e. lost and blind and incapable of indulging in any form of critical thinking.
TooTrue
October 18th, 2012 at 12:39 am
The sad part is that on domestic policy Obama's grades are worse. Let me count the "F"s: NDAA, torture immunity, TSA abuses, medical marijuana raids, surveillance state expansion….and that doesn't cover the economic policies that are squeezing ordinary people in order to save the big banks.
Didi
October 18th, 2012 at 4:18 am
I agree with this analysis. There was, however, a little glitch. SOFA-Iraq ended in 2011, not in 2009.
What is happening in Afghanistan is hardly understood by most people. President Obama is attempting to turn a NATO affair into a purely US affair. If he succeeds that "war" will have truly become Obama's war.
Die Wahrheit zählt
October 18th, 2012 at 5:18 am
Mr. Giraldi,
A rare essay from you where I disagree with your conclusions – you're far too generous with those grades!
Outsider
October 18th, 2012 at 7:04 am
Agreed, robert. The only thing that will bring back any mass anti-war movement would be the reimposition of the draft. After Vietnam, however, neither party will go there unless there is another World War.
Outsider
October 18th, 2012 at 7:24 am
I agree with your report card, Mr Giraldi. However, I'm more afraid of what the great flip-flopper might do if elected than I am of a second Obama term. A little voice in my head continues to tell me that Obama, free from the need to campaign again, will revert more to his instincts and do better in a second term. I go back to a column Justin wrote a short while ago in which he said he is 'rooting' for Obama, though not necessarily voting for him. I feel the same way. Since I think it is more important to support third parties than our authoritarian duopoly, I'm voting for the true anti-war candidate, Gary Johnson.
Jan Burton
October 18th, 2012 at 7:54 am
Are you kidding?
Romney has stacked his foreign policy crew with neocon fanatics. He's a good friend of Netenyahoo! And you think he's going to hold off on waging war because the neocons "ruined" Bush?
Bush served two terms, waged two disastrous wars and has now retired to a life of luxury. Why wouldn't Romney want to be "ruined" like that?
Johnny in Wi.
October 18th, 2012 at 9:02 am
I should stick with Obama who has led us over the cliff even worse then Bush? Romney is a business man and these wars don't add up. I expect him to flip flop on foreign policy just like he has on everything else. Of course it's a gamble. But I know what I am getting with Obama, an incompetent amateur. Anyone who appoints Joe Biden as Vice President, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, and Rahm Emmanuel as chief of staff does not deserve to be re-elected.
Iowa Scribe
October 18th, 2012 at 10:41 am
I would argue that the true anti-war candidate was Ron Paul.
While I concur with the grades Mr. Giraldi has given President Obama, I would point out that it was President Bush who praised Ariel Sharon, a war criminal responsible for Sabra-Shatila massacre, as "a man of peace" and scuttled four decades official U.S. policy characterized as "land for peace" when he adopted instead the Israeli concept of "secure, defensible borders" http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2008/04/the-bush-c….
It is difficult to imagine how the USA will ever again have its own Middle East foreign policy rather than one more or less dictated by Israel and its lobby as long as public perceptions and the public discussion are so heavily influenced by those whose first allegiance is to Israel rather than the USA. The front lines of Israel's propaganda war are in the USA, not in Gaza or the West Bank, and the problem is far larger than Israel's illegal occupation of Palestine and its attendant crimes as horrific as they are. The problem is larger, too, than Israel's fear of Iran, as catastrophic as the consequences of yet another U.S. war in Israel's behalf would certainly be.
Paul "Pete" McCloskey once opined that it is almost impossible to over-estimate the influence of the pro-Israel political and media machine. To those with eyes to see, the evidence and scope of that influence is everywhere evident. One especially illustrative example can be found in the prime time television series 24, which first aired on November 6, 2001. The popular spook shop drama spanned 192 episodes over eight seasons, with the series finale broadcast on May 24, 2010.
In considering the social and political impact of "24" as a propaganda vehicle, recall that, in February 2007, The New Yorker magazine reported that U.S. Army Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan (dean of the United States Military Academy at West Point), accompanied by three of the most experienced military and FBI interrogators in the country, met with the producers of 24 to criticize the show for misrepresenting the effectiveness of torture as an interrogation technique, saying it encouraged soldiers to see torture as a useful and justified tactic in the War on Terror and damaged the international image of the United States. Brigadier General Finnegan believed the show had an adverse effect on the training of American soldiers because it advocated unethical and illegal behavior. In his words: "The kids see it, and say, ‘If torture is wrong, what about 24?’ The disturbing thing is that although torture may cause Jack Bauer some angst, it is always the patriotic thing to do."
Joe Navarro, one of the FBI's top experts in questioning techniques, also attended the meeting. He told The New Yorker, "Only a psychopath can torture and be unaffected. You don’t want people like that in your organization. They are untrustworthy, and tend to have grotesque other problems."
The New Yorker article itself echoed many of these criticisms, and went on to suggest that the show's portrayal of torture was a reflection of the political views of its creator, Joel Surnow, an avowed conservative and supporter of George W. Bush. The New Yorker's criticism of 24 and Surnow was picked up by other commentators and bloggers. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, argued that 24 repeatedly used the "ticking time-bomb" scenario "in such a way as to normalize torture in the public consciousness."
(cont.)
Iowa Scribe
October 18th, 2012 at 10:44 am
(cont.)(cont.)
How did Hollywood respond to 24’s persistent effort to encourage torture as US policy? The Hollywood establishment honored 24 with more than 30 major industry awards and award nominations including the Emmy Award (12), Golden Globe Award (4), Screen Actors Guild Award (6), Television Critics Association Award (3), and Satellite Award (9). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_reaction_to…
24 is but one a very great many examples of the insidious, destructive, and socially-destabilizing influence of violent media content in American culture and national life. In 2011, after a mass shooting in Arizona killed six including Chief US District Judge John Roll and wounded 19 including US Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Charlie Rose asked Roger Depue, a 21-year veteran of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a former chief of the FBI's Behavioral Sciences Unit, about the movies and the media and the negative impact of media violence. Depue described the impact of media violence as, "much more profound and significant than a little political rhetoric." http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11401 Depue's observation comes at the end of the interview, at 18.56.
The Brady Campaign's list of mass shootings in the USA – just since 2005 – is more than 60 pages long. It is not comprehensive. http://www.bradycampaign.org/xshare/pdf/major-sho… Reasonable restrictions on firearms sales are necessary. We encourage mass shootings – mass murder – by allowing Hollywood to relentlessly incite violence while we permit psychopaths, who are goaded into deadly shooting sprees by increasingly violent media programming, to purchase semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines, and ammunition without restriction.
America, our politics, our culture, our society, is marinated in media violence and is sickened well-nigh unto death by it. Media violence is the glamorous, seductive, and deadly gift that media moguls give Americans and the world whether we want it or not, because, even though it is destroying much if not all that is good and decent about America, it enriches and empowers a very few even as it serves their pro-Israel and pro-war political agenda. http://www.globalissues.org/article/159/media-con…
When the office is held by an intelligent, courageous, and decisive man of conscience, the power of the office of the POTUS is still enormous, but it pales in comparison to that of those who control the machinery of modern mass media, not least because the important U.S. political campaigns all take place largely in venues controlled or heavily influenced by those who own and operate big media corporations. That influence effectively muzzles American politicians in both – indeed all – parties and limits their ability to serve America's best interests. When an especially courageous anti-war politician, be he a Ron Paul or a Dennis Kucinich, rises in the public's esteem, pro-war media machines and their operatives make certain that he will not succeed.
Philippe
October 18th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
And yet a universal draft would be the only way to stop ceaseless, knee jerk, habitual, imperial wars.
WashingtonDC Goddamn
October 18th, 2012 at 12:45 pm
Come on now, even the entertainment world's celebrity crowd has been co-opted into a pro-war stance. Witness rocker Bruce Springsteen's shameful support for WarBama. Antiwar lefties back in action? Supporters of the Welfare/Warfare/Police state is more like it. Some will protest but they have painted themselves into a corner with their support for Obama's military adventurism.
wars r u.s.
October 18th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
I don't remember bush 2 ordering the israelis to do anything. At least not without similar bribes.
Phil Giraldi
October 18th, 2012 at 3:36 pm
It has been generally reported that he told the Israelis that the US did not desire a new war in the Middle East against Iran and that the Israelis did not dare to challenge his decision, unlike what they have done with Obama.
Jan Burton
October 18th, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Obama has avoided war on Iran and has a frosty relationship with Yahoo.
With Romney at the helm war on Iran is all but guaranteed.
It's not so much a gamble as a guarantee of war.
zebram
October 18th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Good point. If we're so free how come we have a leader?
wars r u.s.
October 19th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I must have missed that. I could have sworn bush/cheney were clamoring for war with Iran and were pi**ed they didn't get their way. I thought bush said as much in that fiction he wrote although I never read a page.
Obama’s Report Card « Counter Information
October 19th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
[...] 19, 2012 “Antiwar ” - The terrifying prospect of a Mitt Romney foreign policy has somehow obscured just how [...]
Sam
October 19th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
The american electorate would be well advised to give Obama a second chance. He inherited a very difficult economy and two wars from Bush II, tried his best and would continue to do so. Romney would outsource his foreign policy to Bibi and the world can not afford a bigger war in the ME. Most people abroad see it this way.
JJJihad
October 20th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
A "C" just for not attacking Iran–yet? This is major grade inflation. To understate, Obama has done nothing to liberate US Middle East policy from the Jews. He took none of the obvious steps to end the idiotic drive to confrontation with Iran. Halt all US aid to the ZE, including the annual 12+ billion in loan guarantees. Tell Netanyahu the US will respond militarily against Israel for an attack on Iran. Tell the whole disgusting criminal state of Israel that it's on its own–that Israel's enemies are NOT the US's enemies. Nope, Obama did what was predictable–avidly joined in the Iranian bashing, war mongering, making extortionate threats against Iran for its exercise of its rights under the NPA, dipping his own hands in the blood of Americans by exonerating the MEK for its terrorist acts on US persons and property. Obama has made a peaceful resolution of the wholly Jewish generated fictional "Iranian crisis" virtually impossible by playing along with the A-holes. That merits an "F."
Why Your Candidate Sucks On Foreign Policy (Part 1: Obama) « Diminished Utility
October 22nd, 2012 at 8:04 am
[...] Obama’s Report Card: Obama did a Bush by surging a force of 33,000 soldiers to defeat the Taliban in 2010. He had some short-term successes but failed to eliminate the enemy and is now trying to stitch together a political agreement that will save face and enable him to meet the end of 2014 self-imposed deadline for the removal of most American soldiers. Taliban leaders know he has to leave and are waiting him out. They are confident that they will again rule over Afghanistan in about three years’ time. The Afghan adventure will cost the U.S. another cool trillion dollars plus and Obama has pledged to continue a high level of assistance even after the troops leave. Two thousand dead Americans and tens of thousands of dead Afghans later Afghanistan will return to the state it was in before 2001. There is a net gain in that the Taliban will not be so foolish as to allow a group like al-Qaeda to set up shop again inside its borders and invite massive U.S. retaliation, but that objective could have been attained in 2002. Obama gets an “F” for continuing the war and even increasing it when he could have cut his losses and gotten out. The end result will be the same either way, and all he did was add to the costs and death toll. [...]
Foreign Policy Evaluation | Questioning Conventional Wisdom
October 22nd, 2012 at 8:54 am
[...] Obama’s Report Card Share this:EmailPrint This entry was posted in Politics on October 22, 2012 by admin. [...]
Generalissimo X
October 22nd, 2012 at 3:43 pm
on a scale of A to F i'd give obama a Q. romney will surely be a Z..which will stand for zero.