Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Obama's Foreign Policy Report Card
I've been asked to contribute to the latest edition of the Foreign Policy report card on the Obama administration. I gave an A- after the first 100 days. I'm not sure when the whole thing will be published, but here's my contribution:
The administration has moved from the initial period of "reset"
to the tougher period of implementation. A lot of people focus on the
inevitable lack of immediate progress -- some because they want change
and are growing frustrated, others because they oppose his agenda and
seek every opportunity to declare failure. I get frustrated, and I've
been critical of some of Obama's tactics and priorities. But stepping
back from the day to day triumphs and frustrations shows an
administration which has come a long way in less than ten months.
This is a global perspective, but I'll focus mainly on the Middle East.
Obama has transformed the tone and tenor of America's relationship
with the Islamic, downgrading the focus on terrorism and al-Qaeda in
favor of a broadly-based outreach and engagement. The Cairo speech
isn't enough, and the follow-up hasn't been as visible and sustained as
I'd like --- but the fact is that al-Qaeda today is as marginal in Arab
politics as it has been in a decade, and Obama deserves credit for
that.
Obama has done a great job of maintaining his committment to
withdraw responsibly from Iraq despite all sorts of pressures and
temptations to change his mind, and has not overreacted to each day's
new crisis. The engagement with Syria continues. He has chosen to
engage seriously with the decision-making about Afghanistan, and has
run an impressively inclusive and thoughtful deliberation process
despite the impatience of advocates for escalation or withdrawal. And
he's done an extremely impressive job of building a global coalition
towards Iran, and has made more progress on the nuclear front than most
expected.
Obama has been less successful in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian
track. After an outstanding beginning which demonstrated his strong
commitment to achieving a negotiated two-state solution and the correct
decision to call for an Israeli settlement freeze, his team allowed
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to drag the process down into the
tarpits to die. He should have pivoted away from the settlements
battle months ago, and now is paying the price. The administration has
also struggled with Palestinian politics, relying heavily on Mahmoud
Abbas and Salam Fayyad but undermining their legitimacy and failing to
do anything to alleviate the suffering of Gaza.
Nobody expected Obama to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace, end the
Iranian nuclear standoff, or transform the Islamic world in ten
months. And he hasn't. But he's accomplished quite a lot and has set
the U.S. on a far better course in the region. Impatience in the
region is clearly growing, and skepticism is setting in about his
ability to deliver. He may well fail. But for now, I think the broad
contours of his policy are playing out reasonably well. Grade: A-
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
President Obama's Grade A.
For talk and intentions, President Obama deserves a grade A from prof.Lynch, but for political achievements in the Near East, I suppose giving him more than an "Unclassified Grade"; I don't know if such thing exists in the American educational grading system, would be really too over ambitious.
Indeed talk is impressive but actions, still leave a lot to be desired in terms of achievements. The war against al-Qaeda continues just like before his time; whether it is called a war on terror or a war on pussy cats, what's in a name?, while Taliban is still the enemy, and all support still is going to President Karzai. In Iraq, support is still going Mr. Maliki's way, and talking or not to the Syrians, the country remains still under US sanctions, so does Sudan, while at the same time, we are back once more to the one-sided US support to Israel. Money is still pouring into Pakistan like a bottomless pit, while we are frequently reminded that, all options are on the table regarding Iran.
Please note, one is neither criticising those policies nor trying to knock President Obama's public relations skills, moreover, I don't blame Prof. Lynch for giving the US president an A Grade, as didn't the President even get a Noble Prize for Peace. Perhaps had President Obama got a first prize in the Academy Awards for his role as the President of the United States, then perhaps Prof. Lynch as an academician would have awarded President Obama, an A Grade for Drama rather than politics; especially Middle Eastern politics.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Obama has been less
This "outstanding beginning" has the Palestinians now blaming us for the failure of the process to go forward. And why not. Obama's decidedly unnuanced policy emboldened them to impose new preconditions on talks, after years without. Then Obama did what has so far been anathema to Palestinian negotiators - compromise - and the Palestinians are now turning on us. I don't imagine this is playing too well on Al Jazeera or helping with the Arab/Muslim world outreach initiatives.
Also, I have to imagine that the Palestinians share some blame here, but one wouldn't know it from the article, which blames everyone but the Palestinians for their failures.
Years without preconditions?
Years without preconditions? The Israelis have always imposed preconditions: Hamas must recognize Israel, Israel must have a legitimate partner, the rockets must stop, etc. These preconditions were red herrings--Israel did not need anyone's "recognition" to talk peace, Abbas was a legitimate partner, and the rockets did stop in 2008--just before Israel decided it was getting too close to peace negotiations and had to start a war to avoid them. Now, even though the president of the US has demanded a settlement freeze, and despite the fact that the Bush Road Map requires a settlement freeze, and despite the fact that those settlements are all illegal according to international law, the Israeli's spit in our face and continue their criminal activity. Israel has no intention of ever talking peace because the stakes are too high--it would have to give up all the land it has stolen for the last 40 years and finally atone for its numerous war crimes.
The question of blame.
There is certainly enough blame to go around for all parties, but what is really incomprehensible is that, after many weeks of repeating the same mantra by the Washington administration, that the Israeli settlements policy is an obstacle to peace, suddenly and literally overnight, the opposition to settlements policy has become an obstacle to peace.
khairi janbek.paris/france
As Secretary of State, Mrs.
As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton should be playing the role of advisor and implementer, but based on her statements in Israel, she believes she is the executive seat. Indeed, I believe we have a triumvirate (Obama, Clinton, Biden).
Mrs. Clinton has just deceived Abu Mazen by officially backing away from a freeze on Israeli settlements on the West Bank. Netanyahu's gamble to trespass against the freeze the worked.
I do think Mr. Obama's heart is in the right place but he does not "clinch" his rhetoric by deeds. His long view remains something of a mystery to me.
You're way too generous with
You're way too generous with your grading on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Hillary Clinton basically shot her credibility in the foot and finally showed her true colors regarding Israel. Not only did she "disappear" any US demand about a settlement freeze, but she gushed about the "unprecedented" concessions Israel has made--only building 3000 more illegal homes on Palestinian land--thus reinforcing the world's opinion that the US cannot be an honest peace broker in the ME. Clinton is the wrong person for SOS. She has a long track record as senator from NY of trashing Palestinian demands and favoring Israel, AIPAC, and every Israeli war crime. As a "diplomat," Hillary doesn't even understand the concept. She has the same authoritarian insensitivity as the warmongers in the Bush administration. How anyone who publicly mentioned obliterating Iran could be chosen SOS is just outrageous. Ultimately, it is Obama's responsibility and his failure. From day one he has put foxes in charge of all the chicken coops in the US government--from Treasury to Defense to SOS. These people are all proven failures. Their failures are well documented. There is no doubt that they have all contributed to the crises facing us today. Yet Obama has given them all free range to continue their destructive policies. Clinton is just coming onto the world stage as SOS. Her performance in Pakistan succeeded in alienating even more of the Pakistani public and making the US even more hated. Let's see how she can up the ante in the ME.
A-/B+ pending incomplete assignments
That is a fair judgement, I think. Most of his goals are still incomplete obviously, but I've been impressed by his overall vision and flexibility. We are still waiting to see what his plan for Afghanistan is- clearly the biggest decision of his Presidency thus far- but it has been refreshing to see rigorous public debate reach the White House. Because the Democratic Party's coalition would never support open-ended military engagements with the solidarity Bush enjoyed, this might have been unavoidable, but nevertheless it feels like Obama is responsive than ideological. His pragmatism often takes the form of incrementalism, the Iran deal if is completed being a classic example, so I expect new troops in Afghanistan expressly for the purpose of allowing us to leave. A good compromise that will leave everyone unhappy.
I hope that the Israel/Palestine process has Mitchell making more progress behind the scenes. Netanyahu played Obama both ways on settlements, making the case that he was anti-Israel to American Jews while undermining his credibility with Muslims by denying him progress. Bibi got corralled a bit too, though, into that handshake and support- however tepid- for a two state solution.
I think the above bashing of HRC as SOS is unfounded, I think her role is to give Obama room to tilt in the other direction. Whether or not Bibi actually called Axelrod and Rahm "self-hating Jews" there definitely was an attempt to portray Obama as anti-Israel, which is frankly politically unacceptable in this country. HRC's pro-Israel credentials are unimpeachable, and because of their complex history she and Obama can disagree plausibly and satisfy different constituencies.
Tossing off criticism of Gates as SoD is inexplicable. The man has done a terrific job for two Presidents and when he leaves the administration, as he is likely to do after the Midterms, it will be a big loss. Now criticism of Geithner, on the other hand...
It is still early in the game, we'll see how things go over the next few years- but I like Obama's overall strategy.
Joseph Cox
theinductive.com
Personal Disppointment.
One cannot hide one's personal disappointntment at the latest performance of Sec.Clinton. Mr. Netanyahu's offer of continued construction of 3000 housing units for the settlements on the west bank, and the continued construction of government buildings as well as other utilities in Jerusalem, is considerd an "unprecedented concession", while the position of Mr. Abbas; declared on al Arabia Channel only two nights ago, saying " we are not asking for the removal of settlements, not even a permenant freeze on building settlements; just a temporary freeze for starting the negotiations", becomes obtrusive to the peace negotiations?.
It would have been more dignified had Sec. Clinton came out bluntly and said, that the USA stands by Mr. Netanyahu's policies, and the Arabs as well as the Palestinians can either take that or lump it, than saying the unprecedented concession statement, and invoking the fact that the settlements not being a pre-condition for negotiations at Oslo.
Of course the settlements were not a pre-condition at Oslo, I mean I remember that from my olden days, while had Sec. Clinton asked her husband about Oslo, he would have told her straight, that during the Oslo negotiations and in its immediate aftermath, the Israeli government of the time, had imposed a freeze on settlements activities which had lasted for four years, ending in 1997. By whom?. Yes, you have guessed right, by Mr. Netanyahu's Mark I government. In addition, the settlements were supposed to be discussed in the final status negotiations which should have started according to Oslo Agreement no later than 1996, and with a Palestinian state in sight by 1999. It would have been nice had Madam the Secrertary did actually say that. Essentially, one wishes to tell Madam Secretary, that we may all be collectively powerless, but please, don't add insult over injury, because we are no idiots.
khairi janbek.paris/ france
They found a cure for (locker room) cancer!
It's beating the Green Bay puckers! Now, if only the rest of the league could do the same, then we could end locker room cancer in our lifetimes! How about it, cheeseheads? Will you sacrifice for the greater good?
The President Doesn't Deserve this Grade
How can we give a President that has failed to live up the world's expectations an outstanding grade? Sure, many of Dr. Lynch's points are compelling; Barack Obama has eliminated a large amount of anti-Americanism in regions that have historically been turbulent and hostile to U.S. interests. Likewise, engagement with Syria, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Sudan are also noteworthy developments. In fact, the Obama administration thus far has prided itself on being able to talk with rogue nations dangerous to both global security and their respective regions.
But, as I have said all along (I am beginning to feel like a broken record at this point), all of the engagement in the world is not resulting in anything substantial. Iran is still enriching uranium and is stonewalling the U.N.-brokered nuclear deal made in the beginning of October. The situation in Afghanistan is a virtual nightmare; U.S. troops have been dying at an exceedingly high rate; Hamid Karzai is a shadow of his former self; and more Afghans and Pakistanis are looking at the Taliban as a viable alternative to corruption.
Ooh, and did I mention that the President is taking another couple of weeks on his Afghan strategy decision? Can anyone say "media double-standard?" Something tells me that national news sources would be up-in-arms if President Bush conducted a similar wait-and-see period of indecision (luckily, he listens to his military commanders).
With respect to nuclear proliferation, the White House has done nothing on the issue except hold tentative talks with the Russians.
With all of this in mind, a grade of an A- is more than premature; it is downright unfounded. But hey, I guess we should not be surprised that effort is awarded with such high acclaim (remember the Nobel Prize?)
Call me a neo-con or a flaming Bush-supporter if you would like (although this could not be further from the truth). But in doing so, try citing a few concrete accomplishments in the past year that are worth discussing.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
What standard do you suggest?
So, what is the appropriate basis to assign a grade to a sitting president's foreign policy? Let's look at the issues you raise:
1) Anti-Americanism is way down. That would seem a good thing, no?
2) Is it reasonable to expect progress on Iran at this point? I'd say no, given the domestic turmoil there over the summer, so complaining about the failure to achieve anything is like blaming the weatherman when it rains. Since we couldn't reasonably expect Iran to stop enriching, a failure to stop their enrichment is not a foreign policy failure. That is, unless you think there is some way he should have achieved this outcome?
3) Afghanistan is a mess, and got worse as a result of the fraudulent election. What could Obama have been reasonably expected to do differently? Committing to adding troops would not have reduced the violence there, or make Karzai's government less corrupt. Given the complexity of the situation and the real need to figure out what we can reasonably achieve there I rate him highly for taking his time. A week or two, or even a few months, really is not going to matter one whit at this point.
4) Nuclear proliferation talks with the Russians are valueless? How long do you think it takes to work out a new treaty? Do you think it's something that can be done in a month or two?
I'm calling "bullshit" on the claim that Bush listened to his commanders. You need a better education into the conduct of the Iraq war in particular if you believe that. A more accurate statement is that Bush was willing to replace commanders until he found one that told him what he wanted to hear, though that was at least partly Rumsfeld's fault.
Assigning a final grade at this point is absurdly premature, mainly because it is impossible to actually accomplish much given the time available and the issues involved. All you can evaluate at this point is the direction he is taking, and on that basis he's doing one hell of a lot better than his immediate predecessors.
I am not disparaging the
I am not disparaging the process of evaluating the president on what he has done thus far. Read my argument closer if you want to grasp an accurate reflection of what I said; I am simply criticizing Dr. Lynch's assessment of Mr. Obama's performance. In light of what he has actually accomplished, and in accordance with all of the media hype and optimism that immediately surrounded the president after his election victory last November, the grade of an A- is absolutely undeserving.
Of course Mr. Obama has only been in office for the past year. This is not only an obvious statement, but a rather irrelevant one in my view, especially when this is the same president that declared so many ambitious projects during his campaign (resolving the Isreali-Palestinian conflict, Iran, North Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan, the economic recession, etc). Citing the time factor does nothing but provide excuses for his dismal performance on all of these issues.
And according to Obama's rhetoric, progress on the Iranian front should have been made months ago. In fact, your claim that Americans should not expect the Iranian Government to cease enriching uranium should not be directed to me...it should be directed to the White House. From this point on, the main tenant of the Obama administration's Iranian policy is simple; convince the clerical leadership to drop its indigenous nuclear program. So, taking this fact as a baseline, failing to accomplish this task is certainly a foreign-policy failure. Going by your weather analogy, citing otherwise is practically the same as congratulating the National Weather Service for terrible hurricane predictions.
Is it just me, or did Mr. Obama state that he would do anything and everything in his power to stop Iran from acquiring highly-enriched uranium? Don't blame me for being pessimistic on foreign-policy; blame the Obama administration for backtracking on every core issue.
And by the way, I can participate in the "bullshit" game as well. What evidence do you have that President Bush did not listen to his military commanders in Iraq? Because as far as I know, and as far as the U.S. Military knows, the Bush White House provided every possible resource that was asked by American commanders in the Iraqi theater. General Petreaus wanted more troops for counterinsurgency operations, and he got it. The generals wanted more funds to adequately improve the mission, and they got it. At least he is not an indecisive leader trying to appease his political party on national-security issues.
But yet again, I guess we all have a unique perspective on history
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Likely drop in Grade.
I think the A grade for President Obama is likely to drop further. Despite the conciliatory words of Sec.Clinton in Marakesh, and the US offer to boost relations with the Arab and Islamic worlds, through financial assistance to educational, technical, as well as social development programmes, the bi-partisan expected decision at Congress today, to condemn the Goldstone Report, will cretainly burry it if it ever gets to the Security Council, as demanded by the Arab Group in the UN.
For Mr. Abbas, the situation will become more unattainable as time goes on, because he will be in the position of "damnned if you talk" and "damnnedd if you don't", which, I fear will make some in the PNA leadership to consider at one point, a "palace coup" or rather in this case a "governorate coup" to replace Mr. Abbas by the most likely alliance of 'Dahlan-Fayyad'. However, it seems that Mr. Fayyad doesn't command more than approximately 2% of Palestinian support, and though one doesn't know about the extent of Palesitnian support to Mr. Dahlan, but a security man himself with nothing to show for, in his performance against Hamas, I can assume that he commands even less support outside his immediate Palestinian security connections.
Therefore, I think time is running out for the US, to find a solution to the Palestinian problem, which remains the main source for extremism and instability in the Middle East.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Not just in the Middle East, but also with the EU.
Though our conversation is by and large limited to the Middle East, one wishes to add, that the grade "A" has suffered a knock also in Europe.
Resentment towards the Washington administration, as well as policy differences seem to take their toll on Prof. Lynch's grading system. The EU seems to resent the continued attempts of the Obama administration to get closer to China, because they see those attempts being at the expense of US-EU realtions. The Europeans also want a role in the Middle East process, and have shown resentment towards the US domination of the issue.
On the differences side, the EU is extremely reluctant to send more troops to Afghanistan, and they want more money poured into the climate change programmes, at a time when President Obama seems to favour only, a framework agreement on the issue. The EU also, does not like to continue the negotiations with Iran, and have shown that their patience has run out with Tehran.
khairi janbek.paris/france