Obama's Hammer and Bush's Nails (Trouw,
The Netherlands)
"Who's going to contradict Obama when he says that even the
greatest army in the world isn't the solution to everything? ... 'Just because
we have the best hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail.' ... That's good
news for those who only see the mistakes of U.S. action over the past 60 years,
but such people must also answer this: what other country can stop the even
bigger culprits?"
A graduating West Point cadet listens to President Obama's commencement address, which was likely the most dovish presidential enunciation of U.S. foreign policy in decades.
It's
often said that generals are always fighting the last war instead of the
current one, but they aren't the only ones. Politicians do it too. Everyone
does it. Such is the way the world stumbles from one mishap to the next, getting
itself ever more prepared for the past, but never able to withstand the
present.
Take
Barack Obama, for example. The president gave a speech last week on his foreign
policy which was billed as a "big moment": we were all to be
presented with an almighty reversal of vengeance. If so, it was at most true
only when compared to George W. Bush, who has been gone for six years.
In
front of cadets at the West Point Military Academy, Obama argued that armed
foreign adventures are often counter-productive. Quite correct. It was logical that
he was eager to dwell on the end of missions that Bush had begun: "You are
the first group since 9/11 who probably will not need to fight in Iraq or
Afghanistan."
Hammer and Nail
And
who's going to contradict Obama when he says that even the greatest army in the
world isn't the solution to everything?
"Just
because we have the best hammer doesn't mean every problem is a nail."
Nice!
But when the president added that he sees terrorism as the leading
international threat, and barely said anything about the nasty comeback of 19th
century nationalism (Russia and China being the most striking examples), he fell
flat.
It
seems he's can't stop himself stabbing away at the Bush doctrine, with the
result that his vision is clouded to the newer security issues. If it wasn't,
he would have put far more emphasis on the U.S. military as a counterweight to
the territorial greed of Moscow and Beijing.
It
wouldn't have helped Ukraine, but this point is significant for stability in
Europe. Anxiety prevails in the east, particularly the Baltic States and Poland,
where because of NATO membership, they are entitled to military protection.
These countries want to know if they can count on the United States (NATO is
nothing without the U.S., which the Balts and Poles
know full well). The same is true for countries in the South China Sea who have
signed military treaties with Washington. Are U.S. promises worth anything?
Tired of the
world
That
they aren't sure isn't surprising. Not only because Obama has left
his “red lines” where they were, but because he operates in a climate of
American disengagement. In a long essay in The
New Republic, Robert
Kagan outlines the historical background of this
development: how the reluctant Americans were forced to enter the WWII because
of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and how that trauma laid the foundation
for their continued involvement in the world. How other traumas replaced it:
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. And now how Americans are not only tired of the
struggle, they are tired of the world. Kagan cites
polls showing that more than half of Americans say that the U.S. shouldn't interfere
with the fate of other countries.
That's
good news for those who only see the mistakes of U.S. action over the past 60
years, but such people must also answer this: what other country can stop the
even bigger culprits?
