Obama’s Thin Foreign Policy Gruel: The Taste of Ron Paul Isolationism?
BY Glen Tschirgi
13 years, 1 month ago
A good opinion piece by Rick Richman in Commentary lays out the abysmal performance of the Obama Administration in foreign policy.
Richman criticizes Obama for, essentially, taking a passive approach to foreign policy, particularly events in the Middle East of late:
In one sense, Barack Obama is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. Famous for his eloquence, he has nothing to say about world historical events, emerging after a week in the latest one to announce he instructed his administration to provide “options.” Elected as a clarion for change, he issues a let-me-be-clear statement that the United States has had nothing to do with change sweeping the Middle East. A prior Democratic president wanted every nation to know we would bear any burden to assure the success of liberty in the world; the current president can hardly bear the burden of speaking up about it.
It is a portrait of a president who wants nothing to do with foreign affairs if he can help it. He will stay silent unless forced to say something and do only what the world agrees to do with “one voice.” He appeases adversaries (giving China a pass on human rights, Russia a reset, Iran an outstretched hand, and Syria an ambassador) in the hope the world will leave him alone while he concentrates on domestic affairs, where his real enthusiasms lie.
In this sense, Obama is not a mystery but the logical extension of George McGovern’s “Come home, America” theme in his 1972 presidential campaign and John Kerry’s “Let America Be America Again” one in 2004. They sought to throw off wars in Vietnam and Iraq to concentrate on domestic issues, asserting that using American power to advance freedom abroad was a mistake.
An opinion piece in The New York Post by Michael A. Walsh looks back, after more than two years, at the famous campaign ad by Hillary Clinton about taking the 3 a.m. phone call in the White House. Walsh sums up the dangers of a foreign policy adrift in an ocean of neglect and incompetence:
Once again, President “Present” has signally failed to lead, preferring instead to hide behind a fog of “consultations with allies.” True, on Saturday he finally — in a phone call to German Chancellor Angela Merkel — called for Khadafy to step down, and also took diplomatic action against the beleaguered regime, issuing an executive order that blocks property and other transactions.
Insiders say that Obama hesitated to take a public stand against the doomed dictator for fear that US diplomats might be taken hostage. But a great power can’t conduct a robust foreign policy in fear; that way lies the path of Jimmy Carter, whom Obama is coming more and more to resemble. As Christopher Hitchens pointed out recently, America is starting to look like Switzerland in its international irrelevance. Is that what Obama meant by “fundamental change”?
There are only two explanations. Either the White House, Langley and Foggy Bottom really are staffed by blithering incompetents, hopelessly out of their depth and unable to deal with the rapid pace of developments, or Obama is doing exactly what he wants to do — which is basically nothing.
So now we know where Obama is at 3 a.m. A pretty speech here, a basketball game there, another round of golf, another costly vacation and the endless whirl of White House parties take a lot out of a guy.
The easy thing to do here would be to add a few lines about what a miserable and dangerous presidency we are enduring. Even the usual media lapdogs for Obama are having a hard time spinning his latest antics.
Does this remind you of anyone?
The more troublesome aspect of all this is not what it says about Obama– he is by now a known quantity. The real concern is that these policies by Obama and his Administration seem to be eerily similar to the neo-isolationism brewing in the conservative movement. To take but one example of this, here is Ron Paul, in his own words, in a piece he penned at Foreign Policy.Com on August 27, 2010:
As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. We cannot pat ourselves on the back for cutting a few thousand dollars from a nature preserve or an inner-city swimming pool at home while turning a blind eye to a Pentagon budget that nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.
Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as their own communities crumble and our economic decline continues.
I see tremendous opportunities for movements like the Tea Party to prosper by capitalizing on the Democrats’ broken promises to overturn the George W. Bush administration’s civil liberties abuses and end the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. A return to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of active private engagement but government noninterventionism is the only alternative that can restore our moral and fiscal health. I am optimistic, and our numbers are increasing!
Note that this is almost the entire piece. Leave aside its disjointed and somewhat illogical style. What is Paul essentially saying? The U.S. is “occupying and bullying the rest of the world” and “maintaining an American empire.” He decries a military budget that “nearly equals those of the rest of the world combined.” He makes the absurd claim that all of the money that goes toward the military is borrowed money that could be better spent to keep our communities from “crumb[ling].” Iraq and Afghanistan have been “disastrous” (though he fails to state how or why) and, lastly, he advocates a “return to the traditional foreign policy of active private engagement but government nonintervention…”
This is not just the view of Ron Paul, but the view of other, so-called conservatives like Pat Buchanan and others.
These statements reek of the kind of anti-Americanism that sees our involvement overseas as unmitigated evil; ignore the very real dangers posed to these United States by China, Russia, Iran and a host of non-state terror groups, and; see disaster everywhere we step foot outside of our borders.
In short, this is the very type of thinking that Obama wholeheartedly embraces.
Conservatives need to give careful thought here. However attractive it may be to espouse a philosophy that seeks to return to the 18th century and withdraw into our own, self-satisfied cocoon, it is no different than the temptation to just stay in bed all day and believe that the bills will nevertheless get paid, the house kept up, the kids fed and the job done. It is a fantasy and one that American cannot afford to indulge. As the pieces by Richman and Walsh point out, we have witnessed over two years of foreign policy gaffes, blunders, miscalculations, betrayals and wishful thinking. We are reaping the bitter fruit of seeds sown in those two years and will continue to reap, I fear, for many years to come.
If any conservative finds the foreign policy of Obama to be repugnant and dangerous they should know with a certainty that it is no different than the kind prescribed by neo-isolationists like Ron Paul. Lest anyone think that neo-isoloationism is a fringe of conservatism, consider that Ron Paul was given a prominent speaking role at the Tea Party rally in Washington, D.C. on April 15, 2010. I was there for that. He also spoke at CPAC just a few weeks ago to the delight of ardent supporters.
This childish view of foreign policy must be dispensed with. It will be no less disastrous in the hands of a Republican president (should we be so fortunate) than it has been with Obama. Worse yet, if the neo-isolationists persist in this thinking there is every chance that the conservative vote will be split badly in 2012, ensuring Obama’s re-election.
America cannot afford Obama in 2012 and she cannot afford neo-isolationist thinking under any, other banner.
On March 2, 2011 at 11:58 am, Burk said:
Hi, Captain’s Journal-
I agree with you that foreign policy and foreign relations should not be abandoned. It seems sort of elementary, but with crackpots like Ron Paul running around, perhaps it bears repeating.
However, your equation of Obama and Paul is idiotic- pure rhetorical self-indulgence. The issue is perhaps best framed by asking whether an active and intelligent US foreign policy needs to be run in the Bush (W) mode- invading countries, whipping up domestic fear, and lowering our moral and legal standards to match, so that we can work “on the dark side”- torturing, imprisoning, browbeating our allies, etc. Saying no to that approach doesn’t equate with being a lapdog.
Ron Paul believes in small government- in fact, in a Ayn Randian reversal of government activities to something like the early 1800’s, or perhaps before, since the Louisiana Purchase probably wouldn’t pass muster with him either. Perhaps back to pre-revolutionary times, I don’t know, really.
Obama obviously couldn’t be any more different. He believes in a strong government role, both domestically and abroad. He has pursued friendly relations with many countries, (China, Russia, India, Pakistan), surely in contrast to Bush. But it should be obvious that friendly relations do not equate to no relations. He has upped our commitment to Afghanistan, though wary, as you are, about over-committing in the Vietnam model.
You are right that he hasn’t thrown the US’s weight around, as Bush liked to do. That has made the world a safer place, and may have had a distinctly encouraging effect on the people’s revolutions sweeping the Muslim world. The one thing we constantly hear from those demonstrators is that they *don’t* want US involvement. They don’t want their country to turn into another Iraq, far-fetched as that sentiment may seem to us.
If it were up to me, the one place Obama should have thrown his weight around more is against the Israelis, who are pursuing a self-defeating policy with the Palestinians, and who need a two-state solution asap, for all concerned. Second would be with Pakistan.. I don’t know how to deal with them, but supporting their military has been our most disastrous policy ever.
So the Obama policy may seem less active than the Bush policies that led to so many conflagrations, which you may like from a military perspective. But as Sun tsu said, the leader should be serene and inscrutable. Our geostrategic position is gaining, despite our declining relative economic position.
Best wishes!
On March 2, 2011 at 1:36 pm, Herschel Smith said:
See, I try to run a respectful blog and that’s what happens. Commenters use the privilege of commenting to call the author’s viewpoints “idiotic.”
Just bad form. Period. You are a rude person, and I’m glad that I don’t know you.
The fact that you see Obama’s foreign policy as having made us safer is a testimony to oh, I don’t know what, really, except an odd assortment of thinking that I don’t even pretend to understand. Not even the died-in-the-wool libs actually claim that Obama’s foreign policy has made us safer. Their claims have variously been, (1) Obama is not succeeding because he inherited a mess from Bush, (2) the world misunderstands him, (3) America misunderstands him and doesn’t appreciate him, and so on. But we have here a lib who actually believes we live in a safer world because of Obama.
You can’t make this sort of stuff up.
On March 2, 2011 at 2:28 pm, Warbucks said:
“These statements reek of the kind of anti-Americanism that sees our involvement overseas as unmitigated evil; ignore the very real dangers posed to these United States by China, Russia, Iran and a host of non-state terror groups, and; see disaster everywhere we step foot outside of our borders.”
The above oversimplifies the matter from my perspective. America proves itself as not engaged in Empire Building every time we turn a country back to the local population, of which there are many examples since the end of WWII.
What concerns me is our domestic freedoms are placed at risk with each new threat we address and we do not seem to be able to pull back from addressing new risks of such immense magnitudes.
Combining our domestic economic challenges with our military challenges yields huge public sympathy for Ron Paul’s statement to the effect we are borrowing every dollar from China just to “give” it to other people who profess publicly they hate us.
Wall Street bankers do make money while doing domestic harm. The housing bubble is a priceless experience giving us a good eye opener of how our system failed us and may still be positioned to fail us again. When you combine the complexities of the subject matters (Wall Street, Economics, Housing, Defense Industries, The Military-Industrial Complex, our unwillingness to defuse outsourcing jobs and bring them home)
fears that we are not in control of anything at all, build a platform for the Ron Paul’s of the world.
Paul’s rhetoric creates a vessel of hope for many that saying in effect “By gosh if the system does not listen to our fears, we’ll give you a Ron Paul to punch you in the gut so you have to listen.”
This isn’t empire building as much as it is “The Rise of the Adolescent Mind” Victor Davis Hanson http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022711.html
On March 2, 2011 at 3:22 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Rich,
I understand what you’re saying, but …
See again: http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/07/13/sustainable-defense-task-force/
I think that our unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs far outweighs our military commitments across the globe. But I don’t think the question Glen raises is one of nation-building versus not, but military engagement versus none.
Also see again Robert Kaplan, “Imperial Grunts.” And take note of the fact that between Army, Marines and SF/SOF, we are currently deployed in more than 100 countries across the globe. It has its rewards, too. We avoid the fight in the homeland when it occurs overseas.
Now, for one more reminder. Read:
http://www.captainsjournal.com/2010/09/28/a-terrorist-attack-that-america-cannot-absorb/
Rich, the scenario is real. It isn’t imaginary. I promise, and I cannot say any more about it than that regarding how I know that this is a real threat.
My problem is with Ron Paul’s adolescent trust and naivity. Even Ron Paul doesn’t want to pull a full-on Ron Paul. He doesn’t even come close to understanding the full-on implications of his isolationist policies.
He pretends that the world hates us because we meddle. Thus, if we just come home, the world will love us. Witness the first presidential debates in which he participated, where he was almost crying, “We should talk with these people, we should trade with these people …,” and so on, and that concerning Iran. Iran. I’m not joking. Iran.
To implement Ron Paul’s ideas we would have to unload, radiograph and inspect every crate that comes in through every U.S. port. We would have to profile flyers just like Israel does. We would have to shoot people who crossed our border on sight, just like most countries do. We would have to stop immigration, illegal immigration completely, and even legal immigration at least mostly. We would have to spend trillions of dollars – I said trillions, not billions – hardening our infrastructure to terrorist attacks, roads, bridges, waterworks, buildings, power plants, and on, and on, and on, and on I could extent the list.
I say again, it’s enjoyable to listen to Ron Paul. I like hearing children too. They both make about as much sense on foreign policy. Engagement of the world doesn’t have to involve neo-con nation building. In fact, if you tool around through the archives here, you will recall that I speak out against nation building and population-centric COIN frequently. But engagement is necessary, or we will have to implement draconian measures that even Ron Paul doesn’t currently comprehend.
Rich, you need to be able to wade through the rhetoric with a clear mind. Don’t listen to the first thing that titilates your ears.
On March 2, 2011 at 3:33 pm, jhstuart said:
There is a small but vocal group of people that includes the Ron Paul, Tom Woods, and Mike Church, to name a few, who base their perspectives on government’s limitations as prescribed in The Constitution. While I believe the tenets of that great document are still in tact, albeit abused either through design or ignorance, the world has clearly changed. Execution of Article II by GW was a logical conclusion to the problem we face and consistent with POTUS’s responsibilities.
We no longer have the luxury of withdrawing to the borders of the US since the our economy is a major player in the global market. It is irresponsibly naive to think ‘fortress America’ is a viable option.
I like Paul’s advice on financial matters (aside from national security), but he is out to lunch on foreign policy. This world is an infinitely more dangerous place for both life and freedoms without our continued presence.
As to Burk’s rant, it doesn’t dignify a response.
On March 2, 2011 at 4:20 pm, Burk said:
Hi, Hershel-
Let me see … “what a miserable and dangerous presidency we are enduring” , “eerily similar to the neo-isolationism brewing in the conservative movement”, “the kind of anti-Americanism that sees our involvement overseas as unmitigated evil; … this is the very type of thinking that Obama wholeheartedly embraces”, “betrayals”, “… finds the foreign policy of Obama to be repugnant and dangerous” …
I dislike using strong language. But the vitriol of this post is both out of touch with reality and exemplifies the kind of low political discourse we have come to expect from FOX and similar bile-ports. I was calling a spade what it is. Thankfully, we have an adult in the white house who can navigate the international waters without causing more wars than necessary.
All that said, I agree it is important to point out the dangers of the extreme right wing, in foreign policy, in monetary policy, in regulatory affairs, civil liberties, etc.. the list goes on and on. Thanks!
On March 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Burk,
We are enduring a miserable and dangerous presidency for so many reasons that I cannot list them all here. I do not have time.
I don’t really care what you dislike. What I dislike is commenters berating authors or other commenters. I don’t allow that. We will speak strongly against things that we see as needing us to speak against them. As for those of us who frequent these pages, I have rules.
Obama isn’t “navigating international waters.” He is drowning in them, and apparently he intends to carry us down with him.
On March 2, 2011 at 7:59 pm, Warbucks said:
I for one would like to see the emergence of a bipartisan coalition to bring jobs home. Such a coalition is not necessarily isolationism.