Libya, Syria expose Obama’s foreign policy incoherence

Teddy Roosevelt famously talked softly but carried a big stick. President Obama does the opposite: He talks big but carries a stick that is steadily getting softer. And sometimes he doesn’t say or do anything at all, which is the worst possible situation. Consider Obama’s declaration that Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi “must go.” But after making a clear statement of aggressive intent, Obama refused to apply sufficient U.S. military power to make the dictator’s departure a reality. Then following several weeks of bloody fighting in which neither side was able to push through to final victory, it becomes evident that NATO, which assumed direction of the military effort against Gadhafi, lacks the will and resources to get the job done. So Obama decides to deploy two U.S. Predator drones. The Predator is lethal, being able to detect critically important targets, then destroy them without ever being heard or seen by the enemy. But deadly as the Predator is, it is no substitute for the systematic application of U.S. air power against what remains of the Gadhafi loyalists. Consequently, either the stalemate will go on, with a slow but steady loss of life among rebels and civilians, or Gadhafi will break through, slaughter his opposition and re-establish his dictatorial power.

Meanwhile, the situation in Syria has become a nightmare, with the security forces of dictator Bashar al-Assad slaughtering protesters in the streets. Nearly 300 protestors have now been killed, with a flood of grisly amateur videos of the clashes exhibiting the horrendous lethality of modern sniper weaponry. Obama’s response has been virtual silence and inaction. Yes, he condemned the shooting of protestors, but, as the Washington Post pointed out in calling his response “shameful,” none of the usual diplomatic actions have been taken to put pressure on Assad. Since Syria is Iran’s closest ally, Obama’s silence on the Syrian crisis chillingly recalls his utter lack of interest in aiding Iran’s democratic protesters two years ago.

But we cannot separate Obama’s conduct in these two crises from the overall context of American military capabilities. Our forces are involved in an escalating conflict in Afghanistan and remain significantly committed in Iraq. Plus, Obama has already killed or sharply cut back development and deployment of critically needed new weapons such as the F-22 stealth fighter, and promises to reduce our military forces even more if he is elected to a second term. That’s the fundamental incoherence at the heart of Obama’s foreign policy: Only a superpower can declare that a dictator like Gadhafi must be ousted, then make it stick. To do that, however, the superpower must possess unchallenged military capabilities; otherwise, it invites scorn from U.S. allies and boldness from our enemies. Obama must decide which stick he will carry for America.

Related Content