Barack Obama and the "New" Foreign Policy - In The Right Direction But Fraught With Problems

With all the news coverage the past few days revolving around the tragic collapse of the bridge in Minneapolis, it would certainly not surprise me if no one heard that Barack Obama recently made a very big foreign policy speech. In this speech he outlined his general views and, often as well, specific proposals and programs.

There has been a lot of controversy in the wake of Obama's big foreign policy speech, from both Republicans and Democrats, and among Democrats, and among liberals. The speech has highlighted something we already knew: Even among Democrats, even among liberals/progressives and those further Left...there is difference over what is appropriate foreign policy, what is legitimate and illegitimate actions and language. Up until know those differences have more or less been subsumed by our shared disgust and opposition to the Bush foreign policy and to Republican policies in general. But, I'll get into all that later. First the speech itself.

Overall I think the speech marks a positive departure from what goes on for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' foreign policy. If you remember the tenor of my last post, I have a very low regard for what passes for 'conventional wisdom' and 'normal' in Washington. This 'wisdom' has brought us much problems including the disasters of the pass 6 years.

He strikes a very positive tone, and highlights a strategy against terror that is more pragmatic, more sensitive to address underlying causes of terrorism, and one which can lead us down a road of gaining back our international prestige. All without having to sacrifice and undermine the very values that we have historically stood for. But there are some problems, and I will deal with those later on in the post.

It is quite long (really long) so I'll provide relevant snippets and add my comments:

Obama's Full Terrorism Speech:

What we saw that morning forced us to recognize that in a new world of threats, we are no longer protected by our own power. And what we saw that morning was a challenge to a new generation. [9/11]

The history of America is one of tragedy turned into triumph. And so a war over secession became an opportunity to set the captives free. An attack on Pearl Harbor led to a wave of freedom rolling across the Atlantic and Pacific. An Iron Curtain was punctured by democratic values, new institutions at home, and strong international partnerships abroad.

After 9/11, our calling was to write a new chapter in the American story. To devise new strategies and build new alliances, to secure our homeland and safeguard our values, and to serve a just cause abroad. We were ready. Americans were united. Friends around the world stood shoulder to shoulder with us. We had the might and moral-suasion that was the legacy of generations of Americans. The tide of history seemed poised to turn, once again, toward hope.

But then everything changed.

We did not finish the job against al Qaeda in Afghanistan. We did not develop new capabilities to defeat a new enemy, or launch a comprehensive strategy to dry up the terrorists’ base of support. We did not reaffirm our basic values, or secure our homeland.

Instead, we got a color-coded politics of fear. Patriotism as the possession of one political party. The diplomacy of refusing to talk to other countries. A rigid 20th century ideology that insisted that the 21st century’s stateless terrorism could be defeated through the invasion and occupation of a state. A deliberate strategy to misrepresent 9/11 to sell a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Here, Obama is setting up the difference between his foreign policy, and George Bush's foreign policy and its mistakes. He highlights how we took our eye off al-Qaeda and thus is implicitly informing us that his own policy against terrorism will focus on them and that it will be - unlike Bush's strategy - a comprehensive approach (military, economic, diplomacy, ideology, and sources of terrorist recruits).

Here I can certainly agree with Obama and the general idea behind his policy. Plus I like the optimistic tones he strikes, and how he speaks about the historical examples of the US making good out of earlier bad events. This to contrast between the deepening mess Bush has of the horrible events of 9/11.

What’s more, in the dark halls of Abu Ghraib and the detention cells of Guantanamo, we have compromised our most precious values. What could have been a call to a generation has become an excuse for unchecked presidential power. A tragedy that united us was turned into a political wedge issue used to divide us.

It is time to turn the page. It is time to write a new chapter in our response to 9/11.

He's calling for a change to what is now deemed "acceptable"

I love this following excerpt:

Just because the President misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them. The terrorists are at war with us. The threat is from violent extremists who are a small minority of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims, but the threat is real. They distort Islam. They kill man, woman and child; Christian and Hindu, Jew and Muslim. They seek to create a repressive caliphate. To defeat this enemy, we must understand who we are fighting against, and what we are fighting for.

Unlike what passes for "knowledge" especially among Republicans and hawkish figures, Obama shows a much more profound and deeper understanding of the complexities of the terrorism problem. He doesn't simply lump in all Muslims as terrorist, or couch our battle in terms of a clash of civilization like others are prone to do. He understands that most Muslims are not our enemies, and are far from being natural adversaries of our.

In addition, he shows his understanding of what it takes to fight this battle: Not only must we know our actual enemies, we have to know what it is we fight for. It does us no good to kill a terrorist and sacrifice all that defines us as Americans. So far so good.

The President would have us believe that every bomb in Baghdad is part of al Qaeda’s war against us, not an Iraqi civil war. He elevates al Qaeda in Iraq – which didn’t exist before our invasion – and overlooks the people who hit us on 9/11, who are training new recruits in Pakistan. He lumps together groups with very different goals: al Qaeda and Iran, Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents. He confuses our mission.

And worse – he is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Ladin and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.

By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give them in 2002: a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

Precisely!! Bring the focus back on those who pose us a risk. And he makes the point I must have made so many damn times; Our bad policies, our invasion of Iraq, our general reactions to the terrorists have done nothing but play into the hands of the terrorists.

We played into their hands by reacting like they wanted us to react and getting ourselves bogged in a disaster that increases terror recruitment, lowers our image and prestige, alienates us from our allies, and damages our military. This is the war they wanted, and that is the war Bush gave them.

Good, good. Lets keep going

Summary of Obamas '5 element comprehensive strategy' to terrorism

The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (snip)

...ending this war will be my first priority when I take office.

There is no military solution in Iraq. Only Iraq’s leaders can settle the grievances at the heart of Iraq’s civil war. We must apply pressure on them to act, and our best leverage is reducing our troop presence. And we must also do the hard and sustained diplomatic work in the region on behalf of peace and stability.

In ending the war, we must act with more wisdom than we started it. That is why my plan would maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq. But we must recognize that al Qaeda is not the primary source of violence in Iraq, and has little support – not from Shia and Kurds who al Qaeda has targeted, or Sunni tribes hostile to foreigners. On the contrary, al Qaeda’s appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence.

Great position but the language is vague. What does he mean by "maintain sufficient forces in the region to target al Qaeda within Iraq"? It can be construed to mean that he plans to maintain reduced amounts of troops in Iraq. I also noticed that he says our best leverage in Iraq was to "reduce our presence" in Iraq. Not end our presence...

Troubling because when do we leave? On the one hand he shows he understand that we enable al-Qaeda to survive in Iraq due to our very presence in Iraq, but then he proposes keeping some troops (reduced numbers) in country.

WTH!? First off: How much is "reduced troop presence"

Second: It doesn't matter, it is a foolish policy. A reduced presence will not mollify the Sunni insurgents, nor the Shia militias who want the US to completely withdraw. They have no love for al Qaeda and will eliminate them once we leave, but they also want us completely out. This from one of the temporary "allies" we have among the Sunni:

"After we are done with al Qaeda," Abu Ali says, "we will ask the Americans to withdraw from Iraq. ... If they do not withdraw, there will be violations and the American army will be harmed."

He adds, "Especially after the help the U.S. Army has provided us, we would like them to go home as our friend, not enemy."

Obama understands our presence enables al-Qaeda in Iraq but his plan to reduce troop levels will not placate the Sunnis, nor the Shias. They will continue to attack them until there is no presence. Except, the reduced troop levels will have the unintended consequence of making US troops more vulnerable. They are less numerous, easier to kill, and the reduced numbers make their mission harder because they wont have the numbers to go on offense, nor the numbers to withstand the attacks that are sure to keep coming from Sunni insurgents, Shia militias, and al-Qaeda extremists.

Obama seems to have an...'incomplete' understanding of the dynamics of Iraq. He's close, but he makes one fundamental error in assuming that Sunnis and Shias will be satisfied with the US simply reducing troop levels. They wont. This one error in position has significant consequences to the soundness of his Iraq strategy.

So far, I don't like his policy stance as it regards Iraq. That is one very big strike against Obama.

Afghanistan & Pakistan

As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO’s efforts against the Taliban.

He does connect removing troops from Iraq with increasing them in Afghanistan. He makes the point elsewhere that we took our eye of fighting in places that really had to do with the 'war on terror' by going to Iraq and neglecting to consolidate our victory in Afghanistan.

We must not, however, repeat the mistakes of Iraq. The solution in Afghanistan is not just military – it is political and economic. As President, I would increase our non-military aid by $1 billion. These resources should fund projects at the local level to impact ordinary Afghans, including the development of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

Good. Nice sounding proposal.

This next part has caused much controversy:

But that is no excuse. There must be no safe-haven for terrorists who threaten America. We cannot fail to act because action is hard.

As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.

Careful, Obama. It is indeed true that the Taliban and al-Qaeda use the tribal regions of Pakistan as base.

I understand and sympathize with attempts to coerce Pakistani Pres. Musharraf to do more but it's not that simple. President Musharraf's grip on power is looking less and less secure with every passing day.

Musharraf, an army general who seized power in 1999, is embroiled in the toughest period of his rule. He faces intensifying pressure to restore democracy, widespread anger at last month's deadly military raid on Islamabad's Red Mosque, and surging pro-Taliban violence.

He's facing political protests and pressure from both secular and religious elements in his country. He is posed with the very real danger of militant Islamic groups.

Considering that Pakistan is a nuclear power and that it would be a disaster to instigate chaos in which, who knows, one of those nukes might get "lost", its best we be more cautious with how we deal with Pakistan.

Frankly its one of the few times I'm liable to agree with Bush that we not try and rock the boat too much and end up bringing Musharraf flying overboard. If we put too much pressure on Musharraf he might:

1) Say "fuck you" to the US. This is too much hassle. I'm sure he's get a little domestic boost for that.

2) Cave and crackdown harder in Northern Pakistan's tribal regions and cause a big shitstorm as the well armed Tribes fight Pakistan security. Further weakening Musharraf and sowing chaos in which pro-Taliban and pro-al-Qaeda elements can grow. Screw it...chaos in general in not good.

Finally, "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will."

In theory, I agree with this but...you just do NOT say this, nor do you make this a part of your big foreign policy speech. Although he caveats it by saying 'if we have good Intel AND Musharraf wont act,' it is essentially saying 'we will unilaterally violate the sovereignty of another nation when we have to'

That is why there has been so much controversy within the Left: Many see this as a continuation of Bush's own foreign policy of unilateral preemptive strikes.

Such strikes are indeed usually not wise, but I personally cannot say that it is a bad thing by its very nature. I mean, everyone was agreed that Afghanistan was justified; they not only sheltered al-Qaeda but refused to hand over Osama bin Laden after 9/11 when the US asked. The US striked. What if we had to do it alone or unilaterally? I say we still should have gone given the circumstance.

But, and this is a BIG but...It's usually not wise or advisable. And in the particular case of Pakistan...I do not think its wise to launch any action in northern Pakistan. The potential damage resulting from such a strike would far out weigh any gain from rounding up or killing a few terrorists (even top terrorists).

And certainly you don't freakin talk about it in public you moron! How will Pakistanis react?

Well here are some reactions:

Fri Aug 3, 9:13 AM ET

Pakistani protesters burn a U.S. flag to condemn U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama's remarks, Friday, Aug. 3, 2007, in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistan criticized Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes inside this Islamic nation to root out terrorists. (AP Photo/Shakil Adil)

Obama talks about a new foreign policy, about rebuilding our alliances, about reclaiming the respect of people around the globe, about reducing anti-Americanism; all laudable words.

But he undercuts those very goals by making these remarks. He has a great vision but he needs to stop proving he is "tough", he needs to stop trying to throw the "moderate" and "centrist" pundits and talking-heads a bone with "see, I'm serious too" on it.

Stop it!! You have a great vision, and you have the foundations for a very great foreign policy and terrorism policy that in many ways reflects my own. But there are a few significant differences that seriously undermine and weaken your terrorism policy.

That's more or less the extent of my commentary on his speech, and I've hardly scratched it. But here is a few interesting proposals that highlight what I believe are good aspects of his terrorism policy:

As President, I will create a Shared Security Partnership Program to forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote islands of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing. And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.

Interesting idea. Promotes increasing cooperation with other nations (good) to better deal with terrorism (good). I think the best part is the focus on doing so without resorting to brutality, noting quite correctly that brutality breeds terror. Brutality is indeed counter-productive, a concept that is usually lost on neoconservatives and other hawks who think the answer is always to "get tough" and put the fear of God into them.

Consider Republican Presidential hopeful Tom Tancredo and his plan to deter terrorism by holding the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina under a threat of nuclear blackmail.

Seriously....No, SERIOUSLY! But more on that an more in my next post

Diplomacy

And I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.

It’s time to turn the page on the diplomacy of tough talk and no action. It’s time to turn the page on Washington’s conventional wisdom that agreement must be reached before you meet, that talking to other countries is some kind of reward, and that Presidents can only meet with people who will tell them what they want to hear.

President Kennedy said it best: “Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate.”

Any casual reader of my posts knows that I agree 100% with this. I've railed against the idea that negotiations are rewards, and just recently I applauded Obama's stance that he would negotiate with rival nations without precondition. You shouldn't expect to get everything you want BEFORE talks...what kind of incentive do you give for nations to concede anything to the US? And they wonder why Bush diplomacy has been so unsuccessful!

We know where extremists thrive. In conflict zones that are incubators of resentment and anarchy. In weak states that cannot control their borders or territory, or meet the basic needs of their people. From Africa to central Asia to the Pacific Rim – nearly 60 countries stand on the brink of conflict or collapse. The extremists encourage the exploitation of these hopeless places on their hate-filled websites. (snip)

We do need to stand for democracy. And I will. But democracy is about more than a ballot box. America must show – through deeds as well as words – that we stand with those who seek a better life. That child looking up at the helicopter must see America and feel hope.

As President, I will make it a focus of my foreign policy to roll back the tide of hopelessness that gives rise to hate. Freedom must mean freedom from fear, not the freedom of anarchy. I will never shrug my shoulders and say – as Secretary Rumsfeld did – “Freedom is untidy.” I will focus our support on helping nations build independent judicial systems, honest police forces, and financial systems that are transparent and accountable. Freedom must also mean freedom from want, not freedom lost to an empty stomach. So I will make poverty reduction a key part of helping other nations reduce anarchy. (snip)

I will also launch a program of public diplomacy that is a coordinated effort across my Administration, not a small group of political officials at the State Department explaining a misguided war. We will open “America Houses” in cities across the Islamic world, with Internet, libraries, English lessons, stories of America’s Muslims and the strength they add to our country, and vocational programs. Through a new “ America’s Voice Corps” we will recruit, train, and send out into the field talented young Americans who can speak with – and listen to – the people who today hear about us only from our enemies.

Highlights are more profound understanding about terrorism and root causes of it. Terrorism requires a comprehensive approach that requires us to address the environments in which extremism grows.

Final Thoughts

There is much much more. Please, give the whole speech a read.

The fact is that I agree with Obama on the vast majority of his positions and policies, but there are a few significant differences of opinion that still keeps me 'undecided' as a voter. Hopefully he can clarify his positions better and also change them around in a manner so that we are not in disagreement on such fundamentally important issues such as Iraq.