Obama’s Disastrous Foreign Policy

This past week, the Obama administration made a surprising announcement: it is authorizing the use of American forces in Syria, the dreaded “boots on the ground.” The news is especially surprising considering that the administration had previously criticized Republicans for advocating for such an action. But this is merely the latest in a long series of foreign policy flip-flops from Obama, with each consecutive one exposing an administration that is truly clueless on foreign policy.

It is almost impossible to list all of the blunders this administration has made abroad. Certainly, there have been some successes, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden and the negotiation of the Trans Pacific Partnership – although the latter is opposed by many within the president’s own party. But to say that these successes outweigh the failures is unreasonable. At nearly every juncture, Obama has consistently underestimated our enemies and treated our allies poorly. When he was elected, the hope was that Obama would improve the negative views many countries had of the US. But as compared to the start of his term in office, we are worse off now than before. Our allies like us less and our enemies no longer fear us.

Nowhere is this failure more clear than in Syria. In 2012, Obama famously referred to ISIS as “a JV team.” Three years later, this characterization looks insane. ISIS has captured and beheaded three American citizens, to say nothing of the havoc they have unleashed on the Middle East, destroying archeological treasures and executing innocent civilians. Obama was clearly ill-prepared for such an occurrence, and has made no effort to correct for his lack of preparation, as the administration still lacks a coordinated plan to deal with ISIS.

But Obama’s failure in Syria goes beyond his failure to deal with ISIS. Obama highlighted his lack of decisiveness with his “red line” declaration. After declaring in 2012 that use of chemical weapons would lead to US action in Syria, he backtracked once he was presented with evidence that chemical weapons had in fact been used on civilians. In a move that should have surprised no one, he went back on his earlier words and instead went to Congress, which refused to authorize US action. With the whole world watching, Obama bumbled like an incompetent buffoon, incapable of sticking to his word or controlling others. The administration’s cluelessness opened the door for Russia to step in and negotiate a chemical weapons deal, boosting its own international standing at the expense of the US.

Today, even after the United States has spent millions on training rebels and executed multiple bombing campaigns, there is no clear solution to the situation in Syria. Of course, Obama could have avoided much of this. In 2012, Russia offered a peace deal that would have involved Assad stepping down. But the deal was opposed by the administration and ultimately failed, allowing Assad to remain in power. Since the deal fell apart, he has killed thousands of innocent people. While it may seem surprising to some that the Russians would offer such a deal, it is not out of line with their interests. Although Russia does make a lot of money from arms sales to Syria, its main interest in the country is a strategic and military one. The Russians maintain a naval base in Tartus, a Syrian city on the Mediterranean coast. The city is key to the Russians as it allows them to maintain a naval presence in the area. As long as they could keep the base, they would have been fine with a change in leadership. The administration was unable to realize this, and thus passed up a golden opportunity to prevent unnecessary death and potentially stabilize Syria.

Obama, it seems, has made a habit of underestimating Russia. Leading up to the 2012 election he criticized Mitt Romney for calling Russia “our biggest geopolitical foe.” Three years later, Romney’s then-maligned remark looks prescient. Beyond their aggressive actions in Syria, Russia annexed Crimea and the US could only offer marginally effective sanctions in response. Russia has been able to consistently achieve its foreign policy goals at the expense of the US. It is clear that Putin has no fear of US retaliation.

Just as Obama mocked Romney for identifying Russia as a threat, so too did he criticize Romney for wanting to leave troops in Iraq. It seems, however, that Obama did not heed his own advice, as there are still currently US troops stationed in Iraq. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration supported a policy of getting out as quickly as possible, with no actual thought as to what the consequences of such actions would be. Massive departures of US troops without any plans for the handing over of power have led to disaster in both countries and have forced the administration to leave troops abroad, despite their desire not to. Obama was motivated by a naive desire to end war at all costs for domestic popularity. He failed to consider exactly why we were there and what we were doing, and thus failed to see the consequences of decreasing troop numbers.

The running theme through all of Obama’s foreign policy has been the desire for America to take on less of a role in world affairs. He hates the idea of America policing the world and as a result has been hesitant to involve America in the affairs of others. The problem with this approach is that it leaves a hole for someone else to fill, and that hole has increasingly been filled by Russia. Putin has greatly expanded Russian power to worrying degrees as the US slowly loosens its grip over the Middle East. Obama has consistently shown himself to be incapable of dealing with foreign leaders and making the right choices. Whoever the next president is, he or she will face an uphill battle to correct the foreign policy mistakes of the Obama administration.