Learn by Doing: Obama's Radically Different Approach to Use of Force

Foreign policy is the last area one would expect to see a trial-by-error approach by a presidential administration, but as the Muslim world's nations are aflame with fanatical anti-American protests, we're literally living our way through it with President Touchy-Feeling.

The Los Angeles Times reports, "Obama's foreign policy approach: Act cautiously, and not alone":

Obama's approach to the use of force, as seen most clearly in Libya, is the cornerstone of a foreign policy that differs sharply from that of his predecessor, George W. Bush, but also from the paths pursued by recent Democratic presidents.

Leading a nation confronting the limits of its power after two draining wars — and with budget strain at home — Obama shies from the type of ambitious and high-risk missions with which Bush aimed to reshape other countries. Under Obama, the United States has been more picky about missions aimed at humanitarian relief, peacekeeping and maintaining world order.

Yet more than other Democrats of the recent past, Obama has been willing to wield military power. As he nears four years in office, Obama has sent U.S. forces into at least eight countries, from Pakistan to West Africa, often covertly and with little public debate.

Supporters of the administration point to the military intervention in Libya as an example of success for the Obama doctrine, despite the storming of the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi last week. While agreeing that the deaths there of the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans show that Libya is still threatened by Islamist radicals and other armed groups, they say the radicals remain weak and that Libya has made a promising start after decades of dictatorship.

Obama's critics, however, say that by putting the U.S. more often in a supporting role, he has abandoned America's commitment, as President Kennedy put it, to "pay any price, bear any burden" to assure the "survival and the success of liberty." In the presidential campaign, Republicans have cast Obama as feckless and reactive, too willing to be shaped by events, rather than taking charge and clearly leading the nation and its allies.

Obama's record of incremental steps is seen by supporters as patient determination and by critics as timidity.

He has had no grand foreign policy triumphs, but neither has he had any major disasters. He has made no breakthroughs in trouble spots such as Iran, North Korea and Cuba. But the covert war against militants from Pakistan to North Africa succeeded in killing Osama bin Laden and dismantling much of Al Qaeda's leadership.

As a candidate in 2008, Obama promised to engage with regimes that Bush had shunned, rekindle the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and intensify the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan that he believed Bush had neglected.

By his third year, he had been forced to adjust his approach on almost every front.

Obama's approach to the Middle East shows the clearest shift from the idealism of his 2008 campaign to the incremental realpolitik that has characterized much of the last two years.

When Iran's leaders refused his outstretched hand, Obama helped organize a campaign of unprecedented international sanctions that has battered the Iranian economy. Officials remain hopeful that the sanctions — backed by the threat of force — may prod Tehran into agreeing to limits on its disputed nuclear program.

On Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Obama tried to restart the process by pressing Israel for concessions on settlements. That plan quickly collapsed, forcing him to backtrack and essentially give up for now on substantive progress. The experience soured relations between the president and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but overall cooperation between the two countries has continued.

When the "Arab Spring" uprisings began early in 2011, Obama promised U.S. help for any country struggling toward democracy. But he didn't abandon Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Washington's authoritarian ally, until it appeared clear that Mubarak was on his way out. Obama subsequently opened ties to Islamists who won election in Egypt, yet he kept $1.5 billion in aid flowing to the generals of the old regime even as they harassed U.S.-funded pro-democracy groups in the country.

All sides in Egypt ended up feeling somewhat alienated, but the U.S. avoided a definitive rupture with Cairo as power changed hands.

In recent months, as Syria careened toward chaos, Obama resisted pressure to provide arms to the rebels. Instead, the administration encouraged Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other neighboring states to cooperate to undermine Bashar Assad's regime. The results of that strategy remain to be seen.

Obama similarly switched course on Afghanistan as it became clear that he lacked a reliable government partner there. He lowered his sights regarding the change the U.S. could bring to that country, ordered military withdrawal by the end of 2014 and began seeking a power-sharing deal with the Taliban and neighbors...

RTWT.

IMAGE CREDIT: The Looking Spoon.