International Security and Obama's Folly

"It is undeniable that if everyone really desired a "world-state" or "collective security". . . it would easily be attained; and the student of international politics may be forgiven if he begins by supposing that his task is to make everyone desire it. It takes him some time to understand that no progress is likely to be made along this path and that no political utopia will achieve even the most limited success unless it grows out of political reality."

-Edward Carr


There is a naivety prevalent in the Obama administration in regard to its foreign policy. The U.S. approach has seen little structural or substantive change in the past year, instead Obama has appeared centrally focused on changing the subjective posture to one of more empathy and soft persuasion. His speeches have promised to change our foreign policy to a more egalitarian, fair, and accommodating approach that will help persuade the world of our pure intentions and the virtues of our vision of international peace & security. So far, this resulted in the U.S. withdrawal of the missile defense shield from Eastern Europe, a re-run of pointless diplomatic discussions with Iran that have again led to nothing.

What are the positives for the United States? The people of Latin America, Europe, and the Middle East now have a more favorable opinion of the United States. This is exactly what Obama and the liberal democrats wanted to achieve with the new administration. What has it achieved substantively? Absolutely nothing, in fact it is giving aggressive and tyrannical states more room to manuever. The public opinions in foreign countries have almost no impact on international relations.

Obama has made the primary mistake described by Carr: he believes it is his role to make everyone desire a world state or collective security system. The problem is obvious: he can't and a good part of the world still doesn't want it. Iran is still working towards enriched uranium and eventually nuclear weapons. Russia still is doing business with them and China has indicated a lack of interest in sanctions; the most popular bullet of the current collective security regime. Venezuela still openly anti-American. Al Qaeda is still trying to attack the United States. China is still in the midst of a major defense spending spree. Ukraine has switched from pro-NATO to pro-Russia.

The United States is getting weaker relative to our closest rivals: China, India, and to a lesser extent Russia. They are all adjusting their policies in preparation for a world where the U.S. is not the lone superpower. Given the events of the past two years, this is probably prudent. But as Americans this should cause a healthy level of alarm.

But what will happen in 2012? When American troops are mostly out of Iraq and drawing down in Afghanistan, should any other problems arise, do you think Obama will meet the challenge or seize the opportunity to get out of both countries? What if there is another flashpoint in the world where we currently have no troops? Will Obama actually use military force if necessary? Or will he continue the U.S. pullback from the world and continue to cut into defense spending.

Obama is ignoring the political reality of the world today, replaced with the Jeffersonian notion that the U.S. should not be active abroad and should set a "good example" of popular government, human rights, and peace. He is also irritated at the fact that his extreme domestic agenda of shifting us toward a more socialist system is being hampered by foreign wars and the associated costs.

The United States can only afford this naive and misguided approach for so long.