Has Obama Learned the Folly of ‘Multilateralism’?
Let us hope the president has figured out that when our allies refuse to go along, America often must act alone.
The Obama administration is caught in a pickle: it revels in its multilateralist rhetoric and perpetual self-flagellation, but in practice its national security policy works best when it sticks to American unilateralism.
Obama returned from an overseas trip during which he bowed both literally and figuratively before world leaders. He apologized for nearly everything he could think of. He pleaded guilty on America’s behalf for causing the worldwide recession. He agreed with our European friends that we’ve been arrogant and bossy, that we bear some sort of special burden for having dropped the atomic bomb on Japan (left unmentioned were the hundreds of thousands spared on both sides from the land invasion which we avoided), and that we really need to be more forthcoming with Islamic nations (forgetting the wars we have fought to free Muslims and the constant overtures to Muslims by his predecessor).
But that didn’t get him very far. He got virtually no troops for Afghanistan, the French took only a single detainee from Guantanamo, and the UN has struggled to come up with a wrist-slapping resolution that will promise to get cracking on that sanctions list against North Korea. Multilateralism sounds nice and certainly impresses the liberal intelligentsia. But in practice it doesn’t work very well when neither your allies nor your foes face consequences when they say “buzz off.”
Michael Goodwin gets to the nub of the problem with Obama’s consensus style of foreign policy:
There is an undeniable appeal to burden sharing with broad coalitions, yet one early result of Obama’s Kumbaya approach remains the nagging question about his bottom line. Will he act in what he believes is America’s interest, even if no one follows? Or will he subject every action in every crisis to the litmus test of whether there is a consensus?
That’s what all the really hard calls in national security boil down to — enduring some measure of criticism when the U.S. must act decisively and contrary to the wishes of those self-appointed guardians of the “international community.”
And it is not as if the president has not seen that first hand. What are the two highlights so far in his brief national security record? Iraq and the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips.
In Iraq, because of the application of American military might, we are nearing a stunning victory despite the objections of then-candidate Barack Obama and much of the “world community.” Our troops will likely soon depart victorious, and a free and pro-American Iraq will remain a powerful example to its neighbors that al-Qaeda can be defeated and democracy can take hold in the Middle East. The president recognized as much, essentially implementing George W. Bush’s drawdown plan and properly lauding the accomplishments of our troops during his surprise visit to Iraq last week.
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
Jennifer Rubin is PJM's Washington, DC, editor. She also blogs at Commentary’s Contentions.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
24 Comments
1. G. Clarke:“When our allies refuse to go along [in any armed struggle], America often must act alone.”
Here’s what I am talking about. How are those countries who, like the townspeople in High Noon, affirmatively refuse to join you in a fight against the enemies of civilization, in any way to be regarded as your “allies?” By such refusal they are choosing not to be our allies and, therefore, should not be referred to as such.
Except for those in the Anglosphere, since 1940 we have not expected or asked anything much from our expectant “Allies,” even in World War II, so their long-acquired habit, well-practiced during the Cold War, of sitting it out on the sidelines, is hardly surprising as it continues. But this still does not make them our allies, even if it does not convert them to the opposite, our declared enemies. Maybe that is what we need to refer to them as, our “Non-enemies.” Oh, wait. That’s what Obama just decided to label the militant Islamacists. I’m confused.
Apr 14, 2009 - 3:51 am 2. formwiz:The rescue of Richard Phillips is a Navy highlight, not necessarily an Obambi one. The skipper of the Bainbridge acted largely on his own initiative. As such, an indication of how much the administration approves of that action is what happens to the captain’s career.
Apr 14, 2009 - 4:45 am 3. Terry Gain:In Iraq, because of the application of American military might, we are nearing a stunning victory despite the objections of then-candidate Barack Obama and much of the “world community.”
President Bush and the American military deserve great praise for their service to mankind while America went to the mall and the American elite savaged this stunning victory.
I take issue with the notion that it is stunning that insurgents, even tens of thousands of insurgents, offering nothing but death and despair should have triumphed over 28 million people led by the most lethal and moral armend forces in the history of the world.
Yes, it did take time to defeat the insurgency but this victory should have been anticipated so long as we did not give up. Every time the terrorists bombed a military recruitment site more recruits would be lined up the next day. And even as early as 2005 Sunni brigades were fighting al Qaeda. The media largely ignored these developments because it was inconsistent with their Iraq is a fiasco narrative.
Unfortunately, while the the liberation of Iraq is objectively a great step forward for mankind, so long as it is portrayed as as a mistake the victory is robbed of its propaganda value. The left may have lost this war on the battlefield but they have won in the court of public opinion.
The outcome is very depressing. The United States gives blood and treasure to liberate 28 million and the President of the United States goes around apologizing to Muslims and the Euroweenies who were too cowardly to assist in this great humanitarian achievement. The reality of the left’s propaganda victory in the face of defeat on the battlefield renders remote the opportunity for further progress and blunts the value of the victory of the realists on the streets of Iraq.
Apr 14, 2009 - 5:08 am 4. Craig:“Let us hope the president has figured out that when our allies refuse to go along, America often must act alone.”
Hope? Hmmmm….hope. Gee, that word sounds so familiar….now where have I heard that word before?
Apr 14, 2009 - 5:19 am 5. Delia:“Has Obama Learned the Folly of ‘Multilateralism’?”
Apr 14, 2009 - 6:16 am 6. Fragmentarian:~
NO.
The CIC is not naive, he is idoelogically driven. The problem is, his ideology is naive.
Apr 14, 2009 - 6:36 am 7. Fragmentarian:Oops, Ideologically, that is.
Apr 14, 2009 - 6:36 am 8. Sebastian Shaw:No, President Obama still embraces ethnocentrism & multilaterlism. He is a PC time bomb just waiting to implode due to his feckless inability to lead. He couldn’t lead a group of children to a candy store even if he gave them $100 each.
Apr 14, 2009 - 6:52 am 9. Meryl:My favorite line so far “giving obama credit” showed up in a post yesterday from a reader who said that that O should be given credit “for allowing the Navy to do the right thing”.
That makes him the allower-in-chief, instead of CIC. So the gratitude we are to express is gratitude that he didn’t force the worst to happen.
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Once again, Ms. Rubin seems to hold out that endless, elusive hope that the Precedent will simply turn in to someone else. I find it frustrating that those who obviously have access to a deal of information, insight and opportunity (like Ms. Rubin) seem to endlessly feel compelled to “give the boy one more chance to get it right”.
Why do they find it so disconcerting to look at the duck and say, “Hey, look! There’s a duck!”
What am I missing.
Apr 14, 2009 - 6:56 am 10. trapper:Obama is the On The Job Trainee In Chief, it appears.
Apr 14, 2009 - 7:38 am 11. Eppur Si:There are people all over the world who don’t like the United States. Now they have an American President who doesn’t much like the United States either. Talk about building a consensus!
As far as Somalia goes, the word “blockade” comes to mind. JFK risked far more to blockade Cuba, and the ships he would have had to shoot at were Soviet and were backed up by nukes. I wonder if Obama has the guts to blockade some rowboats.
Apr 14, 2009 - 8:31 am 12. john from cinncinatti:sure the somali’s in flip flops killed 18 American troops, but how many of them died to do it? we supposedly went there to help them, will we return with the same mission? the same ROE, or will the USA go to destroy their base of operations. maybe we can apologize afterwards if our CIC is so inclined to do so. maybe a bill passed thru congress redirecting the 900 million promised to those pirates in Gaza to go to the somali ones. Brother can you spare a dime?
Apr 14, 2009 - 9:18 am 13. tim maguire:the president once again resorted to promising multilateral action
I don’t like to watch videos at work so I can’t hear the original quote, but I would hope Obama realizes that one of the fundamental features of multilateral action is you can’t promise it. You have to get the world’s most dysfunctional committee to agree on it.
Apr 14, 2009 - 9:56 am 14. Terry Gain:Meryl:
What am I missing.
Nothing. This is the marriage of Patient & Naive Good Faith and Political Correctness.
Apr 14, 2009 - 10:12 am 15. Kieth nissen:I think the USA should protect its own ships. Other countries can pay tribute
Apr 14, 2009 - 10:45 am 16. Paul -Indiana:or protect their ships as they think is appropriate. This policy would be a reminder
that protection from global thugs does not come free and that those who castigate
our country for (relatively) aggressive foreign policy will have to make some
hard choices.
Are you still glad that you voted for Obama?
Apr 14, 2009 - 11:19 am 17. Peter the Bubblehead:1. G. Clarke wrote:
But this still does not make them our allies, even if it does not convert them to the opposite, our declared enemies. Maybe that is what we need to refer to them as, our “Non-enemies.”
Peter writes: How about just calling them ‘Neutral Countries’?
Apr 14, 2009 - 11:21 am 18. Peter the Bubblehead:11. Eppur Si wrote:
As far as Somalia goes, the word “blockade” comes to mind.
Peter writes: As has been pointed out by the military itself, the coast of Somolia is so large, it would require our entire Navy on full-time bloackade duty to effectively block the pirates from leaving port. (Especially since many of them are hidden away in small, isolated coves and not regular, populated working ports.)
What needs to be done is the Navy should protect American flagged ships. (One destroyer escorting a convoy of vessels in each direction into and out of the Red Sea should be sufficient.) Let all other countries do whatever they want to do, be it escort their own vessels or let them be captured and held ransom. Eventually shipping companies will get tired of their ships being targeted and US ships never are, and maybe ‘international consensus’ will finally turn against the pirates?
(I know. Don’t hold my breath.)
Apr 14, 2009 - 11:28 am 19. Meryl:14 Terry Gain….yeah, I know.
But I just can’t grasp that they continue to do this and do it and do it….as though the lights are not on, as though we’re not all watching them embarrass themselves…
They absolutely remind me of a little kid who covers their eyes with their hands and then says, “you can’t see me!”
And now today we are informed by the illustrious Homeland Security that we right wingers are now (in print) identified as a central and serious threat to the security of the nation. Review the language of the release…they describe political dissent and then call us dangerous threats.
I guess we shouldn’t expect those who are “duck blind” to comment on the cannibalistic activities of Homeland Security and Janet Napalitano.
Apr 14, 2009 - 11:46 am 20. Terry Gain:And now today we are informed by the illustrious Homeland Security that we right wingers are now (in print) identified as a central and serious threat to the security of the nation.
Everyone who fought in Iraq in order to defeat the terrorists and establish peace is a threat to Obama’s world view that you deal with evil by pretending it doesn’t exist. Or by appeasing it.
The President of the United States has the mentality of a naive 18 year old when it come to the enemies of America but he is Machiavelli when it comes to his domestic opponents. He is too strange for words. As is the phenomenon of his popularity.
Apr 14, 2009 - 4:25 pm 21. David Thomson:“So the gratitude we are to express is gratitude that he didn’t force the worst to happen.”
The fact that apparently Barack Obama did not get in touch with his inner Lyndon B. Johnson and micromanage the incident is deserving of credit. Some national leaders, to their country’s detriment, have been unable to to simply stay out of the way.
“Once again, Ms. Rubin seems to hold out that endless, elusive hope that the Precedent will simply turn in to someone else.”
This is very unlikely to occur. President Obama is a poorly read and shallow individual. And he is too busy to get the time to get his act together. The man is not even close to being ready for prime time. Obama is also a graduate of Harvard University. Sadly, most Americans have been conned into thinking a liberal arts degree from this famous (infamous?) Ivy League institution is worthy of respect.
Apr 14, 2009 - 4:59 pm 22. carol:Get a clue. Obama will never run this country right because he doesn’t know what he is doing. He is a puppet. The true POTUS is Soros.
Now you can worry.
Apr 14, 2009 - 5:07 pm 23. donttreadonme:No.
Apr 14, 2009 - 8:33 pm 24. donttreadonme:Never judge a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes….
Apr 14, 2009 - 8:40 pmSooooo….IF I had my formative years in an Indonesian Madrasa…IF I had a mother who was at best times flaky and at worst a bed (and continent) hopping tart….IF my father-figure mentor fled the mainland in the 1940s due to his Communist, subversive activities…IF my actual father abandoned me shortly after birth and then died driving drunk…IF the man who married me and baptized my kids used the words “US of KKK”…IF I wouldn’t know the difference between a W-2 and my arsehole…I suppose I would hate America, too.