Fighting talk amid shrinking American might

It looked like US President Barack Obama might do something rash when he travelled to West Point, New York, last Wednesday, to deliver the commencement address of the US Military Academy. Foreign policy thinkers in both parties have accused the president of being unwilling to provide US leadership in the world. They urge him to look to his “legacy” and to think big. The New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman, recommended the Ukraine crisis as a “legacy opportunity” and even suggested a series of activist steps.

This is, alas, a typically American way of looking at history. The late historian Christopher Lasch marvelled in the early 1990s at the way Bill Clinton arrived in office “already obsessed with his ‘place in the history books’ ... as if ‘history’ were just a kind of protracted version of the publicity industry, and you could reserve a room just by phoning ahead with a little advance hype”. Obama does not need to bully anyone to secure a “legacy”. Changing US foreign policy after George W. Bush’s two terms is the main thing he was elected to do. He has done it.

Obama’s problem is different. When he says “America must always lead on the world stage”, there is no reason to doubt his sincerity. But such leadership comes at a price and he is disinclined to pay it. He proposed bombing Syria at a point last year when Bashar Al Assad was alleged to have used chemical weapons but then abandoned the idea in the face of voter rage. He would rather gain a reputation for indecision than make a blunder. He cited a predecessor, Dwight Eisenhower: “War is mankind’s most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men.” Obama’s feelings on the matter may explain the uncharacteristic gracelessness with which he sometimes criticises Bush. Whatever they think of Obama more generally, Americans share his diffidence about using force. Last autumn, a majority told the Pew Centre, for the first time since 1964, that their country ought to “mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own”. Today, the public is opposed to taking a “firm stand” against Russian mischief in Ukraine — only 29 per cent want that, according to a March poll by Pew.

Obama is unpopular. His presidency is much diminished in recent months. However, there was a lot of the old Obama in his West Point speech, as he insisted that leadership and bellicosity were not synonyms. He has announced an end of the US Afghanistan mission by 2016 and sharp troop cuts by 2017. That will bring the size of the US army below 450,000 soldiers, the lowest since before the Second World War. The goal of last Wednesday’s speech was to arrive at a doctrine that would present this down-scaling of responsibilities as something other than a retreat. Obama did this by dividing US responsibilities into two kinds: National defence and “issues of global concern”, from counterterrorism to climate change. It is this second group of issues that really animated the president.

Obama wants to convince Americans that the US can be confident when it acts through international institutions — including Nato, United Nations, International Monetary Fund, World Bank and international courts — because it has shaped them. In turn, these institutions will give America a fairer shake if it becomes a better global citizen — if, for instance, it is “more transparent” about drone strikes. He used every rhetorical tool at his disposal to sell his new approach. He was by turns boastful (insisting the US is still what Madeleine Albright, former secretary of state, called “the indispensable nation”), patriotic (speaking of “my duty to you, and to the country we love”), politically correct (congratulating West Point on its “first all-female command team”) and idealistic (calling on America to act “on behalf of human dignity”).

The cadets in attendance appeared to be sitting on their hands. Obama’s doctrine is squeamish. It will be uninspiring to martial minds. Where most presidents go to West Point to speak of sacrifice and honour, he promised the assembled warriors: “You will work as a team with diplomats and development experts. You will get to know allies and train partners.” International organisations can be very efficient redistributors of goods and power. Americans often distrust them for just that reason. But Obama is not so far off the mark. He is proposing that the US, through skilful use of international organisations, can exercise undiminished influence over the affairs of men, at diminished cost in blood and treasure. It amounts to eating your cake and having it — an unrealistic foreign policy and the very one Obama’s voters have asked for.

— Financial Times

The writer is a senior editor at the Weekly Standard.