Thomas L. Friedman wrote a most interesting Op-Ed in the New York Times (August 9, 2014) wherein he relates a conversation he had with President Obama on August 8. Observers have already noted a degree of "fatigue" and "disenchantment" in the President's latest public comments which are no longer tinted by "change" but with a new undertone of "spite."
Seldom has an American president had to deal with such a large number of dysfunctions at home and abroad. He looks and acts tired, with good reason. Ironically, this comes at the time of the 40th anniversary (?) of President Nixon's tragic "curtain call."
When reading about the President's thinking process, one is at the same time aware of his intelligence but also of a certain reluctance to claim the leadership which is inherent to the function. True, the unipolar world is gone and America can no longer do it all alone. True also, partners are needed but Obama seems to play the waiting game rather than organizing an "order" under American "inspiration." He does not appear to want to assume the fatality of American might. He may feel uncomfortable having to be the ultimate mover and shaker but in the absence of a comparable "other" he must act alone. Russia is again a Potemkin construction. China bothers, but remains largely unloved. The EU runs on an empty tank. Who else ?
Now, again in northern Iraq the American president takes reluctant gradual actions, humanitarian and military, which are supposed, indirectly, to force an outcome to the stalemate in Baghdad. The Yazidis need urgent help (where is the EU?) and the Kurds should receive massive support. ISIL should be taken care of without respite. Waiting for the Iraqis to come together is like "waiting for Godot."
It is certain that any move by President Putin in eastern Ukraine would have no military consequences from the West. The half-baked commitments now make it even easier for Moscow to have its cake and eat it tomorrow, if Putin decides to do so. He might even consider the American military action in Iraq as a precedent for a Russian crusade in support of Russian minorities on the EU's eastern border.
ISIL has received a free pass until now because the American administration declined to intervene when it was easier and is disinclined to correct in the absence of a political deal in Baghdad, allowing the Jihadists to solidify their gains in Iraq and in the region.
The Gaza problem is becoming even more complex given the poor chemistry between the President and the Israeli P.M. Allies can quarrel, as Roosevelt and Churchill did, in private but in public they should maintain self-control. Now the situation has worsened because Hamas has won the media war in the United States and elsewhere. It is not enough to praise Israel while at the same time introducing the notion of "disproportion" in the conversation. One should abstain from airing ideas which can easily be manipulated for very inglorious motives.
It is normal that one is tempted to read in the President's assessments what is, unfortunately, becoming the fabric of America's gloomy Zeitgeist. This is not a structural "given" yet, but it might become so if the "sage" in the White House neglects for too long to reconnect with what de Gaulle called "une certaine idee de la France", applied to the United States. Jefferson is seen as benevolent and enlightened but he did not hesitate to start unilaterally, without informing Congress, a war against the Barbary powers (Tripoli, Algeria, Morocco, Tunis). Obama seems unwilling to consider his call as a global one. He rightly said that he would never enter a "dumb war," but neither should he let neglect or lack of empathy overrule accepted priorities.
Washington's foreign policy looks too often like a quest for reasons "not to" rather than a search of a strategic rationale for reasons "to do." As a result, the deficit of aborted action climbs and the time-consuming negotiations (Iran) with no end in sight sap the energy for achieving "comprehensive" results elsewhere.
The President posed the question of whether the United States would have an answer for "the day after" (a military intervention). I am of the opinion that if the question is raised "ante" it is a wise one, coming "post," it would be considered a repeat of the Iraq after-invasion blunder.
No comments:
Post a Comment