As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama wanted—at least rhetorically—to bend the arc of history towards justice, freedom, progress, and prosperity. A new book examines whether his foreign policy has born that vision out.
President Obama, aside from the Af/Pak surge, has a strangely decent, pragmatic and limited so-called foreign-policy doctrine.
A century ago, the Ottoman Empire was falling apart as a result of disastrous wars and economic decline. Dubbed “the sick man of Europe,” the Ottoman Empire was not ultimately able to pull itself together. It expired in the flames of World War I, but not before pulling down a good chunk of the world order with it.
Obama returned to his perceived strong suit in the end to discuss how the United States must operate from a position of strength. Unfortunately, he was talking about the strength of the U.S. military. The United States should indeed set an example: of wise diplomacy, global economic equity, and sensible budget priorities at home. Perhaps the next State of the Union can begin on a note of international cooperation instead of unilateral triumphalism.
Tom Engelhardt’s most recent work, The United Sates of Fear, offers a sobering analysis of U.S. policy in the post 9/11 period, painting a bleak assessment of what he labels an empire in decline. Through his straightforward prose, which avoids the daunting language often found in similar works, Engelhardt mounts a scathing attack on U.S. foreign policy, the military industrial complex, and the Washington politicians who chant the mantra of “national security.”
From Mitt Romney’s juvenile $10,000 bet with Rick Perry to Ron Paul’s declaration that death by untreated illnesses is “what freedom is all about,” the Republican presidential candidates haven’t missed an opportunity to sound off-base and out-of-touch with ordinary Americans.
When President Barack Obama addressed the UN General Assembly in September 2010, he sounded hopeful that by the following year there would be “an agreement that will lead to a new member of the United Nations — an independent, sovereign state of Palestine, living in peace with Israel.” Sure enough, in September 2011, the Palestinians asked the UN Security Council to recognize a state of Palestine — but Obama ordered the U.S. delegate to veto the request. What gives?
Since the attacks of September 11, protection from terrorism has become the United States’ national obsession. Demands for security from the terrorists that seemingly menace the country at every turn have led the U.S. military to occupy two countries and expand the hundreds of bases that it maintains in dozens of foreign nations.
In a speech he gave on March 27, 2009, President Obama referred to the remote areas of the Pakistani frontier as, “for the American people…the most dangerous place in the world.” It is from this speech that Imtiaz Gul drew the title of his book, The Most Dangerous Place: Pakistan’s Lawless Frontier. Gul provides a comprehensive, inside look at the chaotic situation in Pakistan’s tribal areas, which have become an epicenter for extreme Islamic militancy.
For decades, the Persian Gulf region – subsumed under a latent Sunni-Shia divide – was animated by a drama of Iraq-Iran rivalry; each power balanced the other. The elimination of Saddam Hussein, by the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, introduced a new chapter in the regional affairs – Saudi Arabia and Iran as the twin pillars of the regional power-configuration. Historically, despite numerous efforts by each party to improve bilateral relations and deepen cooperation, Iran-Saudi relations have been fraught with intermittent rhetorical wars and grim strategic competition.