As
Barack Obama prepares to deliver his final State of the Union address on
Tuesday night, the U.S. president and his aides have insisted he will
not be content simply to run out the clock on foreign policy and is
acting decisively to tackle crises piling up around the globe.
But
former U.S. officials and experts familiar with the White House’s
thinking say he appears locked into policies aimed more at containing
such threats and avoiding deeper U.S. military engagement in the last
year of his presidency.
This, they
say, all but guarantees that the toughest geopolitical challenges will
be inherited by Obama’s successor. That will likely give fuel to
Republican presidential candidates who are eager to use Obama's foreign
policy woes to attack, by extension, Democratic front runner Hillary
Clinton, who served as his first-term Secretary of State.
Islamic
State has extended its deadly reach across the Middle East and beyond,
with recent attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, carried out
or inspired by the jihadist group. North Korea stunned the world last
week with its fourth rogue nuclear test. Taliban insurgents are gaining
ground in Afghanistan. Beijing continues to flex its muscle with its
neighbors.
Russia remains
undeterred in Ukraine’s separatist conflict and has challenged U.S.
influence in the Middle East with its military intervention in Syria’s
civil war, a conflict that Obama’s critics have seized on as evidence of
a rudderless foreign policy.
Most
outside analysts agree with administration officials’ insistence that
much of the global tumult is driven by forces beyond Obama’s control.
But
experts also give credence to criticism that Obama’s crisis response
has often been hesitant and that policy missteps have either fueled
conflict – or done little to curb it - in places like Syria, Iraq and
Ukraine.
“This is a risk-averse
president who sets red lines he doesn’t enforce,” said Aaron David
Miller, a former Middle East adviser to Republican and Democratic
administrations. “There’s not a lot of inclination for heroic
initiatives in what’s left.”
Obama
took office in 2009 hailed by his supporters as a transformational
leader and pledging to bring U.S. troops home from the long, unpopular
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his first
inaugural speech, he promised to help usher in a “new era of peace,”
including outreach to Muslims alienated by the perceived excesses of his
predecessor George W. Bush’s global “war on terror.”
After
popular revolts began to convulse the Arab world, Obama used his 2011
State of the Union speech to trumpet support for the “democratic
aspirations of all people.” But the “Arab Spring” has since taken an
ugly turn, leaving Obama facing a Middle East region that is more
unstable yet no more democratic than before.
FORMIDABLE OBSTACLES
Recent
polls show that more than half of Americans disapprove of the way Obama
is handling foreign policy and two-thirds are displeased with his
response to Islamic State and the terrorist threat.
The Obama
administration strongly denies that it has now resigned itself to merely
containing the seemingly intractable conflicts. As evidence of success,
it can point to its landmark nuclear deal with Iran, the historic
diplomatic opening to Cuba and a sweeping international climate change
deal - all of which a senior administration official said will likely be
touted in Tuesday’s speech. He has also forged a major Asia-Pacific
trade pact but faces an uphill fight to get it through Congress.
For
the coming year, Obama has left the door open to using executive powers
to fulfill his early pledge to close the Guantanamo military prison,
and could also act on his own to further loosen the half-century-old
economic embargo on Cuba.
“The
president will be focused on finishing strong on his foreign policy
agenda,” the senior administration official told Reuters. “In no lexicon
I’m aware of is this a strategy of containment.”
Obama
insists his aim is to destroy Islamic State in Syria and Iraq, but
there are strong doubts that his combination of relying on U.S.-armed
local partners, targeted American special forces raids, coalition air
strikes and financial sanctions will be enough.
The
quest for a diplomatic solution to Syria’s civil war also faces
formidable obstacles, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who Obama
said back in 2011 “must go,” looks all but certain to outlast him in
office.
“This all adds up
to attempted containment - getting through 2016 until it becomes someone
else's problem,” said Frederic Hof, a former State Department adviser
on Syria during Obama’s first term and now at the Atlantic Council think
tank.
Obama has recently
reinserted about 3,500 U.S. military personnel into Iraq, slowed the
U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and authorized small numbers of special
operations forces in Syria – though he adamantly rejects any
large-scale military deployment.
His
reluctance to get pulled into new conflicts remains at the heart of his
foreign policy, and critics say other world powers are taking advantage
of that.
China has shown growing
assertiveness in the South China Sea, where it has defied U.S. criticism
of its island-building and felt no apparent consequences.
U.S.
ally Saudi Arabia has shown its willingness to buck Obama by going
ahead with the execution of a prominent Shi’ite cleric, provoking a feud
with Iran that Washington appears powerless to quell.
North
Korea’s announcement last week that it had exploded its fourth nuclear
device since 2006 raised new questions about the Obama administration’s
“strategic patience” doctrine that essentially has sought to contain
Pyongyang without provoking it.
“I
doubt that the president will put in any political capital to this,”
said Bonnie Glaser, senior Asia adviser at the CSIS think tank in
Washington. “What can the president do in his last year?”
No comments:
Post a Comment