Posted By Stephen M. Walt Share

It's that time again.   No, I don't mean baseball season, or the arrival (finally) of spring in New England.  I mean it's turnover time down in Washington, and we are seeing the usual speculations about who's up, who's down, who's in, and who's out.   Everyone expects Robert Gates to leave Defense this summer, James Steinberg is leaving the #2 job at State, several East Asia hands have left or are leaving, and there will be additional departures from the NSC and other key positions.

Speculating about who is likely to replace the departing officials is a time-honored inside-the-Beltway tradition, and it's a popular sport at places like the Kennedy School too.  For some informed speculation on possible new faces, check out FP's The Cable here and the New York Times here.  

But I don't think these changes are going to make much difference.  It's not like Obama will be replacing the current set of officials with people who have a fundamentally different perspective on foreign and defense policy.   Instead, the likely successors in each of these jobs will be drawn from the same pool of familiar foreign policy gurus, chosen from the ranks of traditional Democratic party liberal imperialists. . . . (oops....I meant "liberal internationalists.")  I don't expect to see any realists in prominent positions, and certainly no one who favors a major curtailing of America's self-ordained role as global policeman.  

This tells you either that Obama is reasonably happy with his administration's handling of foreign policy, or (more likely) it tells you that he doesn't have a lot of options.   In an ideal world, we would see Obama do a ruthless evaluative exercise, and get rid of the people who have performed poorly while doing his best to retain those who have done well.  By this standard, he'd be keeping his Asia team (which has done tolerably well with a difficult situation), giving the nuclear security team a pat on the back, firing the whole Middle East group (whose performance has to be among his biggest disappointments), and he'd be taking a long, hard look at the people who've been marching him deeper into the Af-Pak quagmire.  

But I don't expect anything like that to occur.  By now, it is crashingly obvious that Obama is a very conventional foreign policy president, that whatever novel ideas or approaches he brought to office have been thoroughly diluted by entrenched interests in Washington, and his own governing style militates against taking bold positions and sticking with them in the face of opposition.   Just look at how he caved on Gitmo, indefinite detention, drone strikes/targeted killings, or Israeli settlements.   One gets the impression that the administration is already suffering from battle-fatigue, and that there won't be many (any?) shiny new initiatives even if he wins a second term. 

To be sure, there's something to be said for modesty (especially if the alternative is the riverboat gambler approach that Bush and the neocons pursued from 2001-2005), but it isn't quite the change that some of us believed in.

Getty Images

 

JOHNBRAGG

6:08 PM ET

April 12, 2011

If Bush was a riverboat gambler, what does Libya make Obama?

If Bush was a riverboat gambler, what does Libya make Obama? In Iraq against Saddam, the US clearly won. We defeated the insurgency, defined as "keep fighting til they give up", and we paid them to change sides during the surge.

In Libya, we bombed Qaddafi and shredded any possibility of a Grand Bargain with Iran, and then quietly abandoned the venture, allowing Kadaffi to survive and take a shot at vengeance next year or the year after.

 

JOHNBRAGG

12:14 AM ET

April 13, 2011

Yes, we won in Iraq.

Saddam is dead, hung after a trial. The Baath Party is banned, broken and scattered to the winds. The new government has re-integrated some Baathists, but the Baath Party is dead.

The Iraqi Army of 2003 dissolved during the war. Major elements of that army had melted away to wage guerrilla warfare against the US and the US-backed Iraqi government. That insurgency was broken, its members mostly dead, some exiled, some surrendered. A good chunk of these switched sides in 2006-07, the Iraqi Awakening. Switching sides, they gave up their ambition of restoring Sunni rule in Iraq.

Islamic terrorists, some Iraqi some not, carried on an Islamic insurgency, creating among other groups the Islamic State of Iraq. They're dead too.

Sadr's Mahdi Army was partially brought into the government, partially forced into exile. Sadr himself had to flee to Iran until recently.

Compare that to Vietnam. The VC were wiped out by 1968, but the NVA was not. Under Nixon, we handed over a lot of the fighting to the ARVN, but the ARVN was never able to wiped out the NVA in South Vietnam, never mind North Vietnam. The Paris Accords left the NVA in control of half of South Vietnam.

Even if, after we're gone, Sadr ousts Maliki and raises the Iranian flag over Baghdad, we won the war.

The fact that we won the war does not say that the war was a good idea. Increased Iranian influence is a legitimate reason to say that the war was a bad idea.

 

DIANA RELKE

3:52 AM ET

April 13, 2011

The US won in Iraq?

Jeez, I'd hate to see what losing looks like.

 

DCOUTSIDER

7:19 PM ET

April 12, 2011

?

I don't think POTUS caved on drones. Rather, I think drones are/were tailor-made for the Obama presidency. The age of Obama is an escape from the hellish quicksand baths of 2003-08. Surgical application of power from the air with minimal (overt) on-the-ground involvement fits the bill just fine. Did the President ever show a marked discomfort for drone warfare? Ever? Pls provide examples.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

9:01 PM ET

April 12, 2011

civilian casualties

Obama seemed to recognize the strategic and moral impact of civilian casualties. This recognition didn't seem to have a huge practical impact on his Pakistan and Afghanistan policies, however. Drones are a part of that problem. A drone might bomb a village with a few Taliban, and leave a ton of civilians dead.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

8:59 PM ET

April 12, 2011

You hit the nail on the head

"But I don't expect anything like that to occur. By now, it is crashingly obvious that Obama is a very conventional foreign policy president, that whatever novel ideas or approaches he brought to office have been thoroughly diluted by entrenched interests in Washington, and his own governing style militates against taking bold positions and sticking with them in the face of opposition. Just look at how he caved on Gitmo, indefinite detention, drone strikes/targeted killings, or Israeli settlements. One gets the impression that the administration is already suffering from battle-fatigue, and that there won't be many (any?) shiny new initiatives even if he wins a second term. "

This is often the story of decisions made by the Obama administration. Whether or not he changes in his second term (assuming he can win) is up for debate. One can only hope.

 

DIANA RELKE

9:44 PM ET

April 12, 2011

I hope you're wrong, Stephen

I am an incorrigible pessimist when it comes to the US, but that doesn't seem to stop me from hoping.

The wild card in the foreign policy deck is Israel, especially now that this Goldstone "retraction," which doesn't actually "retract" anything, is being variously interpreted in many quarters. The more desperate the Israeli government gets, the more unpredictable it is.

There is an interesting interview with Joshua Frank at My Catbird Seat (whoever Joshua Frank is?) that sets it all in the context of the imperialist juggernaut, whose inertia Obama is powerless to stop, even if he wanted to. The piece emphasizes the centrality of Israel to that inertia:

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2011/04/the-u-s-doesn%E2%80%99t-have-to-justify-its-double-standards-to-anyone-joshua-frank/comment-page-1/#comment-20039

 

CLOAK AND DAGGER

7:13 AM ET

April 13, 2011

The only terrorists around here

...are firmly esconsed in Tel Aviv, using our tax dollars to send hasbarites like you to come here and hurl "anti-semitic" invectives at anyone who criticizes their Nazi actions.

Sorry, that has long lost its sting. And Israel's time is about up - protestations from your ilk notwithstanding.

 

CLOAK AND DAGGER

8:05 AM ET

April 15, 2011

You are not fooling anyone here with your bluster

The lady doth protest too much.

We all know who/what you are and your ploy is no longer effective. Perhaps you didn't read the hasbara cookbook thoroughly enough to realize that if you repeat the same meme over and over again, the audience starts to recognize the patterns and knows you for who you are.

Cute, picking a monicker like "Marine Rifleman" to add credibility to your BS. How's that working for you?

 

CLOAK AND DAGGER

8:56 PM ET

April 15, 2011

Sorry Diana

My comments above were to a poster named "marinerifleman", whose trolling posts appear to have been deleted while leaving my responses to him intact, which leaves the implression that I am responding to your post - which, of course, I am not.

 

TGGP

3:07 AM ET

April 13, 2011

The always excellent Karl

The always excellent Karl Smith on Obama's priorities:
http://modeledbehavior.com/2011/04/12/obama-fabian-progressive/

 

SWISSY13

8:46 PM ET

April 13, 2011

What more could he do?

So Obama has less than 2 years left in office. What can we expect him to do at this point? He came into office proclaiming he was going to make great change, and although so far things haven't deteriorated massively, they've remained pretty stagnant. He has been pretty conventional in his foreign policy so far, and although I think he could have done more, at this point nothing can be done.

Bush went out on a limb and changed foreign policy massively with the 'Bush Doctrine' and now Obama hasn't exactly made a doctrine of his own, but he's definitely made wars of his own, like the intervention in Israel, which will likely take ages to sort out.

 

SHARMOUTA

9:52 PM ET

April 13, 2011

Settlements Core or Context?

Prof. Walt,

When are you going to realize that the settlements are not a core issue in what is going on in the Middle East. Examples:

1. Tunisian and Egyptian uprisings have nothing to do with it.
2. Libyan, Yemeni and Syrian civil wars have nothing to do with it
3. Shia - Sunni antagonism, political and physical struggles have nothing to do with it
4. Iran internal strife has nothing to do with it

This year you received a hard demonstration that the Israeli - Palestinian struggle is a side show and you still cannot detach from your dogma even after you have been proven wrong.

What will it take to recognize that you are wrong?

 

CLOAK AND DAGGER

9:01 PM ET

April 15, 2011

I think you underestimate the significance of the settlements

The recent anger in Egypt at the onslaught that they perceive on their kin in Palestine shows that the situation has far-reaching impact - one significant enough to derail the Egypt/Israel treaty. This was their last friend and ally in the region, once they had squandered the Turkish alliance with the Flotilla incident.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is no side-show. It is part and parcel of the tinderbox, and ultimately the spark that will bring this entire fiasco to its inevitable and unfortunate conclusion.

 

CAMIO

9:35 AM ET

April 14, 2011

A comment from China

First of all, I am a Chinese but not a communist. Just love international relations and politics.

My feeling for President Obama is good. Compared to Bush, he is indeed more moderate on foreign policies. I also like his effort in enhancing education, medical care, green energy and transportation, which for sure has the long-run positive effect for a nation's future.

 

CLOAK AND DAGGER

2:38 AM ET

April 16, 2011

Hello in China

Many of us had high hopes for President Obama. Many of us believe that he is well-intentioned. However, most of us are extremely disappointed in what he has demonstrated so far.

The best one could defend him is by saying that he underestimated the power of the establishment and overestimated, probably from inexperience and naivete, the magnitude of change he was promising to bring about. Hope and change quickly changed to hoping for some small change being left in our pockets.

Many of us feel that he said what was politically expedient to get himself elected knowing that the majority of the nation wanted these wars to end, the Patriot Act revoked, and Gitmo closed down, with solid steps to restore our economy and bring back our lost jobs. Instead, we got expanded wars, more attrocities from the growing police state, and Gitmo may never close down until everyone inside is dead. Meanwhile, unemployment continues to skyrocket - I read somewhere that only 46% of the US is currently employed! Most of us also didn't expect the continued bailout of the banksters at the expense of our middle class.

Most of us have also come to realize that it doesn't matter much whether a Republican or a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, our foreign policy continues unchanged - to the detriment of the nation.

My interest in Professor Walt comes from his laying out exactly this thesis in his book, that the reason our foreign policy is so screwed up is because of the Israel Loby, which is instrumental in the destruction of the US, and ironically, Israel as well. Most people don't realize that our domestic policy is completely enslaved to our foreign policy, as is our economic policy.

All the welfare stuff is great to have - unless you are already mired in trillions of dollars of debt with no exit in sight - and sinking deeper every day. We have lost our manufacturing to China and others, through no fault of China - just corporate greed. Unless we can bring that manufacturing back to the US, I don't see how we will ever come out of this mess, but that has to be our #1 priority - not these wars of choice or fidlling with welfare crumbs as we collectively spiral into the great abyss.

So, while I am happy to hear a foreigner have good things to say about a US president (specially after the disaster that was George W Bush!), I do not share your enthusiasm for him - and I suspect that I am not alone.

 

Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.

Read More