Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

Obama must move beyond defense

September 27, 2011

Advertisement

It was painful to watch President Obama last week at the United Nations, backing away from the goal of Palestinian statehood he had championed when he took office. The best that could be said was that it was a bit of foreign-policy realism, acknowledging the political and strategic fact that the United States will never abandon Israel in the U.N. Security Council.

Obama is playing defense in foreign policy these days, trying not to make costly mistakes. Like a football team protecting a slim lead, he wants to avoid fumbles that would cost him the game. The idea of daring offensive moves — the risky touchdown pass — is a distant memory from 2009. This is a team that chants to itself: “Dee-fense!”

There are worse things than playing cautiously. The big gamble may be tempting, but it can lead to disaster, as Menachem Begin found with his invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and George W. Bush learned after his occupation of Iraq in 2003. Though commentators may be howling for a big, bold move, the correct choice is often the one that hedges against really bad outcomes. Pappa Bush (“41”) was teased on “Saturday Night Live” with the mocking phrase “wouldn’t be prudent,” but he politely backed his way right into the dismantlement of the Soviet Union.

It should be said that Obama is playing defense reasonably well. There are big, long-lasting mistakes lurking in the Arab Spring — chief among them a chaotic implosion of Syria that could trigger a wave of sectarian massacres on the order of Iraq in 2006. Obama has understood the need to be cautious about the Syrian transition, even if he gets hammered sometimes in the editorial pages.

Obama is hedging, too, in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The danger there is the perception that America is leaving, and the ensuing scramble to fill the power vacuum. Recognizing that problem, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta is already talking about the likelihood the U.S. will keep some troops in Afghanistan after 2014. Obama could have avoided a lot of his current Af-Pak problems if he hadn’t coupled his December 2009 troop surge with a pledge to start withdrawing those troops in July 2011. The wiser course would have been deliberate ambiguity.

The retreat on the Palestinian issue must be a bitter pill for Obama. Regaining America’s role as an evenhanded mediator seemed his top priority when he took office. His first interview as president was with the Arabic news channel al-Arabiya; his April 2009 speech in Cairo was a masterful signal that America was ready to engage its Muslim adversaries and make peace. Obama knew that America’s security, and Israel’s, required creation of a Palestinian state.

What happened to that promise? It’s a long and depressing story, but the simple answer is that Obama got outfoxed. He decided not to immediately enunciate core principles for an agreement, which would have built on the remarkable progress made in 2008 by Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, a story that awaits Condoleezza Rice’s memoirs. Instead, he picked a fight over Israeli settlements that landed him in the morass of Israeli coalition politics.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu waited Obama out. Every month that the diplomatic wrangling went on, Obama grew weaker politically and Netanyahu stronger. The denouement was Obama’s speech Wednesday, in which he spoke almost ruefully of “peace in an imperfect world.” His best hope now is that he won’t actually have to veto a statehood resolution. Talk about playing defense.

While crediting Obama’s caution, I wish he would study the example of Henry Kissinger, who was playing a weak hand in 1971 when the Vietnam War was unraveling. Kissinger dealt a new set of cards by traveling secretly to China. He recalls in his memoirs that in his first meeting with Zhou Enlai, he cautiously opted for a broad, philosophical discussion of “our perceptions of global and especially Asian affairs.”

“The statesman finds opportunity,” even in adversity, notes Robert Blackwill, a Republican foreign policy expert who worked for Kissinger and both Bushes. That’s a good prescription for Obama. He’s in damage-limitation mode — sensible enough in a time of uncertainty, but not really a strategy. What’s the opportunity — in Pakistan, in India, in Turkey, in Syria — and yes, in the Palestinian state that inevitably will be declared?

Playing defense works if you’ve got a lead to protect. But it’s not enough when that lead is slipping away.

— David Ignatius is a columnist for Washington Post Writers Group. His email is davidignatius@washpost.com.

Comments

voevoda 2 years, 6 months ago

Obama did not create the Palestinian-Israeli situation, and it is unreasonable to expect him to solve it. The primary responsibility for solving this 60+ year old conflict lies with the Palestinians and the Israelis, and neither side is willing to make the difficult concessions a permanent truce will require.
No surprise, snap_crackle_no_pop, cato_the_elder, falsehopenochange, Cant_have_it_both_ways, BornAgainAmerican, that you would focus on blaming Obama. You blame him for everything. So okay, guys: what is *your solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Don't have one? Neither did the columnist. That's why he changed over to talking about Kissinger and China--a total digression from the topic.

0

BornAgainAmerican 2 years, 6 months ago

Fire Obama 2012! A truly pitiful President.

0

Cant_have_it_both_ways 2 years, 6 months ago

Jimmy Carter is Obama's biggest fan as Carter is no longer the worst President we have had.

0

FalseHopeNoChange 2 years, 6 months ago

Obama needs to get out of his bedroom slippers.

0

cato_the_elder 2 years, 6 months ago

"It was painful to watch President Obama last week at the United Nations, backing away from the goal of Palestinian statehood he had championed when he took office. The best that could be said was that it was a bit of foreign-policy realism, acknowledging the political and strategic fact that the United States will never abandon Israel in the U.N. Security Council."

"Foreign policy realism?" You're kidding. How about political realism fueled by the recent Dem disaster in NY9 and Obama's frantic attempts since then to pivot in order to try to appease pro-Israel American voters whom he's done nothing but alienate since he was elected? Obama's actions have nothing to do with realpolitik, but have everything to do with the 2012 election.

0

Flap Doodle 2 years, 6 months ago

Until November 2012 the current regime is going to be working on getting Mr. Meow Mix another four years in the White House. They'll have no time to spare for anything else.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.