Jamie Rubin had an astounding op-ed in the Wall Street Journal yesterday: “Obama’s Foreign Policy Success: He has repaired our alliances, isolated Iran, unnerved Chávez, and he is systematically destroying al Qaeda in a way Bush never did.”
As Seth and Amy would say: Really?
Our alliance with Britain is in better repair since Obama unceremoniously returned the bust of Winston Churchill that used to grace the Oval Office? Our alliance with Honduras improved when the administration supported Manuel Zelaya – a buddy of Hugo Chavez — after Zelaya violated his country’s constitution in order to hold on to power? How’s our alliance with Poland and the Czech Republic since the administration decided not to provide them with missile defense installations? How is the “re-set” with Russia working out?Are we closer with Brazil and Turkey these days? Is that why they feel comfortable making common cause with Iran’s Islamist rulers? How’s NATO doing? As for Israel, Rubin writes that
questions about who is undermining Israeli-American relations should be directed toward Jerusalem, not Washington.
So it is the Israelis who are undermining their relations with Obama. Really?
As for whether Obama is “systematically destroying” al-Qaeda: I hope so, but all we really know is that he has been relatively unrestrained in using drones to kill suspected AQ commanders — much to the chagrin of the Left. Kudos for that but if we don’t prevail in Afghanistan is there anyone who doesn’t think al-Qaeda will rise again? And what have we done lately to combat the still lethal remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq?
Rubin asserts that the Obama administration has weakened
the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.
What’s the evidence for that? Rubin doesn’t provide any but for evidence that contradicts his thesis, see Claudia Rosett’s most recent column.
Rubin sites a year-old Pew poll finding increases in U.S. favorability ratings increasing “across Europe and parts of Asia.” But someone of Jamie’s experience – he was Madeleine Albright’s press secretary — ought to know that foreign policy/national security is not a popularity contest. The question he avoids: Has this boost in popularity helped further U.S. interests anywhere? The answer is no.
Rubin says that “to restore U.S. influence” requires looking after our finances and our economy while maintaining military supremacy.” Agreed. But how is Obama is looking after our finances and our economy by increasing the U.S. debt more than every other president in history combined? Is he creating an economic environment that encourages entrepreneurship, investment, and job creation? Hiring census workers doesn’t achieve that.
And what is Obama doing that maintains our military supremacy? Is he expanding the military? Modernizing our nuclear weapons arsenal? Deploying comprehensive and integrated missile defense? No, no, and no. So what is he doing to ensure our military supremacy? Rubin does not say.
Rubin writes:
As a result of the Obama administration’s openness to diplomacy and the respect this attitude has garnered, the Iranian government has less support at home, less credibility in the region, and fewer friends in the world. New sanctions imposed at the U.N. last week with the support of Russia and China won’t solve the problem but will complicate Tehran’s nuclear program, ensure that a price is paid for noncompliance, and compound Iran’s isolation.
That’s not analysis. That’s not even spin-doctoring. That’s just wishful thinking.
Rubin concludes:
To oversimplify, the change from Bush to Obama has been nothing but bad news for the bad guys.
And here, Rubin is spot on. That is “to oversimplify.” It is, in fact, a gross oversimplification.
Really.