Comments on: DOES THE WORLD LOVE US ANY MORE WITH OBAMA AS PRESIDENT?

By: Peter

Peter — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 05:14:23 +0000

yo, yo yo

By: RegisLowen

RegisLowen — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 00:07:55 +0000

The Indians do not appear to be happy with the Obamessiah either:

http://www.dailypioneer.com/205327/Nightmare-presidency.html

By: funny man

funny man — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:50:19 +0000

Moltenorb.
why so generous? Only a book? ‘I know that I don’t know’ like the old Greeks used to say.

By: Moltenorb

Moltenorb — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:34:39 +0000

Engagement is a tactic…not a policy objective..

All you guys think you know the Obama strategy, but I’m guessing that what you don’t know would fill a book..

By: funny man

funny man — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 20:57:44 +0000

Jackson1234,
sure the Russians like to play chess and they are pretty good at it. That is how they approach foreign policy. You think they feared Bush more than Obama? Based on what? Their ‘careful’ handling of Georgia? They will obviously try to gain the most be there Bush or Obama in the WH.

By: jackson1234

jackson1234 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:22:10 +0000

Inevitably, Obama will have to make a tough choice. It is that moment I fear, based on his populist approach to international relations.

It is a good thing to be liked, and quite another to be manipulated. As you point out, our friends like Obama. But even that may change when the inevitable happens and our interests diverge. Our enemies have sized him up as Jimmy Carter’s Mini-Me, and have been emboldened to act recklessly. Right now, Russia is letting China take the lead to block sanctions of Iran. Medevev, of course, whispers sweet nothings to the president about his fantastic decision not to place a tripwire in Poland and the Czech Republic. So as a modus vivendi China will do the heavy lifting for Iran.

There isn’t anything wrong with being liked. But when a president is the object of ridicule, and I strongly suspect this one is among our adversaries, it is quite dangerous. Yes, Bush alienated our Allies. But our enemies feared him. Which of the two is more likely to cause problems and lead to a widened war?

Intelligent and constructive foreign policy is tough. This president and those around him have displayed little talent for it.

By: Robert Bell

Robert Bell — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:29 +0000

Ed. (Rick) Your point is well taken about meat and potatoes, my comment was strictly *all other things being equal*, not alienating people gratuitously is probably a better strategy than doing so.

Having said all that, to strain the analogy, successful foreign policy is probably meat, potatoes, appetizer, dessert, ambiance, location, good relations with the restaurant reviewers etc. I.e. it probably requires competence on a number of dimensions simultaneously, and moreover, those actions must be part of a coherent whole.

From what I gather from reading Dan Drezner, international institutions like the U.N. and the WTO may have their problems, but they also provide a mechanism whereby parties can refer to an (ostensibly) neutral, rule-based framework to help influence each other’s behavior. (as in Fisher and Ury’s Getting to Yes) So (credibly) pledging to work within an international framework can *theoretically* produce better outcomes than unilateralism. It then becomes a matter of empirical data whether it makes sense. Thus Obama’s reaffirmation of commitment to such institutions is also, all other things being equal, not a bad thing.

However, your essential meat and potatoes question in your original quote remains - will we be better off?

By: Robert Bell

Robert Bell — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:24:46 +0000

“All of these little unilateral gestures and more have been the modus operandi of the Obama foreign policy. Have they made us safer. Are American interests more or less at risk? Are our adversaries more or less likely to advance their own interests at the expense of ours? Just what has Obamalove gotten us?”

I think it is entirely possible, given a set of initial conditions, that certain actions can make you *less* safe, and certain actions can make you *more* safe. I’m not sure that Obama’s diplomatic approach is going to tackle any of the harder unsolved problems, but surely creating new problems by needlessly alienating people cannot be optimal.

At least in business, apologies seem to work better than stonewalling (Cf Exxon versus McNeil/Tylenol)

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-09/uon-ssr092309.php

I would put it this way; Obama’s approach probably causes us fewer problems in the end but will almost certainly cost us dearly when it comes to our relations vis a vis our adversaries. And I think that’s where the meat and potatoes are when it comes to any nation’s foreign policy.

ed.

By: Radiohadi

Radiohadi — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 08:00:41 +0000

As a former Brit now living in New Zealand I can say that Obama is far and away better than Bush, who was a complete joke. Obama needs to stand up to the right however - letting Van Jones go was a mistake.

By: funny man

funny man — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 06:31:21 +0000

As a German I can honestly say that the vast majority of Germans like Obama a lot better than Bush. Sure, there is always a slight undercurrent of Anti-American sentiment present in both the left and the right (for slightly different reasons). The vitriol and nasty comments by the likes of Rumsfeld didn’t exactly go over very well. However, Germany has and will be a reliable ally with a pretty sizable economy and because America was gracious in helping to rebuild Germany after WWII a lot of people longed for the day they could admire the United States again like they did with Kennedy. Remember, the comments when Obama went to Berlin during the campaign and some commentators on the right here were making comparisons to Hitler of all people. That didn’t exactly endear American conservatives to the Germans (and I’m just pointing out facts as a fellow conservative) and was a really stupid comparison. Do perceptions matter? They certainly do. Are people just rational beings that live their lives according to what makes most sense. No! They buy Levi Strauss jeans for an exorbitant price in Europe because of the image, more students might go to an American University for a year etc etc. To make a long story short, a superpower should and cannot impose it’s will by raw power but by admiration and moral guidance, That’s just my opinion. So a better relation does matter economically, militarily and culturally.
Finally, do I actually think Obama’s foreign policy is dramatically different than Bush’s second term policy? No. Fortunately, after the disastrous neocon episode (just remember Wolfowitz’s crazy prediction of flowers on the road to Baghdad) ‘normal’ foreign policy was reinstated.
BTW, I also have a lot of Chinese friends and none of them thought Obama is a joke.
Anyway, I don’t want to come off as if I agree with all of Obama’s foreign policy initiatives but I for one am glad we are getting out of Iraq. I know that neither Iraq nor Afghanistan will ever become a real democracy (at least not in my lifetime) and as long as extreme Islamists don’t rule these places I’m fine with it.