Obama's European Problem
The last paragraph represents the key challenge to Obama's foreign policy, and where his first challenge would come from. Obama wants a coalition with Europe and wants Europe to strengthen itself. But Europe is deeply divided, and averse to increasing its defense spending or substantially increasing its military participation in coalition warfare. Obama's multilateralism and Europeanism will quickly encounter the realities of Europe.

This would immediately affect his jihadist policy. At this point, Obama's plan for a 16-month drawdown from Iraq is quite moderate, and the idea of focusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan is a continuation of Bush administration policy. But his challenge would be to increase NATO involvement. There is neither the will nor the capability to substantially increase Europe's NATO participation in Afghanistan.

This problem would be even more difficult in dealing with Russia. Europe has no objection in principle to the Afghan war; it merely lacks the resources to substantially increase its presence there. But in the case of Russia, there is no European consensus. The Germans are dependent on the Russians for energy and do not want to risk that relationship; the French are more vocal but lack military capability, though they have made efforts to increase their commitment to Afghanistan. Obama says he wants to rely on multilateral agencies to address the Russian situation. That is possible diplomatically, but if the Russians press the issue further, as we expect, a stronger response will be needed. NATO will be unlikely to provide that response.

Obama would therefore face the problem of shifting the focus to Afghanistan and the added problem of balancing between an Islamic focus and a Russian focus. This will be a general problem of U.S. diplomacy. But Obama as a Democrat would have a more complex problem. Averse to unilateral actions and focused on Europe, Obama would face his first crisis in dealing with the limited support Europe can provide.

That will pose serious problems in both Afghanistan and Russia, which Obama would have to deal with. There is a hint in his thoughts on this when he says, "And as we strengthen NATO, we should also seek to build new alliances and relationships in other regions important to our interests in the 21st century." The test would be whether these new coalitions will differ from, and be more effective than, the coalition of the willing.

Obama would face similar issues in dealing with the Iranians. His approach is to create a coalition to confront the Iranians and force them to abandon their nuclear program. He has been clear that he opposes that program, although less clear on other aspects of Iranian foreign policy. But again, his solution is to use a coalition to control Iran. That coalition disintegrated to a large extent after Russia and China both indicated that they had no interest in sanctions.

But the coalition Obama plans to rely on will have to be dramatically revived by unknown means, or an alternative coalition must be created, or the United States will have to deal with Afghanistan and Pakistan unilaterally. This reality places a tremendous strain on the core principles of Democratic foreign policy. To reconcile the tensions, he would have to rapidly come to an understanding with the Europeans in NATO on expanding their military forces. Since reaching out to the Europeans would be among his first steps, his first test would come early.

The Europeans would probably balk, and, if not, they would demand that the United States expand its defense spending as well. Obama has shown no inclination toward doing this. In October 2007, he said the following on defense: "I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending."

Russia, Afghanistan and Defense Spending
In this, Obama is reaching toward the anti-war faction in his party, which regards military expenditures with distrust. He focused on advanced war-fighting systems, but did not propose cutting spending on counterinsurgency. But the dilemma is that in dealing with both insurgency and the Russians, Obama would come under pressure to do what he doesn't want to do namely, increase U.S. defense spending on advanced systems.

Obama has been portrayed as radical. That is far from the case. He is well within a century-long tradition of the Democratic Party, with an element of loyalty to the anti-war faction. But that element is an undertone to his policy, not its core. The core of his policy would be coalition building and a focus on European allies, as well as the use of multilateral institutions and the avoidance of pre-emptive war. There is nothing radical or even new in these principles. His discomfort with military spending is the only thing that might link him to the party's left wing.

The problem he would face is the shifting international landscape, which would make it difficult to implement some of his policies. First, the tremendous diversity of international challenges would make holding the defense budget in check difficult. Second, and more important, is the difficulty of coalition building and multilateral action with the Europeans. Obama thus lacks both the force and the coalition to carry out his missions. He therefore would have no choice but to deal with the Russians while confronting the Afghan/Pakistani question even if he withdrew more quickly than he says he would from Iraq.

The make-or-break moment for Obama will come early, when he confronts the Europeans. If he can persuade them to take concerted action, including increased defense spending, then much of his foreign policy rapidly falls into place, even if it is at the price of increasing U.S. defense spending. If the Europeans cannot come together (or be brought together) decisively, however, then he will have to improvise.

Obama would be the first Democrat in this century to take office inheriting a major war. Inheriting an ongoing war is perhaps the most difficult thing for a president to deal with. Its realities are already fixed and the penalties for defeat or compromise already defined. The war in Afghanistan has already been defined by U.S. President George W. Bush's approach. Rewriting it will be enormously difficult, particularly when rewriting it depends on ending unilateralism and moving toward full coalition warfare when coalition partners are wary.

Obama's problems are compounded by the fact that he does not only have to deal with an inherited war, but also a resurgent Russia. And he wants to depend on the same coalition for both. That will be enormously challenging for him, testing his diplomatic skills as well as geopolitical realities. As with all presidents, what he plans to do and what he would do are two different things. But it seems to us that his presidency would be defined by whether he can change the course of U.S.-European relations not by accepting European terms but by persuading them to accommodate U.S. interests.

An Obama presidency would not turn on this. There is no evidence that he lacks the ability to shift with reality that he lacks Machiavellian virtue. But it still will be the first and critical test, one handed to him by the complex tensions of Democratic traditions and by a war he did not start.

This guy is so out of whack it is hard to know where to start.

He can't even reach across our aisle in Congress let alone trying to rely on EU to increase NATO and forget about dealing with Iran or Russia on his terms.

Stratfor is reliable for unbiased opinions and just laying out the facts.

Obama has no business being POTUS with his lack of experience (Biden doesn't help), lack of judgment and lack of central core values of where he stands.

Obama knows more than old Balding McCain. THAT is for certain. Oh and He EARNED His way to the top. More than I can say about John McCain. Bank on THAT one Murphy.

Larry

Murphy-do you blow everyone who'll write a hit-piece on Obama?

There is no one in this country who is close enough to actually write an article of validity suggesting obama lacks understanding of foreign policy.

The fact that this is common sense suggests that this person who posted the article has a tough time grasping what foreign policy is really about.

Obama would be the first Democrat in this century to take office inheriting a major war.

Well guess what, we are not in a major war, no matter how much the neoliberal republicans would like to think we be.

We are in a major occupation and that being the case would clearly suggest that this writer has problems in understanding what foreign policy really means.

The website was down when I clicked the link.

Must be a very well known site (snark)

Obama has no business being POTUS with his lack of experience (Biden doesn't help), lack of judgment and lack of central core values of where he stands.

I will concede this point. You are right. Obama has little foreign policy experience and no executive experience. I will probably not vote for him.

So why are you supporting John McCain? His vice-presidential nominee has even less experience. Statistically speaking, McCain is more likely to die in office than either of the other of the others. Yet you're willing to trust foreign and domestic policy to him, and should he die, Sara Palin.

You're as transparent as glass. None of this bullshit means anything to you. You just don't want a democrat to be president. So come out and say it. It will make you feel better to admit it.

Say: "I am a partisan hack and I care about the success of my party over the success of my country and my countrymen."

Once you get that off of your chest, spinning for the party that has spent 8 years taking a giant dump on the Constitution will come second nature to you.

Say: "I am a partisan hack and I care about the success of my party over the success of my country and my countrymen."

It's not necessarily about being a partisan hack. Some people are simply pragmatic voters - vote for the viable candidate who best represents one's views.

It's not necessarily about being a partisan hack. Some people are simply pragmatic voters - vote for the viable candidate who best represents one's views.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-10-02 05:53 AM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Even when that choice is very bad for America JeffJ??

Larry

The link's dead.
Where does this come from and who wrote it?

Even when that choice is very bad for America JeffJ??

Larry

Larry, people on the left constantly point out that most people on the right are voting against their own interest and therefore should vote for democrats instead who have their interests best in mind.

Do you agree with that?

No Eberly. If JeffJ would even vote for a third party candidate I would be tickled pink. Hell He could even vote for Me if He wanted to.

Larry

Larry,

I was in your town recently. considering going to work for for an organization based there. I would be in Kansas City for this position though.

You should have emailed Me. I would have met You somewhere. So You might be moving to KC huh?? Sounds kewl. Let Me know if it works out.

Larry

Larry,

At this point in time, a 3rd Party candidate has no chance of winning.

I only vote for viable candidates.

Larry,

Regarding your Pakistan and India scenario...

I think you missed my point.

Allow me to clarify:

You don't anounce to the world that you will blatantly ignore the sovereignty of an ally in order to try and take out a high-value target who may be hiding within her borders.

Just prior to an attack, quietly give Pakistan a 'head's up' so they don't mistakenly assume the attack generated from India. Then, move with the attack. By doing all of this quietly, Pakistan is allowed to show the proper, face-saving indignance.

Why should we allow a supposed ally to save face when they haven't done all they could to eradicate Al Qaeda. I could see Your point if the alliance was brand new but it's not brand new it's several years long now and they still haven't behaved like an ally. How would You feel if some guy were holding the folks that killed Your Countryfolk in Michigan while claiming publically that He was an ally of Yours. It's one of those times where You have to say publically. Either shit or get off the pot because if You don't eradicate the problem WE WILL. It's like You and Your boys. If You tell them that they need to get their rooms cleaned up privately and they don't do so. You have to then either do it Yourself quietly or announce over the Dinner table since You have not cleaned up Your rooms You have until tonight to clean Your mess up or I WILL and You won't like how I will clean it up.

Larry

Murphy, let me see if I can explain this to you in simple terms you can understand.

The US no longer has the option of acting preventively (not preemptive, preventively) nor unilaterally.

It is a concept as dead as the dinosaurs.

America is going broke.

American military is stretched wafer thin.

America cannot afford to continue its unilateral and empirical policies.

We are going broke.

We are being FORCED to find multilateral and diplomatic solutions to these issues.

They have the side benefit of not getting a lot of people killed.

On top of that the majority of americans are sick and tired of war.

America MUST find its moral high ground. We must find and exploit our soft power.

Obama is not naive, Obama is a realist. Obama does not cowtow to the left of his party but strides across the middle of American beliefs.

The unilateralists ARE the extremists.

The vast majority of Americans do NOT want war with Iran.

The vast majority of Americans want us OUT of Iraq.

WE ARE GOING BROKE!

You don't anounce to the world that you will blatantly ignore the sovereignty of an ally in order to try and take out a high-value target who may be hiding within her borders.

Just prior to an attack, quietly give Pakistan a 'head's up' so they don't mistakenly assume the attack generated from India. Then, move with the attack. By doing all of this quietly, Pakistan is allowed to show the proper, face-saving indignance.

#20 | Posted by JeffJ

do you think that Pakistan is aware that bombs are being dropped on their lands?

Well, if you compare the results of the Cold War, centered around making alliances, talking with the enemy, avoiding direct conflict with Russia, etc. to Iraq, centered around preemptive strategy, I'd personally go with the former. The writer of the article seems to prefer the latter. Guess we disagree. Though I wouldn't go to the extent of saying he doesn't understand foreign policy.

Hey there--

Here is the website

I won't vote for him but I don't see how anything Obama has ever said is as stupid as singing "bomb Iran". Or how anything he has ever said is as naive as supporting people who actually believed that the Middle East would turn democratic almost overnight if we invaded Iraq without a plan. Obama's policies MAY prove naive. McCain has supported policies that have PROVEN to be naive.

And why the fuck does the author of this article seem to believe we are in any position to hold any leverage over Russia right now? Talk about naive. Putin knows we are stretched too thin to bother with him right now.

McCain has supported policies that have PROVEN to be utter disasters.

There, fixed.

McCain has supported policies that have PROVEN to be utter disasters.

There, fixed.

#27 | Posted by Zatoichi

By that measure, so has Biden - who is one heartbeat or bullet away from the presidency.

"By that measure, so has Biden - who is one heartbeat or bullet away from the presidency."

So of the four candidates endorsed by major parties who are running for the presidency or to be one bullet away from the presidency, Obama is the most sensible on foreign policy. Yet he's the subject of this silly article.

Obama is the most sensible on foreign policy.

Not quite. Mr. Empty suit does not have enough experience to qualify for the comparison - neither does Palin for that matter. And before you comment, attendance at a German rock concert does not count as foreign policy experience.

That is not to say that Biden and McCain cannot learn from their mistakes. Obama does'nt even have his "drivers license" yet in foreign policy so the possiblity of failed policy is great.

"Not quite. Mr. Empty suit does not have enough experience to qualify for the comparison - neither does Palin"

Palin blabbers about supporting the same shit that hasn't been working. So does McCain. I haven't heard Biden speak in a while so I don't know where he is but his voting record is pretty bad.

Mr. Empty Suit at least talks about doing things differently. So spin it any way you want but he's by far the most sensible. You can learn from mistakes that aren't your own. Our government has made giant glaring mistakes over the past eight years and only a jackass wouldn't have learned from them.

Mr. Empty Suit at least talks about doing things differently.

Please articulate when his rhetoric matches his actions. As a senator, he votes in lock-step with the Dem party almost all of the time.

Politicians love to talk a good game.

Tbeir actions however define how they really think.

"Please articulate when his rhetoric matches his actions. As a senator, he votes in lock-step with the Dem party almost all of the time."

In this case he hasn't had the opportunity to take any action other than to promote his policy verbally. When has he ever been able to vote on shifting the focus of the so-called War on Terror or including the lawless region of Pakistan as a theater of operations? These are things he can only do as president.

I'm not in love with the guy. I know he's a hack like the others. On this particular issue I agree with him. And I think singling him out as naive on this issue when the opposition wants to just keep doing the same stuff that doesn't work is just hackish. Naive is thinking you can turn shit into gold by believing hard enough. Our current foreign policy is shit.

In this case he hasn't had the opportunity to take any action other than to promote his policy verbally

Translation: NO EXPERIENCE!

vote for the viable candidate who best represents one's views.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2008-10-02 05:53 AM

Ans certainly not for the Saul Alinsky Marxist !

Is foreign policy experience important in order to be President of the U.S.? It appears that the gold members of the Misinformation Society of America believes so. In Fox T.V. this morning, there was a guy named Mark Brezinski (I am not sure of the spelling) interviewed by Ms. Megan. He is a former National Security member. He was very critical of Gov. Sarah Palin on foreign policy experience during the V.P. debate. What deck of cards did this joker escape from? When another gobernor first ran for president, he did not have any foreign policy experience. His name, Bill Clinton. I remember then also candidate Patrick Buchanan stating publicly on television that the only foreign policy experience that Bill Clinton had, he obtained at the International House of Pancakes. If he is not yet a member yet of the society, Mr. Brezinski should immediately apply for same. I also recommend for membership, Mr. C. Todd of MSNBC. He has already declared Barack Obama the winner. Barack Obama, who cooks his own pancakes. Todd reminds me of Sportscaster Vin Scully when in 1986, before the ninth inning had ended, he declared the Boston Red Sox the winners of the World Series for that year and started handling out other titles in favor of the Boston Red Sox. Scully winded up having crow tea for breakfast, crow hot dogs for lunch, and crow soup for dinner. And if nobody believes me, ask Mookie Wilson and Bill Buckner. They are still out there somewhere. Lastly, when it comes to such experience, why didn't Pres. Billy Carter attempt to trade the embassy hostages of his presidency in Iran for a thousand barrels of peanuts from his farm in Plains, Georgia?

"He was very critical of Gov. Sarah Palin on foreign policy experience during the V.P. debate. What deck of cards did this joker escape from? When another gobernor first ran for president, he did not have any foreign policy experience. His name, Bill Clinton."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight. No difference between a Rhodes Scholar & Yale graduate, and a 5-college hockey mom.

Every one of the "major" presidential (and VP)candidates have gone before AIPAC.

Obama
Biden
McCain
Palin

None of these candidates get my vote for this very reason.

We can all see which lobby group will (once again) be "advising" our future president (vp) on foreign policy.

Mr. Empty Suit at least talks about doing things differently. So spin it any way you want but he's by far the most sensible--

Per Sully

That is the point Sully--Obama's supposed policy has been tried and failed before--under Carter.

It's all dressed up and it's still appeasement.

Can't get the EU to do any more than what they are doing now--no military help--they don't have any.

Russia is becoming a problem and that pipeline is a sticking point--that is why they are punching Georgia.

"Naive is thinking you can turn shit into gold by believing hard enough." per Sully--

That is exactly what Obama thinks he can do--he thinks he can reach people because he is the great Obama. He's never reached past the salt and pepper at the dinner table to reach anyone at any time.

Our enemies want him elected--that should tell you something--or at least give you pause to think critically about where Obama is coming from.

Murphy-
Define "appeasement". I'm not sure you understand the difference between diplomacy and appeasement.

BetelG,

How about YOU comparing and contrasting the terms 'appeasement' and 'diplomacy'?

Appeasement is when Your Mama tells You that if You eat all Your peas You can have some peppermint shnaps. appeasement.

Larry

Jeff J-
Here's a definition for each that even the insulted "Joe six pack" and the cravenly pandered to "soccer mom" will find clear:

Appeasement: giving something up

Diplomacy: discussion, with the clear understanding that we are in a position of power (now diminished under the Bush administration, admittedly)

Larry-
That's carrot-and-stick, but still. :)

#43 | Posted by BetelG

I apprecieate the direct answer, BetelG.

I will afford you the same courtesy now, but will illustrate appeasement via an example:

The nuclear-halt deal negotiated between Carter and N. Korea during Clinton's term.

It was a US-bends over and takes it in the rump deal. All give and no take.

Furthermore, how in the fuck did Carter negotiate that deal without viscious ridicule from liberal Democrats?

He wasn't a cabinet member of the Clinton administration.

He never went through the senatorial confirmation process.

His brokered-deal was in direct contrast to the policy-position taken by President Clinton, the duly-elected CiC at that time.

Fuck Clinton for ceding to pressure within his own ranks to honor the deal via sending Albright over there to rubber-stamp it.

Fuck much harder the Leftist shit-bags who, via their absurd strangle-hold on the Democratic Party, were able to shirk our entire structure of government by endorsing a deal brokered by an unelected individual who had no business being there in the first place.

THAT is precisely the type of shit I envision with an Obama presidency. Given that Obama looks like he'll likely be our next prez, I seriously hope I am wrong.

Time will tell, I suppose.

PS - I can guaruntee you that Clinton is no fan of Carter.

Jeff J-
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

Bush came in with a surplus and doubled the debt. He squandered everything we had gained and preyed upon the patriotism of the public to launch a war under false pretenses while neglecting the struggle we all supported. Bush and the Republican Party took THE superpower with moral authority and turned it into a petty bully. Bush and the Republican Party squandered a chance that no nation has ever had in the history of mankind. It is beyond a sin, and beyond a crime.

But they were re-elected in 2004.

Bush came in with a surplus and doubled the debt.

This is borderline criminal.

I've made it clear that I feel Obama is a light-weight and is unqualified for POTUS. If he wins, and he likely will, one of the biggest, albeit not the only, factors for this will be Bush hangover. Particularly in regards to spending.

He squandered everything we had gained and preyed upon the patriotism of the public to launch a war under false pretenses while neglecting the struggle we all supported.

Much of the criticism regarding his push to attack Iraq is fair and legitimate. I credit you with using the alleged justification of "false pretenses" in lieu of "lies".

If you haven't already done so, check out this book:

BetelG,

What I like most about the book I linked is that it's 200+ pages of footnotes are wholly comprised of primary sources.

Jeff J-
I don't think you fully -or even partially - understand that the chance will never come again. The world was looking for leadership, and we were the most sound (both morally and fiscally) nation on earth. We were also the most powerful. We had a chance to remake the known universe.

Fast forward to today.

I'm still sick to my stomach. And I will be until the day I die.

I don't think you fully -or even partially - understand that the chance will never come again. The world was looking for leadership, and we were the most sound (both morally and fiscally) nation on earth. We were also the most powerful. We had a chance to remake the known universe.

I don't necessarily disagree.

I loathe much of what the Bush administration has wrought, particularly in regards to fiscal criminality.

However, I depart from you, to an extent, regarding Bush's handling of "the war on terra".

That growing-problem far transcends the Bush administration.

In terms of attemting to handle said problem, he gets passing marks, from me.

Having said that, we need a new chapter in this fight.

We need a much more comprehensive understanding of what we are dealing with, and more specifically, who we are dealing with. The problem is much bigger than solely the radical, violent Islamic extremists. What makes their movement so dangerous is the tacit support given to them by traditional, non-violent Muslims.

The problem is us vs. them, at least partially. However, it's also more nuanced than that. Tom Friedman characterized this war, in the wake of 9-11, as a war within Islam. Very salient, IMO.

Going forward, our scope needs to be expanded to a point where we are not only directly fighting the extremists, but are also turning the traditionalists against the extremists. As much as Rumsfeld deserved harsh criticism for his blunders, this was the underlying reason behind his 'going on the cheap' in terms of troop levels - he didn't want to create the impression of an occupation. His biggest problem lied in his unwillingness to adapt.

Let's use sports as an analogy. When preparing for a game, pro sports teams extensively scout the oppostion. They scout, they analyze, they scrutinize every bit of available info regarding their opponent so as to best formulate a competitive strategy. When we look at the early stages of Iraq, this was clearly accomplished.

However, in sports, teams react. Counter-punches are thrown, etc. Where Rumsfeld failed miserably was not matching the counter-punch with a counter of his own. He further exacerbated this by stubbornly adhering to a countered strategy when it was clear that a counter-punch connected and a revised strategy was needed.

JeffJ-
Re: Rumsfeld - "he didn't want to create the impression of an occupation."

Right.

Sorry, but I lost patience with the David Brooks and Tom Friedmans of the world about six years ago. And this shit about a "sports analogy" makes me vomit.

As long as I am speaking honestly and you are regurgitating the bullshit you swallowed whole in 2001-today, I might as well reiterate my profound disappointment in the cavalier way you speak of the future of the world in trite aphorisms and sports analogies.

Jeff-
re: "That growing-problem far transcends the Bush administration.

In terms of attemting to handle said problem, he gets passing marks, from me."

By neglecting Afghanistan (an intervention the entire world understood), and diverting most of our resources to Iraq in an obvious military play for control over oil distribution while towing your ass along in the interest of patriotism and self defence?

At this point, if you were across the table from me drinking a beer, I'd say "fuck you" twice, and mean it.

But good night, anyway.

"he didn't want to create the impression of an occupation."

Right.

That was his primary justification for his controversial lack of troop levels in Iraq. You seem to think his strategy was much more nefarious. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this.

As long as I am speaking honestly and you are regurgitating the bullshit you swallowed whole in 2001-today, I might as well reiterate my profound disappointment in the cavalier way you speak of the future of the world in trite aphorisms and sports analogies.

To which I would turn back around at you and express my profound disappointment in the utter naive and historically-ignorant way you speak of the current dangers our global society presents.

My sports analogies were simply a way to illustrate my criticisms of Rumsfeld's lack of flexibility.

diverting most of our resources to Iraq in an obvious military play for control over oil distribution

Uh huh.

Where have all of those profits from Iraqi oil gone? Did I recently read about the new-Iraqi government generating substantial profits via oil revenues?

At this point, if you were across the table from me drinking a beer, I'd say "fuck you" twice, and mean it.

And I'd respond by buying you another beer and floating you a smoke - it's the kind of guy I am.

But good night, anyway.

Same to you.