Obama’s Foreign Policy Legacy Will Be More About Risk Mitigation Than Great Triumphs

None

A woman holds a placard reading 'Putin, hands off Ukraine' depicting a collage of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Soviet leader Josef Stalin during a demonstration against the attendances of Russian military in Crimea on March 8, 2014 at the Venceslas Square, in Prague.
National Journal
Norm Ornstein
March 12, 2014, 2:33 p.m.

It is not un­com­mon for second-term pres­id­ents to turn more of their at­ten­tion and fo­cus to for­eign policy. Do­mest­ic polit­ics and policy be­come in­creas­ingly frus­trat­ing, as the pres­id­ent’s par­tis­ans in Con­gress hunker down in pre­par­a­tion for a lousy midterm elec­tion, the party’s ideo­lo­gic­al base be­comes more bel­li­ger­ent, and the op­pos­i­tion party gets bolder. The pres­id­ent has had five years or more of en­ga­ging in for­eign af­fairs and with for­eign lead­ers. And the free­dom to act without the con­straints set by do­mest­ic polit­ics and the powers of Con­gress, to move chess pieces on the in­ter­na­tion­al stage, is highly tempt­ing.

Of course, what pres­id­ents want to do on the world stage is move those chess pieces and shape out­comes to make his­tory through great ac­com­plish­ments. That is what Pres­id­ent Obama has in mind with the ne­go­ti­ations over Ir­an’s nukes, the at­tempt to forge an agree­ment between Is­rael and the Palestini­an Au­thor­ity, and, to a less­er de­gree, the Syr­i­an chem­ic­al-weapons agree­ment.

But the harder real­ity is that most of the time the pres­id­ent will spend on for­eign policy in com­ing months will fo­cus on risk mit­ig­a­tion — try­ing to avoid a cata­strophe more than work­ing to cre­ate a tri­umph. That is true in Afgh­anistan, as Ham­id Kar­zai con­tin­ues to ca­reen out of con­trol; in Syr­ia, as Bashar al-As­sad vies with Kim Jong Un for status as the world’s most bru­tal butcher; in Venezuela, as Nicolás Ma­duro des­cends from au­thor­it­ari­an rule in­to sheer thug­gery; in Tur­key, as a thor­oughly cor­rupt Tayyip Er­dogan strips his coun­try of its hard-fought and hard-won demo­crat­ic in­sti­tu­tions and prin­ciples; in the po­ten­tial for ser­i­ous con­flict between China and Ja­pan over the Sen­kaku Is­lands.

Then there is Ukraine. The chal­lenges to the pres­id­ent are for­mid­able, and they start with a lar­ger real­ity: Deal­ing with a li­on’s share of the oth­er crises above — Syr­ia and Ir­an, es­pe­cially — re­quires try­ing to reach agree­ment with Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin, either to help re­solve them or at least to re­frain from mak­ing them much, much worse. Putin saved the pres­id­ent from a huge em­bar­rass­ment with the in­ter­ven­tion to re­solve Syr­ia’s chem­ic­al-weapons stock­pile, just be­fore the Sen­ate would have voted down his re­quest for au­thor­iz­a­tion to use force to pun­ish As­sad for us­ing the weapons re­peatedly against Syr­i­ans. Rus­sia is a key play­er in the del­ic­ate ne­go­ti­ations with Ir­an over its nuc­le­ar pro­gram. Mo­scow can make the U.S. trans­ition out of Afgh­anistan more pain­ful and dis­rupt­ive, and can be a pos­it­ive or neg­at­ive play­er in ne­go­ti­ations between the Is­rael­is and Palestini­ans.

For those who im­me­di­ately began call­ing for the harshest sanc­tions we can ap­ply against Rus­sia after its out­rageous be­ha­vi­or in Crimea, those con­sid­er­a­tions were nowhere evid­ent. Of course, one can make the case — and it is a power­ful one — that Putin’s Rus­sia will act in its cold, hard self-in­terest no mat­ter what we do to try to ap­pease it or cush­ion any re­ac­tion. But it is also likely that the harder we push, the more Rus­sia will re­spond in a hard and neg­at­ive way in every oth­er area of our in­terest, at least in the short run. And when it comes to Rus­sia and Syr­ia, the short run is ab­so­lutely cru­cial.

Non­ethe­less, it is clear that Putin be­lieves in power and power only. If there is no tough re­sponse to his takeover of Crimea, it will sig­nal to him that there is an open field for fur­ther ag­gress­ive moves, start­ing with, but not likely end­ing with, East­ern Ukraine.

But here comes the second ma­jor chal­lenge for the pres­id­ent: Ser­i­ous moves against Rus­sia be­gin with tough ac­tions against the cor­rupt ol­ig­archs, Putin and his cronies, who run the show, and with severe eco­nom­ic sanc­tions against Rus­sia’s weak eco­nomy. Those are doable — but only with the co­oper­a­tion of our E.U. al­lies. And the Europeans have little stom­ach to do much at all. In Lon­don, where a boom­ing real-es­tate mar­ket has been fueled by Rus­si­an bil­lion­aires buy­ing houses and flats for up to a hun­dred mil­lion pounds (!), and where there is real fear that burst­ing the hous­ing bubble will sink an already pre­cari­ous eco­nomy, there is no chance that the Brits will crack down on travel by the ol­ig­archs or hit them hard in oth­er ways.

Throughout Europe, where trade with Rus­sia is ro­bust, eco­nom­ic sanc­tions would be pain­ful — much more pain­ful than they would be for the United States. Much of Europe de­pends also heav­ily on Rus­si­an oil and nat­ur­al gas.

The third di­lemma for the pres­id­ent has do­mest­ic im­plic­a­tions. A de­clar­a­tion from Obama that the U.S. will be­gin sig­ni­fic­ant ex­ports of nat­ur­al gas, along with ramp­ing up nat­ur­al-gas pro­duc­tion, would be pain­ful to Rus­sia. To be sure, li­que­fy­ing the gas and ship­ping it by con­tain­er is no equi­val­ent to the pipelines bring­ing the gas to European coun­tries from Rus­sia. But the com­bin­a­tion of in­creased ex­ports and in­creased pro­duc­tion would hit Putin right in the wal­let.

For­mid­able forces at home op­pose more U.S. gas ex­ports, however. Some fear a short-term in­crease in do­mest­ic prices, and oth­ers worry about the in­crease in frack­ing that would come with the policy change. And the lat­ter group, es­pe­cially the en­vir­on­ment­al act­iv­ists already agit­at­ing against the pos­sible ap­prov­al of the Key­stone XL pipeline and deeply op­posed to any ex­pan­sion of oil-and-gas ex­plor­a­tion and drilling, are a ser­i­ous thorn in the pres­id­ent’s side.

With a new NBC News/Wall Street Journ­al poll show­ing a sharp de­crease in en­thu­si­asm among Demo­crats head­ing in­to the cru­cial midterm elec­tions, there is a price to be paid for a pres­id­en­tial move on this front.

Putin run­ning rampant, head­aches around the world, head­aches from al­lies, head­aches from his own base. All of these come with the ter­rit­ory for a second-term pres­id­ent. Obama and his sec­ret­ary of State, the for­mid­able John Kerry, may well nav­ig­ate through this. But first they will earn a many more gray hairs and en­dure many more sleep­less nights.

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×