Stephen Walt has diagnosed the ills of the Obama Administration’s Foreign Policy as “the classic problem of over-commitment”, accusing the Administration of “Pursuing multiple objectives without a clear set of priorities”. So persuasive was Walt in this piece, that Ryan Evans, our esteemed leader here at WOTR took to Twitter to opine:
I often disagree w/ @StephenWalt, but he really nailed it in this piece http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/18/the_solve_everything_do_nothing_obama_white_house … Couldn’t have said it better myself #endorse
When I read this Tweet, I found myself enthused to read Walt’s piece, a feeling I only infrequently enjoy. Why, if Ryan Evans—my personal “reasonable man” test—endorses something Walt believes (not on my “reasonable man” list), perhaps Walt has stumbled up sudden wisdom and insight. But alas, I was wrong, and so must perhaps re-evaluate my reliance on Evans as a policy weather vane.
Before getting to meat of my argument, let me take just a brief moment to express my continuing amazement that Dr. Walt’s advanced case of intellectual Tourette Syndrome has not further diminished his credibility. No matter what the U.S. foreign policy ill, “AIPAC” and “the Israel Lobby” are never found far from blame, and are in many cases, clearly identified with it. This piece is no exception.
While Walt joins the chorus of those who believe the Obama foreign policy is in trouble and that it lacks a clear set of priorities (both of which I believe), his prescription for the ills besetting the President is to become less engaged diplomatically, to ensure that our reach does not exceed our grasp. Presumably, a more narrowly defined set of interests guided by a “…clear set of priorities…” would move Mr. Obama’s second term back into a policy sweet-spot Dr. Walt would find more to his liking. This should not be a surprise coming from a thinker who seems consistently to believe that what the world needs more is less America, that somehow, a less engaged United States would be better for everyone.
The problem is not one of diplomatic over-commitment. Rather, it is one of Presidential under-commitment. President Obama’s foreign policy continues to fall short of the mark not because it is over-committed, but because it has from the beginning, been guided by the first principle of “do no harm.” That is, do no harm to the domestic agenda. “If only we can get allies to solve problems for us, if only we can rely on international organizations to mediate hotspots, if only we can issue sufficiently stern warnings, well then, we can concentrate on the real reason we are here, and that is to remake the relationship between the government and the governed. And if the world around us gets in the way, make as little noise as possible.” Call it what you will—“leading from behind”, a “light footprint” or whatever—the result is that we are choosing to slowly retire from our position of world leadership not because we cannot afford to sustain it, but because this President has chosen not to value it. Other nations have measured the President and found him wanting. A little Machiavelli would be nice in these times, with the United States being both loved and feared. But if it can be only one, it should be feared. And it is not.
Walt does get something right; we do need clear priorities. And the number one priority must be to re-establish the United States as the nation that cannot be ignored. Our prosperity is not diminished by cost of diplomatic and military power. It is the result of it.
Bryan McGrath (@ConsWahoo) is the founding Managing Director of The FerryBridge Group. A retired Naval Officer, Bryan spent 21 years on active duty including a tour in command of USS BULKELEY (DDG 84). His final duties ashore included serving as Team Lead and Primary Author of the US Navy’s 2007 Maritime Strategy “A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower.” McGrath is an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute and Assistant Director of the Hudson Center for American Seapower.
Image: Alvesgaspar
aslamtu 
Donald Sassano 
Ryan Evans 
CBCalif 
agorabum 
So what is your proposal for the American response to the Ukrainian situation? Easy to criticize without offering alternatives.
I’m certain the “meat of” the author’s argument is that Walt is an anti-Semite. Having linked over here for the first time based on Tom Rick’s recommendation, I’m surprised to see this empty exercise published and passed off as analysis.
One thing is certain — should McGrath ever lose his gig at Hudson, I’m certain he could find employment writing copy at Fox News.
Hey Donald,
We publish a lot of different points of view here at War on the Rocks, such as this entry on our Hasty Ambush blog in which Bryan tackles Stephen Walt’s argument and my endorsement of it. I don’t see where Bryan says that Walt is an anti-Semite. I hope you keep reading War on the Rocks, but I’d appreciate it if you’d engage more substantively with the arguments we present. In case you’re interested, I will respond to Bryan’s piece tomorrow.
Enjoy your Sunday.
Ryan Evans
Editor-in-Chief
Thanks for your response, Ryan.
Of course McGrath doesn’t baldly state Walt is an anti-Semite. Instead we read “No matter what the U.S. foreign policy ill, “AIPAC” and “the Israel Lobby” are never found far from blame, and are in many cases, clearly identified with it. This piece is no exception.” An accusatory, thinly veiled swipe that seemingly links Walt to the disgusting trope that Jews are always to blame.
Walt’s work is more variegated than the above quote would have readers believe, and I for one am happy there is a strong voice among us that encourages a more clear-eyed accounting of both Israel’s behavior and U.S. policies in the Middle East. In fact, a little less Machiavelli (see under Nuland, Victoria) and a bit more Thucydides should be the order of the day.
In the meantime, I’ll keep the faith and I look forward to returning to the site….
While Professor Walt can’t seem to write a paper about the Middle East without demonstrating critiquing AIPAC most of his commentary is rational, for instance his recognizing in the referenced piece that: “And it is not as though these issues are trivial ones for Israel either in light of the turmoil in the rest of the region; any Israeli leader would be certain to work hard to make sure its concerns were satisfied.”
Professor
Walt, unlike many others, realizes there can be no such thing as an even handed approach toward Middle Eastern Countries given that their governments are generally dictatorial in nature; often employ force to keep themselves in power; have within an increasing number of heavily armed radical feudal war lord style kingdoms stronger than the national government of that land or at least equal in strength to them, albeit while being far more fanatical in pursuit of their goals.
Dictators whose hold on their territory is often tenuous, at least in many instances, given the makeup of their populations and that their countries were manufactured by the British and French as part of their divide conquer scheme for the area – such as in Lebanon, Jordan, Bahrain, Iraq, etc.
Regardless, this country’s national strategic interests in the Middle East are limited to insuring we have a flow of oil from the region as needed to fuel our economy and little more. That little more being the insuring that a nuclear conflict does not break out between the competing parties in the region, as even if the exchange was limited to the region the resulting nuclear cloud could have rather devastating effects on the health of the Earth’s population, and interrupt the flow of oil from the region.
A cold viewpoint perhaps, but one that is a correct strategic analysis. Nothing, accordingly, of strategic value will accrue to the West from achieving a solution to the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, thus nothing of benefit can accrue to the U.S. from sacrificing effort on that problem. Further, Obama and Kerry should realize that the dispute between Russian and the Ukraine is occurring in Russia’s sphere of influence and not of our concern, as again zero strategic benefit will accrue to the West from involving itself in that confrontation. Common sense dictates that we should acknowledge that fact.
The only reasonable effort being engaged in is the attempt to bring some form of closely monitored halt to Iran’s nuclear weapon development program and little else in that region.
Professor Walt is correct in noting that our problems “might all have been avoided had the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations not decided that it was America’s mission to try to guide as many countries as possible toward some sort of democracy (no matter how flawed) and some sort of pro-Western political alignment, even when other powers had reason to view this as a threat.”
As the Professor implies, it is time for the U.S. to withdraw from its attempt to spread democracy around the world as that policy has surely failed and has created a more chaotic and violent world. It has increased the number of confrontations between the U.S. and other countries and groups around the world and created situations in which even (the unlikely chance of) success should we intervene would provide us no meaningful benefit.
Isn’t the problem that the administration had done too much, not too little?
An administration that threatens to bomb Syria alone, that topples the regime in Libya, that orders a raid inside the heart of Pakistan, authorized a surge in Afghanistan, and that operates a fleet of drones across the middle east is not exactly a shrinking violet.
If the US had actually pulled back, it would not have endorsed the Ukraine protestors. If it supported the elected Yanukovich, the entire conflict could have been avoided.
It is not as if the US is pulling out of NATO.
And I don’t see how any of this is related to his domestic agenda, which can’t go anywhere with a Republican controlled house.
The greater question is always: what do you suggest we do instead? You have no response, other than be a nation that “can’t be ignored.” What does that even mean?