Aside from the concerns about President Obama’s rush to secure a deal – some say virtually any deal – with Iran over its nuclear program, we now have, thanks to the release of his national security strategy, a window into the president’s overall view of America’s role in the world.
Frankly, it should be a wakeup call even for those who until now have been willing to put the best possible gloss on the administration’s worldview. We can only hope the Senate and House will take more seriously their national security responsibilities as a co-equal branch of government.
The president’s 29-page national security blueprint is remarkable for its emphasis on “restraint” and what it sees as the limits of American power in the international affairs:
America leads from a position of strength, but this does not mean we can or should attempt to dictate the trajectory of all unfolding events around the world.… As powerful as we are and will remain, our resources and influence are not infinite. And in a complex world, many of the security problems we face do not lend themselves to quick and easy fixes.
Thus, the report states, “The challenges we face require strategic patience and persistence.”
Typical of the administration’s milquetoast approach is the lack of any call for a substantial increase in military resources in order to crush ISIL, only a tepid mention of the need to “ultimately defeat” it.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) hit the nail on the head when he suggested that the president’s approach will only encourage our adversaries:
I doubt ISIL, the Iranian mullahs, or Vladimir Putin will be intimidated by President Obama’s strategy of “strategic patience.” From their point of view the more “patience” President Obama practices the stronger they become. The Obama Doctrine, or “strategic patience,” has led to a world in chaos.… Applying more “patience” to President Obama’s failed foreign policy just prolongs failure.
The president’s subdued – defeatist might be a better word – view of America’s international role has an even more problematic (although almost comical) dimension. The national security strategy actually maintains that American security is not only a byproduct of military strength and diplomacy but also of a focus on issues such as climate change, global health, and cyber attacks.
Further, for the first time ever, a president’s national security strategy makes a priority of promoting the rights of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people around the world.
To be sure, the document does not proclaim the total abandonment of traditional responses to such challenges as Chinese land grabs. Thus we are told,
Where there is a continuing, imminent threat, and when capture or other actions to disrupt the threat are not feasible, we will not hesitate to take decisive action.… The United States – not our adversaries – will define the nature and score of this struggle, lest it define us.
Yet there is no avoiding the feeling that the president sees the world as domestic America writ large with similar dynamics and challenges. And while it is true, as the strategy document says, that our resources are finite, that we must make “hard choices,” and that we must avoid “overreach,” recent history strongly suggests that the lack of an anchoring, robust – and at least slightly intimidating – U.S. presence in the international arena is a prescription for disaster.
As we noted at the outset, it’s time for Congress to finally begin exerting some real pushback on the president’s naïve and ultimately harmful agenda.