This book review was written by Eugene Kernes
“In the cocoon of our public debate
Obama gets high marks on foreign policy.
That is because his policies’ principal aim is not to make strategic
decisions but to satisfy public opinion – he has done more of the things that
people want and fewer of the things we have to do that may be unpopular. To our allies, however, our constant tactical
maneuvers don’t add up to a coherent strategy or a vision of global leadership. Gone is the exuberant American desire to lead
in the world. In its place there is the image
of a superpower tired of the world where it has been most intensely
engaged. That impression serves neither
America’s long-run interests nor stability around the world.” – Vali Nasr, Prologue:
“A Week In September”, Page 12
“In the months that followed, Washington’s pressure-only
policy threw relations into a downward spiral that put us at great risk. America quickly learned that Pakistan could
be even less cooperative, and to our surprise, we could not live with
that. A policy of worsening relations to
improve them – getting more out of Pakistan by given less – was a
nonstarter. Pakistan did not reward
coercion with cooperation.” – Vali Nasr, Chapter 3: Who Lost Pakistan?, Page 86
“The problem with sanctions is that they are just too
convenient. They are what you do when
you cannot or will not do anything else.
They offer a good feeling that a crisis is being handled, but in reality
they are blunt instruments with a questionable track record. When they work, they hurt the economy and
state institutions of the country they target – along with its civilian
populace – but do they reshape the bad policy behaviors that cause them to be
applied in the first place?” – Vali Nasr, Chapter 4: Iran: Between War and
Containment, Page 110
Is This An Overview?
Effective foreign policy seeks to make ties and gain
cooperative decisions from foreign states.
Alliances between states depend on long term policies, that obtain the respect
of allies and their supporters. The
military has a role in foreign policy, as a diplomatic tool meant to resolve
certain problems and to enable sovereignty.
During President Barack Obama’s administration, rather than the military
being an instrument of diplomacy, diplomats were used to support the military. The administration relied on military agencies
for decision making, and choosing military solutions. The problem is that military solutions are a
temporary measure to resolve a conflict, not a method for long term conflict
resolution.
With the military in charge, military solutions were
presented. The administration had staff
that prevented Obama from being aware of alternative opinions or ideas, a form
of strategic ignorance. The military
solutions generally involved coercion.
As foreign states did not appreciate being coerced, foreign states
reacted by limiting cooperation. As
military action needed information or permission from foreign states, military
actions became more difficult as coerced stated were not willing to provide
information or permission. Rather than
find methods for cooperation, American military was willing to disregard the
sovereign territory of uncooperative states.
Military action created anti-American sentiments, which made cooperation
and long term solutions more difficult.
The focus of Obama’s foreign policy was how decisions would
affect media coverage and how domestic political opposition would react. Foreign policy decisions were to satisfy
public opinion, rather than develop appropriate and strategic policies. Obama did receive praise for foreign policy
initiatives, but the praise was not about foreign policy accomplishments or the
effect of policies on regions. The
international community’s reaction to Obama’s foreign policy, were violent
anti-American protests. Without long
term strategic plans, without diplomacy, America’s international influence is
declining. As America’s international
influence declines, foreign states are gaining influence that threatens
American security.
Caveats?
There is a political bias in the book. While sharing the wrong methods that President
Barack Obama used to handle foreign affairs, favored Hillary Clinton’s approach
to foreign affairs. As the author
favored the diplomatic approach, the information presented validated the
diplomatic approach while limiting information on the military approach.
