Conflating American security with military interventionism is an old trick, but it doesn’t make it any more intellectually defensible. And again, it’s worth repeating: when those disposed to Krauthammer’s arguments held policy making positions, American power declined precipitously. ~Greg Scoblete

Scoblete is responding to this Krauthammer article, which makes the preposterous claims that Obama has been proposing a series of “strategic retreats” and that so-called New Liberalism aims to undermine U.S. hegemony. This is rather like the imaginary “apology tour” Obama has been on these past few months–it hits all the right ideological notes for the people making the charge, but it is pure fantasy. Obviously I agree with Scoblete, and I have made the same point about the previous administration’s disastrous record of declining U.S. influence and power.

One thing that does concern me is that turning the old “weakness” smears around on the GOP will not encourage intelligent re-thinking on foreign policy and national security, but will instead foster a redoubling of the worst aggressive instincts that Republicans currently have. If everyone comes to accept that Bush weakened American power, which he did, the conclusion some national security conservatives will reach is that Bush weakened America by not being hard-line and aggressive enough. In this mad interpretation, the failure of the Bush years was not found in plunging us into an intractable, unnecessary war, harming allied interests with blank checks of support or encouraging reckless allies into self-destructive action, but in failing to follow through. This is also the rationale for the flurry of attacks against Obama, who has more or less maintained second-term Bush status quo on most aspects of foreign policy. If doing the same things as the Bush administration in its second term can be redefined as Obama’s “New Liberalism,” the more aggressive interventionists and hawks on the right can claim that they are guardians of a “conservative” foreign policy, which allows them to promote the self-serving, albeit completely absurd, idea that everyone except for them favors “weakness” and “retreat.”

What is a little amusing about the Krauthammer argument against Obama is that it obsesses over symbolism and superficial appearances while ignoring substance, which is one of the standard complaints against Obama. Bush used triumphalist, self-congratulatory rhetoric, but bungled the execution of many policies to the detriment of the United States. Obama has so far mostly eschewed the national self-congratulation and public displays of moral preening, but now what bothers Obama’s critics here is that he is not showy and superficial enough. For example, Fred Hiatt is worried that delaying a meeting with the Dalai Lama, a meeting which is pretty much purely for show, will send discouraging signals to dissidents everywhere despite Hiatt’s own admission that the administration is apparently interested in making substantive gains on their political rights.

P.S. While I don’t think the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize matters one way or the other, it is instructive that Obama’s acceptance of the award has received this kind of reaction:

What’s more, he’s etched in stone the phrase with which critics will dismiss his presidency.

As Ross says elsewhere in the column, accepting the Prize changes nothing about the realities around the world and makes none of the problems Obama faces any easier, so why should it change anyone’s expectations of what Obama will do? I keep seeing and hearing arguments to the effect that the Nobel Committee was trying to neutralize or corner Obama by making it harder for him to support additional troop deployments in Afghanistan and the like. It must be one of the few things on which Rush Limbaugh and David Frum both agree. This doesn’t make any sense. If Obama does not deserve the award, and if it has no real significance, why will Obama give it a second thought when he considers what should be done in Afghanistan or elsewhere? If his acceptance was grudging, why is he going to let the award constrain what he does? If the reasons provided for giving him the Prize mainly concern climate change and nuclear disarmament, why should the award affect a decision on Afghanistan troop levels or pressuring Iran on its nuclear program?

Filed under: foreign policy, politics