A lot of electronic ink has been spilled on this site and elsewhere over Barack Obama’s adoption of George W. Bush’s national security policies. On wars in progress (Iraq and Afghanistan) there is no longer a question of this administration’s adherence to the last administration’s goals. The American commitment to Iraq today is indistinguishable from the American commitment to Iraq on Bush’s last day in the White House. In Afghanistan, Obama has both broadened and deepened the effort, and placed operations under new, impressive leadership. On interrogation and detainee policy, the president has come around to most Bush-era postures. It is only his dogged refusal to acknowledge as much that creates the illusion of renunciation. And in dealing with rogue regimes, Obama is constrained by the same puny tool box that was available to Bush.
However, there is something missing from most discussions of Bush’s and Obama’s foreign policies: the element of unpredictability. Because Bush launched two invasions in his first term, America’s enemies were never sure that his willingness to engage in foreign adventures was depleted. Such uncertainty was reinforced by Bush’s determination to see the Iraq War through its season of catastrophe. Who could ultimately say if the guy who decided to topple Saddam and rebuild Iraq (and who followed through!) would shy away from a bombing campaign on Iran or even North Korea? If the jury was out in this country it was surely out elsewhere. Obama, on the other hand, has saturated the global media with his message of American humility and his stated aversion to threats and “dictating” to other countries. Moreover, he’s taken every opportunity overseas to let leaders know of his intention to “reset” American foreign policy — from harsh to mild. He’s not looking for any trouble, as the saying goes.
But we know what that disclaimer customarily invites.
Tehran and Pyongyang were bad during the Bush years, but not this bad. And not this brazen.
In North Korea we see launches on top of tests on top of launches — all of them proscribed by international treaties and resolutions. When Bush was in office, Kim played an on-again-off-again game with six-party talks. With Obama in office, it doesn’t seem to be worth the effort. It’s quicker to nab two American journalists and see where that gets you. The missile charade has lost any tactical value for Pyongang. Back in March, Hillary Clinton was asked if the U.S. would shoot down a North Korean Taepodong-2 missile scheduled for launch in a few days. “We’re not talking about doing anything like that,” she said. We don’t want any trouble. She didn’t have to tell Kim twice.
On Tuesday, Iran sent six warships into international waters. Five days earlier Tehran test-fired 1,200-mile range missiles. Hey, Barack Obama already told Iranian leaders that our interests in Iran “will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.” We certainly didn’t have to respect Tehran before, but we do now have to respect a mini-fleet of warships in the Gulf of Aden.
It is somewhat ironic that Bush was perceived as being less predictable than Obama, considering the latter has reversed almost every one of his previously held national security positions. In this perception may lay an advantage for the U.S. If this administrations has so thoroughly lulled bad actors into a sense of enduring comfort, dumb mistakes are sure to follow. If Obama continues to wake up to harsh reality while regimes like the one in Pyongyang begin to overplay their hand, just think how effective a little unpredictability would be. Obama has painted himself into a corner and will need to do something unexpectedly bold. That may be a bombing raid on Iran, a commitment to ignore Russia and move ahead with missile shields in Eastern Europe, a commitment to missile shields for South Korea and Japan, or something else entirely.
When you say you’re not looking for any trouble you have to stick your hand in your pocket and pretend you have a gun even if you don’t. At least that way you keep your enemy guessing. Barack Obama thought it would be just as effective to offer his empty hand in friendship. He was wrong.
