To the Editor:
I certainly agree with Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey regarding American goodness and even American exceptionalism [“The Obama Doctrine Defined,” July/August]. I disagree, however, that the Obama Doctrine, to the extent that it considers our worldwide commitments and questions unilateralism, lacks beneficial effects. Feith and Cropsey avoid a key point: the necessity of burden-sharing. The United States is like postwar Britain: exhausted, debt-ridden, and badly overextended in foreign commitments. America has poured a trillion dollars or more into Afghanistan and Iraq, plus vast amounts of blood; yet, a Vietnam-like American withdrawal is upon us due to domestic demands. This will be followed by the bad guys filling the void. Our so-called allies largely made only grudging, modest commitments to Iraq and Afghanistan, and only to satisfy American opinion before eagerly cutting and running.
Certain nations demand seats on the Security Council but take not one iota of responsibility for vexatious world problems. This follows decades of enduring European shin-kicking despite the American protection ensured by troops and nuclear weapons. China could at any time solve the dangerous North Korea problem, yet it instead uses its puppet to threaten regional democracy. The likes of Japan, South Korea, and Russia have done little to effectively counter North Korea. Meanwhile, China, for all its self-interest and malignancy, sends not one troop abroad but manages to spread its trade tentacles throughout the world, notably in Africa. India, too, without benefit of a military vanguard, makes tremendous commercial inroads.
Our noble sacrifices do little to enhance our standing, per global public opinion polls. The time has come for American geopolitical retrenchment, not because we are a force for harm, but because we are too good for the world. If the target is our perception on the world stage, then considerable withdrawals from Eastern and Central Asia, and our ensuing absence, will make the heart grow fonder.
Steve Goldstein
Fort Lee, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer commented fittingly when he articulated what may be the most alarming aspect of what Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey accurately describe as President Barack Obama’s “constrainment” approach to foreign policy. “We are hostage to the United Nations Security Council and the threat of Russian and Chinese vetoes,” he said. “We have made our foreign policy dependent on the Russians and Chinese.”
Indeed, Mr. Spitzer is correct. Obama has insisted on consensus among countries manifestly hostile to not only the interests of America but the causes of freedom and democracy in general. This is a perilous approach for the security of our country and the world. In important security questions and fast-breaking crises, Obama has subordinated our country to the dysfunctional and ponderously slow processes of the United Nations. In doing so, he has increased incentives among these hostile countries to extract from the United States concessions on other fronts.
Obama’s foreign-policy confidante Anne-Marie Slaughter was right when she wrote in a 2007 Harper’s article that diplomacy “is a game of suasion, not coercion.” Indeed, countries like Russia, China, and others whose approval we seek know this all too well and abuse this aspect of diplomacy. They skillfully and shamelessly exploit diplomatic processes, especially at the UN, to wring out special considerations for their bad behavior and narrow interests.
President Obama and his advisers are either ignorant of the conduct of such countries, or more likely he and his advisers have approached these countries with the hubristic and ultimately ludicrous hope that, from this point forward, they will work with the United States in good faith to achieve constructive goals in the realm of freedom and democracy. History tells us otherwise.
Stacey E. Blau
Miami, Florida
_____________
To the Editor:
I found the article by Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey to be particularly saddening.
I am not an American citizen, but since my childhood days in Australia, I have always looked up to the United States as being the main pillar of traditional Western democratic values as applied to international affairs in the postwar era.
America may have made mistakes; but with the singular exception of the one-term Carter administration, these have been mostly in the area of policy application, and not lacking in good intention.
After having almost single-handedly defeated Communism and the worldwide aspirations of the Soviet Union, as well as successfully launching the war on terror, the United States seems to be retreating in disgrace as a matter of policy from any further involvement in world affairs unless sanctioned by other parties.
The United States has never involved the United Nations as an arbiter before framing its policies. It may have requested the UN to support policies once decided upon, but it would be a very different world today if the United States had relied upon that mixture of dictators, bankrupt and corrupt leaders, terrorist governments, and necessarily fettered Europeans (who could not even fire a rocket accurately at Muammar Qaddafi without U.S. military assistance) who make up today’s UN, not to mention the farcical Human Rights Council that your president seems intent on courting.
I am particularly saddened, however, by what seems to be a lack of domestic opposition to this new direction. Are U.S. politicians scared to oppose the Obama Doctrine? We all appreciate that the past two and a half years have constituted a period of intense domestic economic problems for the United States. But surely “pork barrel” politics have not destroyed the ability of American citizens and their political leaders to see the world beyond their tax problems; or have they?
Some may think I am exaggerating. But I now live in Israel, which is first after the United States to be on the receiving end of the unfortunate aspects of the Obama Doctrine. How long can Israel keep on defending its vital interests, which are so much in common with the traditional interests of America, if the involved parties in the United States (apart from Congress, which can only defray some of the nastier aspects) are unwilling or unable to create a formidable alliance to oppose Obama? What has happened to America?
The Poles and Czechs are asking the same question after their missile-defense plans were shabbily pawned off to Russia for a photo opportunity; the Saudi and Jordanian leaders trembled as Obama threw Hosni Mubarak to the wolves after 30 years of America’s friendship; the Iranians are roaring with nuclear laughter as their Syrian allies butcher their own citizens. At the same time, Obama has radically shifted the traditional political balance in the Middle East by creating unrealistic expectations for Arab elements and thus making a new Middle East war very possible.
Where are the traditional American leaders? Can Messrs. Feith and Cropsey provide an answer?
Allan Leibler
Jerusalem, Israel
_____________
To the Editor:
The commendably restrained analysis by Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey in “The Obama Doctrine Defined” effectively demonstrates the changes in focus of the present administration’s foreign policy from that which this country has pursued since its origin—and which most, if not all, countries have probably pursued since the origin of sovereignty. That is, that each nation seeks first to protect its self-interest. Thereafter, and only to the extent it may remain consistent with this priority, foreign policy may be directed to advance the interests of others. Up to the implementation of the Obama Doctrine, American foreign policy has worked, in virtually all instances, to the benefit of other like-minded freedom-and-liberty-pursuing nations. Those who remain critical of our nation’s historical priorities and foreign policies are generally those who are also advocates of a defunct “social-justice” dogma, seeking to place our resources at the disposal of nations that share their misguided criticism of our capitalistic economic system.
America’s greatness demands neither apology nor restraint. It is not ephemeral opportunistic exploits that have fortuitously rendered America’s stature superior to those of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, and other similar moral and political failures. The mere suggestion that they stand in equal historical significance or humanitarian relevance to this country is ridiculous and dangerously reckless.
America’s foreign policy is best explained by a careful analysis of the relevant conditions of geography, culture, natural resources, military, educational, commercial, and other political circumstances that make up a complex equation. That equation is then applied and adjusted as necessary for each country, region, and political challenge. It is not defined primarily by what other nations may think of us. It is the height of adolescent naiveté to have even suggested in political rhetoric, let alone in actual policy, that other nations will set aside their own self-interests and bow to ours merely because America will humble herself and engage in acts of self-degradation. The success of that foreign policy is evident by the status of our relations with countries before whom we have already humbled ourselves.
We are going through a disastrous age led by incompetence and a 1960s flower-child ideology that is still in bleary-eyed pursuit of a “social-justice” fantasy. We have gone from “does this foreign policy make us a better and safer nation?” to “does this foreign policy make us look fat?”
Elliott Alhadeff
Sammamish, Washington
_____________
Douglas J. Feith and Seth Cropsey write:
We appreciate the thoughtful observations of readers who responded to our article on Obama’s strategy to diminish and constrain America’s role in the world.
Steve Goldstein’s desire for greater burden-sharing with America’s allies is commendable but is not connected to the objectives of Obama administration policies, such as “resetting” relations with Russia or leaning over backwards to avoid noticing China’s military buildup or its assistance to Iran’s nuclear-weapons program. The United States has been trying for decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, to encourage its friends to preserve effective defense forces—with little success. If anything, the Obama administration’s efforts to court Russia and China have reinforced the idea that Moscow and Beijing are essentially benign, an idea that politicians in allied countries use to justify smaller defense budgets and less capability to share burdens with the United States.
Stacey E. Blau is correct to imply that American altruism is exceptional, while the record of most other states is simply self-interested.
Allan Leibler understands this point, as he showed in his observation of the consequences of Obama’s reneging on American commitments to place missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic. If American friendship for traditional friends, like Israel, and for the relatively new members of NATO is downgraded, who indeed—as Mr. Leibler asks—will be “the main pillar of traditional Western democratic values?” We think President Obama’s idea of America’s proper place in world affairs is at odds with the views of most Americans. There are American leaders on both sides of the political aisle sympathetic to the idea that American leadership—moral, diplomatic, economic, and military—is generally a good thing. We hope that Mr. Obama’s foreign policy will be looked back on as a short-lived aberration.
We concur with Elliott Alhadeff’s criticism that a U.S. foreign policy based chiefly on humility is a prescription for failure. As all these letters note, the United States has more to be proud of than to apologize for. The interests of the United States and our friends abroad are not well served by the “mea culpa culture” advocated by President Obama and his team.
