No Obama Sell-Out

This is what I wrote in an op-ed for the GPD papers (Netherlands), late last week. I haven't seen the piece on-line anywhere yet, but when it does turn up somewhere, I'll link to it. The thing is, he's trying to institute significant change, and that takes time, especially because an American president today is much less powerful than his prominence in the news would suggest. There is America's reduced financial prowess, there's obstruction from great powers such as China and Russia, there's domestic pressures (protectionism!), and there are those enemies of the U.S.--unpredictable, and in most cases irreconcilable to any kind of international order. But the critics are mostly wrong (or premature): implied in the criticisms from the right is that a foreign policy more akin to that of George W. Bush would be better. But which Bush foreign policy do they mean? The unilateralism of the first term? What did that get us, exactly? Or the milder version of Bush's second term? The latter was certainly moving in the direction of what Obama is trying to do now. Yes, the president did drop his predecessor's missile-defense plans for Eastern and Central Europe--but he hasn't dropped missile defense at all. In a way, charges that he is too soft can't be rebutted, because his approach so far does in many areas emphasize talking instead of bombing. But what about all the dead Taliban and Al Qaeda commanders in Somalia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? What about his increase in troop levels in Afghanistan during the first months in office? Let's not forget that we're still only eight months into this presidency. There is no telling what the administration might do if the current approach fails to produce the anticipated results in certain cases. But let's not forget either that on almost every tough foreign policy problem today--North Korea, Iran, Israel v. Palestinians--the more muscular alternatives out there look very unappetizing.