To understand President Barack Obama’s approach to world crises, from returning to Iraq to strike by air rather than using ground troops to face the Islamic State’s terrorism, to opposing China and Russia and his openness to Iran, ignoring its nuclear project, we must closely study his character and way of thinking.
Last year, Obama outlined his thinking with the following statement: “Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
During the Nato-led international action to overthrow the Gaddafi regime in Libya in 2011, an official in the Obama administration used the term “leadership from behind,” which raised a lot of questions among Washington’s allies and enemies alike about the administration’s intention in letting France lead the military operations.
The idea of “leadership from behind” worried America’s allies and emboldened its opponents in their conviction that the United States under Obama would not fight intense and complex wars like in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly since the US president had repeatedly said that he was elected to end wars and not launch new ones.
This means no more American wars as long as Obama is in the White House, which is being exploited by America’s adversaries.
However, this new strategy has worried America’s allies, who have become sceptical about relying on the Obama administration. The lax US attitude is being exploited by Bashar Al Assad, Vladimir Putin, China, Al Qaeda, Islamic State (IS), the Houthis, and other countries and organisations.
This laxness has produced the American-Iranian rapprochement despite the long-standing alliance between Washington and its Gulf allies, and Russia has dared to occupy Crimea and support separatist rebels in eastern Ukraine.
Last week, while negotiations were taking place in Minsk between Putin and French, German and Ukrainian leaders for a ceasefire in eastern Ukraine, Putin was sending tanks over the border.
We cannot explain China’s behaviour towards its neighbours, especially Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, including the North Korean missile tests, except as a test of the determination and leadership of the United States and President Obama’s strategy.
Early in February, the White House issued a new 29-page strategy, called the doctrine of “strategic patience”, which is a revision of the old Obama doctrine about “not getting involved” and “leadership from behind.”
This strategy rejects “expansion and attrition of foreign policy in dealing with world crises and problems, such as handling ISIS threats, extremism and the war on terror”.
The revised strategy provides a road map for dealing with world crises during Obama’s remaining time in the White House.
It emphasises that the US will always defend its interests, respect its commitments to its allies and partners and take decisions based on priorities without attrition and fear; and the smart strategy is not to solely rely on military force. It also rejects the concept of fighting an extensive and costly ground war.
It isn’t surprising that Obama refused to involve American ground forces in fighting IS in Iraq and Syria. Last week he requested a mandate for use of force against IS, devoid of any mention of ground forces, leaving fighting on the ground to Iraqi and Kurdish forces, while US forces will participate in support, special and rescue operations within the framework of countering terrorism in partnership with allies.
This strategy was criticised by Republican hawks in Congress, and even by some members of the president’s party. It was described as a sign of a weak and insecure United States that had abandoned its global leadership role.
It is a strategy that has allowed Assad, Putin and others to exploit America’s wavering. One of the Republican hawks, Senator Lindsey Graham, summarised this strategy’s effect:
“I doubt ISIL, the Iranian mullahs, or Vladmir Putin will be intimidated by President Obama’s strategy of ‘Strategic Patience.’ From their point of view, the more ‘patience’ President Obama practices the stronger they become.”
Former US defence secretary Chuck Hagel clarified that “strategic patience” meant “a mix of our economic and diplomatic sources, our values and our solid military force.”
However, this strategy doesn’t scare America’s adversaries, who, like Obama’s Republican opponents, interpret it as his wavering, weakness and loss of leadership.
This strategy doesn’t relieve America’s allies; it rather increases their doubts about Washington and its ability to adhere to their strategic alliance.
The author is an academic and political analyst
