Credit Where Credit is (Perhaps) Due

Over the past year, President Obama has achieved what can be objectively viewed as a number of foreign policy success, most notably in the United States’ ongoing War on Terror. Osama Bin Laden, on the run since 9/11, was killed in a raid specifically authorized by Obama. Anwar al-Awlaki, a top Al Qaeda chief of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula was killed by a drone strike. U.S. forces in Iraq will be leaving that country by the end of the year, concluding the nine-year-long war in that country. Without a loss of a single American life, and at a cost that amounts to the pocket change of our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. has been instrumental in the defeat, and subsequent killing, of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.

All this would point to a positive view of the President’s foreign policy, and indeed it appears that polls conducted recently show that Americans mostly view the Obama administration’s work abroad in a favorable light. Republican candidates and pundits are, unsurprisingly, less than willing praise the President’s accomplishments. Is this simple politics, as the liberal-leaning talking heads would have us believe, or is there merit to the criticism of Obama’s foreign policy maneuvers?

I’ll start with Iraq. The war there has dragged on for nine years, at significant cost in blood and treasure. The Bush administration reach an agreement with the government there to withdraw troops by the end of the year. It would seem that we are, if anything, behind schedule in our withdrawal from Iraq. However, until very recently, the administration was attempting to negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq’s government to leave some troops there to assist in maintaining order as that country continues to rebuild itself. Those negotiations having failed, we will leave behind an embassy, some military trainers and, according to different estimates, somewhere between 5,000-15,000 armed contractors.

The concern is that vacuum left by the U.S. military presence leaves room for Iran to exert even more influence in the fledgling democracy. There is a precedent here. Great Britain’s military presence in the region during the 1920′s was cut short due to the “Quit Mesopotamia” campaign fostered, in large part, by the British press. Iraq, then as possibly now, was too weak to support itself from outside influence, and fell victim to an insurgency comprised of the different ethnic groups that still populate the area. Ultimately, Iraq opened back channels to Berlin during World War II, and had to be re-invaded by Allied powers. Stability (of sorts) finally came to the country courtesy of Saddam Hussein in the 1970′s.

The killing of bin Laden is a high point on just about everyone in the western world’s list. While even the Republican’s aren’t claiming a misjudgment on Obama’s part, they are quick to point out that, while Obama may have pulled the trigger so to speak, he was only able to as a result of policies and undertakings of the Bush administration. In essence, Obama is actually taking credit for something that the Bush should get credit for. To the Democrats, it’s much simpler – Bush couldn’t get the guy, Obama did.

Anwar al-Awlaki is an interesting case. While Republicans don’t have a problem with taking him out, there are some, mostly on the left, that have voiced concern over the targeting killing of an American citizen, albeit one committed to jihad. In this instance, there is criticism, just not from Republicans.

That leaves Libya, which is similar to Iraq in that, while the consensus is that it is good to be rid of a tyrant, the problem is now, “What next?” There is no guarantee that a west-friendly democracy will rise out of the ashes of the Gaddafi regime and much of the reporting on the situation there suggest that various radical elements unfriendly to the United States are looking the exert control over the country and its new government. Added to that are concerns that tens of thousands of man-portable, shoulder-fired missiles capable of downing commercial aircraft (at low altitudes) are unaccounted for. The U.S., not having a military presence on the ground in Libya, has little ability to seek out these missing weapons and see that they are not funneled to radical groups who would use them for evil purposes.

While the Obama administration should be lauded for its commitment to our national defense, the criticisms and warnings coming from conservatives are not simply political attacks without substance. The concerns, especially regarding Iraq and Libya, are real. While I don’t expect the Republicans to actually accord President Obama due credit for foreign policy successes, the problems some are raising should not be dismissed as empty rhetoric.