Fareed Zakara: Obama’s leadership is right for today
Obamas leadership is right for today
By Fareed Zakaria, Published: May 29
Because of his unsure and indecisive leadership in the field of foreign policy, questions are being raised on all sides, the writer declared, adding that the administration was plagued by a Hamlet-like psychosis which seems to paralyze it every time decisive action is required. Is the writer one of the many recent critics of Barack Obamas foreign policy? Actually, its Richard Nixon, writing in 1961 about President John F. Kennedy. Criticizing presidents for weakness is a standard practice in Washington because the world is a messy place and, when bad things happen, Washington can be blamed for them. But to determine what the United States and Obama should be doing, we have to first understand the nature of the world and the dangers within it.
In this context, what is needed from Washington is not a heroic exertion of American military power but rather a sustained effort to engage with allies, isolate enemies, support free markets and democratic values and push these positive trends forward. The Obama administration is, in fact, deeply internationalist building on alliances in Europe and Asia, working with institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the United Nations, isolating adversaries and strengthening the global order that has proved so beneficial to the United States and the world since 1945.
The administration has fought al-Qaeda and its allies ferociously. But it has been disciplined about the use of force, and understandably so. An America that exaggerates threats, overreacts to problems and intervenes unilaterally would produce the very damage to its credibility that people are worried about. After all, just six years ago, the United States closest allies were distancing themselves from Washington because it was seen as aggressive, expansionist and militaristic. Iran was popular in the Middle East in 2006 because it was seen as standing up to an imperialist America that had invaded and occupied an Arab country. And nothing damaged U.S. credibility in the Cold War more than Vietnam.
Obama is battling a knee-jerk sentiment in Washington in which the only kind of international leadership that means anything is the use of military force. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail, he said in his speech Wednesday at West Point. A similar sentiment was expressed in the farewell address of President Dwight D. Eisenhower, a strong leader who refused to intervene in the Suez crisis, the French collapse in Vietnam, two Taiwan Strait confrontations and the Hungarian uprising of 1956. At the time, many critics blasted the president for his passivity and wished that he would be more interventionist. A Democratic Advisory Council committee headed by Acheson called Eisenhowers foreign policy weak, vacillating, and tardy. But Eisenhower kept his powder dry, confident that force was not the only way to show strength. Ill tell you what leadership is, he told his speechwriter. Its persuasion and conciliation and education and patience . Its long, slow, tough work. Thats the only kind of leadership I know or believe in or will practice.
Maybe thats the Obama Doctrine.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-obamas-disciplined-leadership-is-right-for-today/2014/05/29/7b4eb460-e76d-11e3-afc6-a1dd9407abcf_story.html