President Barack Obama came into office promising a foreign policy different from his predecessor, but after four years, U.S. interventionism is no less common than it was during the presidency of George W. Bush.
The Obama administration is preparing to assist the African Union and the Economic Community of West African States in fighting Al Qaeda militants in Mali, while at the same time recognizing Syria’s opposition, which is supported by rebels with links to Al Qaeda. Just this morning it was announced that hundreds of U.S. troops are in Turkey as part of a NATO mission, a little after a week after the USS Eisenhower was moved off the coast of Syria. The drone strike program continues despite its effects on innocent civilians and the damage it is doing to America’s reputation.
Egypt will continue to receive U.S. military aid despite being in the midst of a constitutional crisis. Like the drone strike program, this policy threatens to undermine U.S. credibility among those that would be natural allies. Obama intervened in Libya last year, yet this year saw Libya dominate the news again thanks to an attack on the American consulate in Benghazi. The administration’s response to the attack highlighted the fiasco that is U.S. foreign policy.
The five instances listed here are only a sampling of this administration’s foreign policy failures. There is little reason to be hopeful that 2013 will bring a sea change.
The most notable foreign policy screw-up of 2012 was the Obama administration’s handling of Libya. In March 2011 the Senate passed S.RES.85, asking the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya. Shortly thereafter Obama commenced military intervention as part of the NATO operation authorized by the U.N. National Security Council.
Thanks to NATO's intervention, the rebels defeated Gaddafi’s forces. In October 2011, Gaddafi was killed by his former subjects, and another chapter in the Arab Spring saga had finished.
In September Libya came back into the spotlight after the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was stormed, and U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other members of the American diplomatic mission were killed.
The administration initially claimed the violence and murders were motivated by a trailer for an anti-Islam film produced in the U.S. Yet it quickly became clear that something was seriously wrong with the administration’s story about the attack.
Two days after the attack American warships moved into the area as drones hunted for Ambassador Stevens’ murderers. Three days after the attack, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he thought the attack was the result of a terrorist plot, not a protest against a film. That same day, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney gave an account of the attack that differed from the account other U.S. officials had given. Libyan officials, meanwhile, claimed that American diplomats were warned of the attack three days in advance. Despite the White House's story about spontaneous protests, the assault on the diplomatic compound was looking increasingly like a pre-planned terrorist attack.
The Obama administration took way too long to come clean about the attack. Its inability to communicate the truth swiftly is frightening and indicative of the relationship between intelligence services, the administration, Congress, and the public is in dire need of repair.
The U.S. recently joined dozens of other countries in recognizing the Syrian opposition. This was the same day it listed one rebel group, Jabhat al-Nusra, as a terrorist organization with ties to Al Qaeda.
Although the U.S. has not committed troops to Syria, the administration has hardly been quiet on the issue. The USS Eisenhower was moved off the coast of Syria a few days before Hillary Clinton insisted that Assad step down. Back in October as many as 150 “planners” were sent to Jordan to help with the refugee crisis and prepare to act in case Assad’s regime used chemical weapons. The Syrian government has since looked even more likely to use the weapons, although Defense Secretary Panetta has recently downplayed the chances.
While Assad may well be an unpleasant actor in an unstable region, the administration has been too eager to support his opposition. As bad as Assad may be it is far from obvious that his opponents are saints. As mentioned above, there are Islamic extremists in the opposition's ranks, some of whom are fighting with weapons that the U.S. sent to Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi.
Assad is being supported by Shiite Hezbollah, and is enjoying additional support from Russia and Iran. The rebels are a mixture of many different groups including Sunni Islamic extremists and Kurdish nationalists. As tragic as the situation may be, the conflict remains one in which the U.S. is destined to anger and provoke unpleasant elements that could haunt us later.
During Libya’s civil war, Gaddafi recruited mercenaries from neighboring countries like Chad. One group that Gaddafi looked to in particular was the Tuaregs. After Gaddafi’s death, many Tuaregs went to northern Mali, where they helped form the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad, a group that advocates for the independence of the northern region of Mali. Militants with links to Al Qaeda have since pushed them out of the region:
The Tuareg rebels, largely armed by the remnants of deposed Libyan leader Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s arsenal, have since been pushed out by their onetime allies, the Islamists, proving no match for the firepower and determination of the jihadist fighters who now reign uncontested over northern Mali. Some of those Islamists are homegrown members of Ansar Dine, a group that has been supported by Al Qaeda, experts say. Others are believed to be part of Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, an affiliate known by the initials A.Q.I.M. that has a presence throughout the Sahel.
These Islamic extremists are causing unrest in the region and their actions have not gone unnoticed. France and the U.S. have both shown an interest in intervening in Mali, and it now looks as if an international force is being put together to remove Islamic extremists from northern Mali.
In fact, the U.S. has positioned itself as a key player in whatever international force that gets organized. The AP reported last week that American officials were working with the African Union and ECOWAS, going so far as to send “planners” and is considering supporting countries that contribute troops to the effort.
The administration’s failure in Mali has been its inability to leave it alone. Even were one to be inclined to think that a foreign invasion would be able to remove Islamic extremists and establish peace, other nations have already expressed an interest in such an endeavor. If the U.S. were to get more involved then we can only expect the anti-American rhetoric in the region and among Al Qaeda’s ranks to grow stronger. Mali is an example of an annoying tendency this president has exhibited throughout this presidency, his insatiable need to do something in the light of events abroad.
4. Drone Program
The hypocrisy and stupidity of this administration’s foreign policy is perhaps best illustrated not by its incoherent rhetoric surrounding attacks on diplomats, its support of worrying elements in Assad’s opposition, or its support for intervention in Mali, but by its use of a secretive drone program.
According to the New America Foundation, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan alone have killed at least 210 and at most 333 people. Yemen has also seen its own share of drone activity, as has the Horn of Africa
The drone strikes are far from popular in the countries affected, are constitutionally unsound, and are not helping in the fight to win hearts and minds.
Obama came into office offering a different foreign policy to his predecessor. Many of us are still waiting to see what the change has been, all while the anti-war movement remains largely silent.
Watch Nick Gillespie’s take down of Samuel L. Jackson’s vomit-inducing call to action, which highlights the violence perpetrated by this administration with glorified toys on foreign soil, below:
5. Egyptian F-16s
One of the most disturbing recent developments is the continued military support the Egyptian government is receiving from the U.S.
The Egyptian government will receive at least 20 F-16s as part of a 2010 $1 billion aid package in the middle of a constitutional crisis that has inspired protests similar to those of early 2011. Lt. Col. Wesley Miller defended the deal:
The delivery of the first set of F-16s in January 2013 reflects the U.S. commitment to supporting the Egyptian military's modernization efforts. Egyptian acquisition of F-16s will increase our militaries' interoperability, and enhance Egypt's capacity to contribute to regional mission sets.
The current deal is similar to deals the U.S. made with former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Indeed, the U.S. supplied many of the weapons used to intimidate and put down Egyptian protesters during the Arab Spring (including F-16s).
The results of the Arab Spring will not be known for some time. Protests against an authoritarian regime have resulted in a democratically elected president who grants himself extra powers and insists on a referendum on a constitution many say is too Islamist. U.S. officials should consider how many Egyptians will view a country that gives military support to the likes of Mubarak and Morsi. It should be considered a huge foreign policy blunder that the U.S. has not halted the sale of F-16s to Egypt or at least renegotiated the conditions of the deal.