Posted by Shyam Moondra
A year ago, it was unthinkable that the long sought Al Qaeda master-mind, Osama bin Laden, would be killed in a daring raid deep inside Pakistan by the U.S. Special Forces that used secret stealth helicopters unknown to the world. No one could imagine that a combination of effective diplomacy at the UN and surgical strikes by the U.S. and NATO forces would be enough to enable the Libyan revolutionaries to kill the brutal dictator, Muammar Gaddafi, and put Libya on a path to democracy. Who could have thought that the political and diplomatic support by President Barack Obama would be enough for the Egyptian people to oust the strongman, Hosni Mubarak, and for the Tunisians to depose their ruthless leader, Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali? It was an unexpected surprise when the U.S. military used a high-tech unmanned drone to get Anwar al-Awlaki, the dangerous Al Qaeda leader based in Yemen. In fact, American unmanned drone attacks have killed a score of other high-value targets in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Yemen. What’s more impressive is that Obama got all of this done without using an overwhelming military force and at a cost of around $1 billion compared with over $1 trillion President George W. Bush spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From the above foreign successes, a few things become clear about Obama’s strategy:
• As a first step, Obama prefers to use diplomacy and political and economic means (e.g., sanctions) to bring about the desired changes. On Libya, Obama insisted that the Arab League first formally ask for help through the U.N. Obama then skillfully persuaded the major powers at the U.N. to start with economic sanctions followed by minimal force to protect the unarmed civilian protesters. In case of Egypt, Obama successfully leveraged the military-to-military relations between the U.S. and Egypt to dissuade the Egyptian generals from firing upon the unarmed protesters that eventually led to the downfall of Mubarak.
• Obama prefers multi-lateral approach as opposed to going alone as Bush initially did in Afghanistan and Iraq. Given our weakened financial situation at home, Obama is acutely aware that the U.S. can no longer be the world police.
• Obama keeps his options open and uses the military as a last resort, even in the face of criticism from the right-wing Republican hawks. For example, Obama was wise to ignore Sen. John McCain’s advice to put American forces on the ground in Libya. Obama correctly understood that the American people had absolutely no appetite for engaging in yet another costly war.
• Obama doesn’t feel the need to always have the U.S. in the lead. In Libya, he ordered the U.S. Air Force to initiate the early surgical strikes but then let the French and British forces takeover the operation. Obama’s willingness to lead from behind was brilliant; he got the job done at minimal cost without endangering the lives of American soldiers, while at the same time he let our allies shine in the limelight.
• Obama combines first-rate intelligence and smart technologies (e.g., unmanned drones, stealth helicopters, and laser bombs) to execute military campaigns cheaply and with minimum casualties.
• Obama seems to understand that raw military force in Muslim countries does more harm than good. He prefers to use military covertly in a subtle manner rather than in a more visible way such as deploying overwhelming heavy armored ground forces. The Islamic extremists can easily exploit heavy military presence on the ground by framing the U.S. as a country in war with the Islam.
• Obama uses patience as a virtue. Unlike Republican predecessors, Obama doesn’t shoot first and then ask questions. Bush was known to have the cow-boy mentality in dealing with international problems. Obama is very deliberate and he exhausts all political and economic means before resorting to force. In case of Libya, initially he relied on diplomacy to have Gaddafi relinquish power in a peaceful way. Many Republicans called him timid and urged him to take stronger action right away. The ultimate results show that Obama’s patience and deliberate way of tackling the crises proved to be very effective.
Obama has demonstrated that you can accomplish security goals by using brains over muscles. Republicans usually have the reputation of being strong when it comes to defense and security, but Democratic Obama has shown an uncanny ability to use the military force in a very intelligent way and achieve the desired results with minimum loss of American lives and at minimum cost. Time and again, Obama has convincingly shown that you can do more with less. Obama’s string of successes in a short period of time has made him the most successful security president of modern times. Even some of Obama's Republican critics have conceded that Obama has made some "gutsy" calls. Also, Obama and First Lady Mrs. Michelle Obama have tirelessly worked to ensure that the veterans and their families are treated well. Obama has proved to be one of be the most effective Commanders-in Chief in recent history. No wonder why the Republican presidential candidates have been uncharacteristically quiet on the issue of security that would normally feature as the number one issue in the presidential politics.
Obama speeded up the withdrawal of the U.S. armed forces from Iraq and put the withdrawal from Afghanistan on a fast track. In Iraq, the insurgency has its roots in the religious discord between the majority Shiite and minority Sunni populations; therefore, even if the U.S. stayed in Iraq for a few more years, the animosity between the two groups will still be there. Whatever differences exist between the two sects, those differences have to be bridged by themselves; our continuing involvement there only makes it harder for them to reconcile. In the absence of a clear-cut mission, our presence in Iraq is an unnecessary burden on the taxpayers and now that Obama has made a decision to pull them out by the end of 2011, it’s all for the best. It’s interesting that hard-core Republican ideologues are now criticizing Obama for this wise decision which is being overwhelmingly supported by the American people (as a matter of fact, the decision to pull out by the end of 2011 was originally made by Bush). Obama seems to have completely neutralized the Republican’s winning issue of defense and security.
Some political analysts argue that Obama’s intelligent foreign policy and all of his impressive successes may not be enough for him to win re-election because the people tend to vote based on economic issues. While that may be true in theory, Obama’s successes do reduce the war costs at a time when our deficits are running high; so his performance as a war-time president does have economic implications. For Obama to be re-elected, the unemployment doesn’t have to come down a lot; if, in the next year or so, economy starts showing the signs that we are moving in the right direction, that may be just enough to tilt the balance in his favor. Many Americans understand that Bush left an array of serious problems and it takes time to tackle those complex problems. Also, the people understand that Republicans control the House, so in a divided government Obama is not free to do things that he wants to do to get economy growing again. Obama’s solid leadership in foreign affairs combined with his sincere efforts on economy may be just enough to win him a second chance.
