Tags: Barack Obama | Iran | Middle East | London | Obama | foreign policy | intervention

Obama's Foreign Policy Based on Reducing US Influence

Wednesday, 23 Mar 2011 01:54 PM

By Herbert London

As I see it the basic Obama foreign policy thrust is based on an incremental U.S. withdrawal from regional influence. The withdrawal, I should hastily note, is both emotional — an unwillingness to defend our interests and our allies — and physical — a drawdown of troops based on the belief we cannot afford these foreign ventures.

That strategic version, or lack thereof, has created a situation in which our enemies believe we are ineffectual and our allies believe we are untrustworthy. Instead of hastening to carve out a defensive stance for the U.S. — one that recognizes our foreign interests — the administration has decided to channel our foreign policy through the United Nations. In doing so, the leverage that emerged in the past from the assertion of national power is lost. We are at sea as one nation in an international armada that has lost its way.

The new concept of America opting out of unilateral action has implications for nations with imperial goals. Iran has become the “strong horse” in the Middle East neighborhood by default. Our emerging position encouraged its evolution. Ortega y Gasset once noted, “To create a concept is to leave reality behind.” Our concept of multilateralism is a chimera surrounded by a fantasy.

Winston Churchill warned that when democracies triumphed in World War II they “were able to resume the follies which has so nearly cost them their life.” It seems we are at it yet again.

We watch with horror as power hungry barbarians kill their own people. But we generally tolerate these actions. We are overcome by the magnitude of evil and the inversion of certitudes, but are helpless in their wake. We seek fresh creeds, but do not know how to deal with the revulsion in our collective gut. And all the while our leaders tell us this will pass and, after all, there is nothing we can do.

Is the world turning to savagery? Is the 1930s a scenario for the new century? Are we to allow shamefacedly the death and horror we have the capability to prevent? The derision of death lurks in our imagination, but the will to reverse it has not emerged.

America cannot police the world, but the U.S. is still the only anchor that can assure international stability. It seems to me that role must be recognized and given the attention history has placed on it.

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).

© 2015 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
Hot Topics
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

A Pattern of Foreign Policy Failures

Monday, 19 Jan 2015 16:32 PM

Obama's foreign policy failures leave the U.S. unsteady. . . .

Heavy Price Is Paid for Free Speech

Tuesday, 13 Jan 2015 10:43 AM

What the West observed in the murderous attack on a satirical magazine and its editorial staff was not merely retaliatio . . .

Iran Deeper in Nuclear Quagmire

Tuesday, 30 Dec 2014 09:55 AM

Although the Soviet Union and the United States had tense and hostile moments, they did reach some accord for maintainin . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved