Obama embraces US’s ‘indispensability’ in world affairs
President has always made it plain that he would take out threats to America’s national security, writes Margaret Talev
FROM war to Ebola to climate change, President Barack Obama is embracing the role of the US as the indispensable nation — a stance he might have shirked at the start of his presidency.
The military strikes against Islamic State positions in Syria and the al-Qaeda-affiliated Khorasan Group this week began hours before Obama travelled to the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. As he arrived on that world stage, he carried with him an agenda that puts the US squarely in a lead role in confronting three global crises:
Leading a coalition of nations in a military confrontation with Islamic State militants that may extend for years, a conflict to be passed on to his successor much as he inherited the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Sending 3,000 military personnel to help eradicate the Ebola virus in Africa.
Tackling climate change by ordering federal agencies to consider the issue in shaping development aid overseas.
Contrast these steps to Mr Obama’s election in 2008 on a promise to end the Iraq War and his decision not to strike the Assad regime in Syria a year ago without the backing of Congress. In a May 2013 speech at National Defence University, he called on Congress to consider “how we can continue to fight terrorism without keeping America on a perpetual wartime footing”.
Mr Obama signalled the change in tone on Tuesday night, declaring at a fundraiser in New York that the US is “the one indispensable nation.”
“There is great disorder in the world,” he said at a Democratic senatorial campaign committee event. “All those things are justifiably making people wonder whether the centre will hold. The good news is this week what you’re seeing is what American leadership is.”
Mr Obama’s willingness to take more initiative, especially militarily, represented a shift, said Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East programme at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies. “He thought moments like this could be avoided by discipline and strong policy. Now, he is engaging in an effort that has no clear endpoint and no clear path.”
Time would tell how incremental or successful that change would be, Mr Alterman said, noting Mr Obama’s emphasis on the coalition of nations, including Arab states. “The president’s reluctance has been over openended military engagements.
“Trying to have others take the lead doesn’t do anything to guarantee it won’t become an open-ended engagement or a failed effort. The more you make this military, the more you set us up for ongoing kinetic actions. I don’t think there’s any question: the US is the indispensable nation. The criticism I get is that the US isn’t leading effectively.”
PJ Crowley, a former US assistant secretary of state, said Mr Obama’s pivot was more the product of a changing world. “A year ago, he could not convince his own Congress nor the international community of the need to defend international norms after the use of chemical weapons. “But a year later, he’s saying, ‘This is not America against ISIL (Islamic State), it’s the world against ISIL’.”
Mr Obama said on Tuesday that he personally gave the orders to attack in Syria “so that these terrorists can’t find safe haven anywhere”. He praised the US armed forces as “the finest military that the world’s ever known”, while emphasising Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, Bahrain and Qatar are partners in the fight against Islamic State.
“The strength of this coalition makes it clear to the world that this is not America’s fight alone,” Mr Obama said. Former North Atlantic Treaty Organisation commander and retired general Wesley Clark said he saw Mr Obama’s decision on Syria in the context of self-defence and not as a statement about US indispensability. “I don’t think you should categorise the actions in that axis.
“The US must act to prevent the emergence of a terrorist state during the internal struggles of Islam. And the US will strike in self-defence from time to time.”
Shawn Brimley, director of studies at the Centre for a New American Security, said the notion of Mr Obama’s retreat from foreign policy had been exaggerated. The president had always made it plain that he would take out threats to US national security even as he sought to end wars.
“That said, it’s pretty clear that the White House definitely … heard this thesis take hold — the notion his foreign policy is not as assertive as required — and they’re looking at opportunities to reframe the debate,” Mr Brimley said.
Mr Obama nodded to the US standing in a speech last week. “If there is some sort of crisis, if there is an earthquake, if there’s a need for a rescue mission, when the world is threatened, when the world needs help, it calls on America,” he said.
“Even the countries that complain about America, when they need help, who do they call? They call us.”