The Obama Administration is talking too much.
Kerry went to Egypt, delivered money and weapons, and was shown the finger over his human rights laments. Kerry went to Iraq, delivered some military support, and demanded a “unity government.” Maliki’s government already includes Kurds and Sunnis and he just won elections. So Kerry gets shown the finger. Kerry went to Erbil and demanded that the Kurds stick to Iraq. They have all the oil they want. Kerry gets shown the finger. Obama wants more sanctions on Russia but needs the Europeans to join. But why should the Europeans ruin their economies over this? Obama will be likely shown the finger.
The U.S. public dislikes Obama’s foreign policies. There are two main reasons for this.
- They dislike the interventions Obama promises.
- They dislike that he can not deliver what he promises.
One might expect that Obama would by now have learned not to promise fancy foreign policy stuff he can not deliver on. But as there is no disincentive in Washington for being wrong on foreign policy — watch the recent neocon Iraq war revival shows — Obama can, for a while, go on doing such nonsense. There are two dangers evolving from this:
- Obama might issue a warning or threat that is for once meant seriously and followed through but gets misjudged by an adversary because of his record (think North Korea).
- Obama might feel, on a minor issue, to have to follow through on some of his unnecessary threats because he has to show that he is “serious.”
In both cases unnecessary wars could ensue.
Someone better tell Obama and Kerry to just shut up. The US public dislikes their hyperactive foreign policy. Some 58% do not want the USto take a leading role.
One does not need even a “superpower” to have an opinion or policy position on every issue in this world. Intervening, even if only by words, in each and every minor issue is usually just an expression of a rather shallow understanding of the world.
Reprinted with permission from Moon of Alabama.
