McChrystal and the Emperor With No Clothes: Obama's Flailing Foreign Policy
Print
Email
General Stanley McChrystal’s recent comments about his civilian peers in the Obama administration have left the sometimes-controversial former commander of the war in Afghanistan standing in the unemployment line. To be sure, McChrystal did cross the threshold of professional decorum in today’s military and for that, he needed to be held accountable. But the General was not insubordinate. In fact, his perspective on the troubled situation within the Obama administration’s foreign policy team should be considered--and not overshadowed by its delivery or the firing.
We’ve seen the diplomatic situation in Afghanistan deteriorate for quite some time, and the ongoing violence in the country testifies to the long road ahead. Whether or not you agree with McChrystal and Michael Hastings, the freelance journalist who wrote the Rolling Stone article, the critique offered against senior administration officials engaged in foreign diplomacy is spot on: Namely, the administration’s efforts abroad are at times random, often contradictory, and lacking any real unity of effort. Hastings writes:
While McChrystal and his men are in indisputable command of all military aspects of the war, there is no equivalent position on the diplomatic or political side. Instead, an assortment of administration players compete over the Afghan portfolio […] not to mention 40 or so other coalition ambassadors and a host of talking heads who try to insert themselves into the mess, from John Kerry to John McCain. This diplomatic incoherence has effectively allowed McChrystal's team to call the shots and hampered efforts to build a stable and credible government in Afghanistan.
Fortunately for McChrystal’s reputation, the rest of the world has noticed the Obama administration’s “diplomatic incoherence” as well. U.S. News and World Report columnist Mort Zuckerman observed:
French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama’s speech on nuclear weapons. When the French president is seen as tougher than the American president, you have to know that something is awry…. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents.
Certainly, criticism from world leaders like Sarkozy needs to be taken with a grain of salt. But the growing skepticism and discontent from other parts of the world regarding the way the administration conducts its foreign policy should be seen as a warning sign for trouble down the road. Obama continues to talk a big game about taking the world seriously and engaging meaningfully in international venues, and has a few notable victories like the New START treaty with Russia to back up these claims. Overall, though, Obama and his team haven’t played the foreign policy game with the stamina or skill of true pros.
For example, during a recent showdown at the United Nations following Israel’s commando raid on a humanitarian aid flotilla, the United States official ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, was noticeably absent. Her deputy handled negotiations with the aggrieved parties -- many of them U.S. partners and allies – during the talks, leaving some people wondering, “Where the heck was Susan Rice?”
Rice claimed she didn’t want to waste valuable time on the hour-long government flight to New York, so that she could instead manage the U.S. response directly from D.C. But with access to far-reaching government communications equipment on officially chartered flights (meaning you’re always connected, wherever you go), this seems like a weak and petty “B League” excuse at best.
On the other side of the world, the president has now canceled four different trips to meet with leaders in Asia and the south Pacific. The lukewarm Chinese reception described by Zuckerman could easily be blamed on increasing U.S.-China tensions, but the repeated cancellations on other leaders in the region raises the question whether we even really care about them any more.
To be clear, Mr. President, we should.
With allegations emerging about Myanmar’s possible development of a native nuclear weapons program and rumors that North Korea has assisted them with gaining materials and expertise for building bombs, it’s important we keep our friends in the region close. Because of the destabilizing effect this threat would have on the region, we need strong allies, like Australia, to help us enforce proliferation controls and to contain threats. Cold shoulders and growing indifference among leaders in Asia and the South Pacific should have U.S. policymakers very concerned.
Elsewhere, the Obama Administration has flipped on security promises it made to the Polish government, effectively hanging its leaders out to dry. And when most of the Polish leadership perished in the tragic plane crash in Russia, the president didn’t even bother to visit the Polish embassy in D.C. to sign the book of condolences. Instead, he left the task to his deputies, while he skipped over to Andrews Air Force Base (which is a further drive from the White House than the short walk up to the Polish Embassy) to play a round of golf.
With England, the Obama White House has all but thumbed its nose at the nation which, just a few years ago, was our closest friend in the world. When former Prime Minister Gordon Brown visited the United States, Obama failed to “even fake an interest in foreign policy” and did not formally greet Brown, claiming he was “too tired” from his other job duties. Of course, the Brits saw through this artifice and were rightly offended.
These are just a few examples of the shameful schizophrenia plaguing Obama’s statecraft. While Obama believes firing McChrystal will allow for a unification of U.S. initiatives in Afghanistan, he is deluding himself.
The real problem arising from the Rolling Stone portrait of McChrystal is not that a “rogue general” acted insubordinately (he didn’t, under the statutory authorities defining military insubordination), but that the administration simply doesn't get it. As a result, we (and the rest of the world) are forced to stare at the picture of a White House that is confused and flailing when it comes to executing a strong and cohesive foreign policy agenda.
Unfortunately for McChrystal, he just happened to be too candid when he saw that the emperor wasn’t wearing any clothes.
Read more from YPNation on national security policy, pageantry and partisanship.
(Photo credit: Pete Souza)
