Israel Palestine Blogs

I don’t expect President Obama to devote much time to
foreign policy issues during his State of the Union address tomorrow, because
other topics (health care, the economy, regulating Wall Street, etc.) are
causing him the most trouble these days. Plus, if he was going to talk a lot about foreign
policy, what exactly could he say? That we are making great strides in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Nope. That his Cairo speech has transformed our standing in the
Middle East and brought us to the brink of Middle East peace? Hardly. That we have turned the corner on climate change, nuclear
arms reductions, or relations with Iran? Um … not exactly. That
relations with allies like Japan have never been better? Well, no. That the Guantanamo prison has been closed on schedule, as
he promised a year ago? Er. … not
quite. When you look at the list,
you can see why he wants to talk about a discretionary spending freeze and
other exciting topics like that.

To be fair, the absence of tangible achievements isn’t
entirely Barack’s fault. As I’ve
written elsewhere, there were few low-hanging fruit when he took office, and nobody
should have expected him to fix all of these difficult challenges in a single year
or even in a single term. (You may
even recall that back when he assumed office, he warned us that it would take
time to repair all that was broken). So even if he had done everything right — and he hasn’t — a lot of big-ticket
items on his foreign policy agenda were going to defy easy solution.

But what would I like
to hear him say on Wednesday night? If I may indulge in a bit of (unrealistic) fantasy for the moment,
here’s an announcement he could make that would really make me sit up and take
notice, and restore some of my flagging enthusiasm for his presidency. After the usual bromides about
the challenges we face, our global responsibilities, our lofty ideals, the
sacrifices made by our fighting men and women, the heartbreaking devastation in
Haiti, etc., imagine him continuing as follows:

• "Since I became president one year ago, no responsibility
  has weighed more heavily upon me than the protection of the American people and
  the preservation of our national security. Yet after a year in office, I have also discovered
  that this is a subject where conventional wisdom reigns supreme, and where it
  is difficult for creative new ideas to get a hearing. There is in fact little difference between Republicans and
  Democrats on most foreign policy issues: Both parties believe that the United States
  is beset by many ominous dangers, that it must continue to spend more on
  national security than the rest of the world combined, and that it has the
  right and the obligation to intervene in other countries whenever it wishes."
• "And I have discovered that few members of the foreign
  policy establishment ever question whether these beliefs and the policies they
  inspire may be making us both less secure in the world and less well-off here
  at home. There is little genuine
  debate about foreign policy alternatives inside the Beltway, and some critical subjects
  remain taboo. As president, I have
  sought to encourage open debate and discussion within my administration, but even
  I have found it difficult to push our policy debates outside rather
  well-worn lines."
• "Make no mistake: If America is going to respond effectively
  to the global challenges of this century, we need to have a more open debate
  about the strategic choices that we have made in the past and the policies we are committed to today. We need to ask if these choices and
  commitments still make sense for us now. We need to consider whether America is really more secure if
  it continues to pile up debt, continues to deny millions of citizens the same
  health insurance that other wealthy countries provide for their people, and
  freezes discretionary spending here at home while keeping military spending
  sacrosanct. We need to ask whether
  trying to engineer the lives of some 200 million Muslims in Afghanistan and
  Pakistan is necessary, or whether it is in fact a fool’s errand. We need to consider how to rebuild the
  real foundations of America’s global leadership — our economy, our
  infrastructure, our educational system, and our moral principles-instead of
  equating security primarily with our capacity to blow things up via remote-control."
• "These are not easy questions, and reasonable people can and
  will disagree about the answers. Yet despite having assembled an experienced and remarkably talented
  foreign policy team, I have found it hard to get clear and compelling answers
  to these questions or even to elicit much debate about them. Accordingly, I have decided to appoint
  an informal "Team B" to provide me with an alternative strategic vision over
  the remainder of my first term. This group will not have formal governing authority, but will provide me
  and my national security team with an alternative perspective on key foreign policy
  and strategic questions." 
• "I am pleased to announce that this advisory panel will be
  chaired by Ambassador Charles B. Freeman, one of our finest and most
  experienced diplomats and a remarkably creative and independent thinker. The
  other members of Team B will
  include Professor Robert J. Art of Brandeis University, Professor Barry
  Posen
  of MIT, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, Professor
  John Mueller of Ohio State University, Dr. Gerhard Caspar,
  former president of Stanford University, Steve Clemons of the New
  America
  Foundation, former NSC official Hillary Mann Leverett, former UN
  Assistant Secretary-General and Harvard Professor John G. Ruggie, Dr.
  Cindy Williams, the former
  director of the Congressional Budget Office’s National Security
  division, Paul
  Pillar of Georgetown University, independent blogger Glenn Greenwald,
  and Foreign Policy magazine editor Moises
  Naim."
• "I am forming this advisory panel to supplement the analysis
  and advice that I receive from my regular foreign policy team, in whom I retain
  the greatest confidence.  Team B is
  not intended to replace the normal policymaking process; its assignment is to make sure that we are asking the right questions
  and that we do not adhere to misguided policies simply because they have become
  familiar."

Do I expect to hear those words — or anything remotely like them — on Wednesday?  Of course not; I said it was a fantasy,
remember? I don’t even expect to
hear Obama admit that anything might be wrong with his approach to
international affairs; that’s not what the SOTU speech is for and not even this president readily admits error. The
safe bet? Obama’s foreign policy
will continue along the same well-trod paths and with the same disappointing
results.

P.S. Speaking
of national security, I’ll be spending Thursday and Friday as a guest of the
U.S. Navy, observing a naval exercise. I expect to be duly impressed, but will do my best to maintain my
scholarly independence. I
won’t have my laptop with me, however, so I won’t be blogging between tomorrow
and Friday.  Anchors aweigh!