The lessons of history - and not just Bush

Learning the lessons of history... After 50 days in office, much has been written on Obama's domestic policy. His foreign policy less so, though here there is an on-going debate about whether he is a realist or not. Or what Tim Lynch has described as Bush II.

A useful piece was written by Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday's Guardian.

When considering Obama's foreign policy, it is obvious that he is seeking to portray himself as a radical break from Bush. But it is also worth considering whether he is learning the lessons of two earlier presidents – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.

Johnson was aware that his Great Society programs could be branded as being left wing, possibly socialist, rather like Obama’s domestic policy. Fearing that this would lead to his great vision stalling in Congress, Johnson reasoned that a suitable counter balance would be to demonstrate that he was tough against communism. This became part of his Administration’s internal rationale for escalating US involvement in Vietnam. Similarly, it may be that Obama feels he must be a realist, as many American commentators are noting (see, for example, the current discussion at the Foreign Policy journal website). Being tough abroad will challenge the right wing assertion that he is too liberal at home

A similar case can be made regarding the National Missile Defense. I suspect Obama has always seen this as a non-starter – the technology remains mostly unproven, it is controversial, potentially destabilising, and incredibly expensive. Obama cannot simply abandon NMD – to do so would appear weak to the American public in the face of Russian protests. So a Cuban Missile style compromise is required – Russian pressure on Iran equalling the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962.

Like Nixon, there is a sense with Obama that he is aware of the limitations of American power. The Pentagon has always had the view that it should be ready to fight two wars simultaneously – it is already doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan and is overstretched. Where Nixon saw a possible solution to overstretch to be détente and opening up relations with China to play them off against the Soviet Union, so Obama has sought to promote a new diplomacy, reaching out to Syria, Iran, and others, whilst scaling down commitments to potential stumbling blocks, such as the promotion of human rights. Thus, whilst he appears to be willing to use America’s military power when necessary, not least on the Pakistan/Afghan border, he is also prepared to consider the diplomatic option of seeking out Taliban moderates.

His policies may be refreshing after Bush, but I feel there is also an acceptance of limitations combined with the positive opportunities this might provide. This, in itself, is encouraging.