Whose Side is Obama on Anyway?

To be honest, I have been perplexed by President Obama's foreign policy since the beginning of his presidency. I struggled to find a common thread or theme. When the riots broke out in Egypt, I figured that since nobody saw them coming (except The Economist) the US would take its time, sit quietly on the sideline, learn the situation and formulate a response.

Instead, first the Obama administration issued some mealy mouth statements about democracy and non-violence, hedging between backing a long time ally and protecting the physical well-being of the protesters. The administration was clearly not backing the protesters at this point, angering the Egyptian street. Then, after what appeared to be some behind the scenes negotiations, President Mubarak issued a statement saying he would step down in September, the masses in Tahrir square called for Mubarak's head immediately and President Obama changed course again, calling for Mubarak to step down immediately to put it more politely than the President did. All of the sudden, Obama wants an immediate turn to "democracy" and response to protester's demands. The about face would be puzzling under any circumstance but it is particularly puzzling in light of Obama's deafening silence during the protests in Iran earlier last year. Where was the US Administration support for removing Ahmadinejad and the demands to hear the voice of the Iranian people? I have struggled to make sense of Obama's policy but I am coming to a thesis.

I think that Obama is like the kid who is new to football and does not have a team to root for so he roots for the winner of the last Super Bowl or the last game. Obama's foreign policy is to land on the side of the winner and be around for the next round. At the beginning of the uprising in Egypt, he thought that Mubarak would come out on top like Ahmadinejad, so he hedged his bets. As soon as the tide swayed and he spotted swelling support in the square and weakness in Mubarak's position, he swung to immediate support for the protesters, hoping to come out on the winning side. He did not support the protesters in Iran because he thought they had no chance to win against the mullahs and well, everyone loves a winner.

His speech to the Muslim world in Cairo at the beginning of his presidency can be seen in the same light. Obama correctly posits that muslims are asserting themselves successfully on the world political stage and he wants to get on that bandwagon. He disrespected Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu because he thought that Netanyahu was a passing fancy as the Israeli left reorganized and that Israel was the ultimate loser in this negotiation with the Palestinians. When it became clear to Obama that Abu Mazen was weak and certainly not a sure winner, he abandoned him as well.

Obama not only wants to win on the foreign stage but like the kid whose newfound favorite team did not win the Super Bowl the next year, Obama looks for a new team throw his support behind in hopes of coming out a winner quickly. If the results are not immediate, he moves on and as I have written on this blog countless times before just like you cannot microwave peace, you cannot instantaneously resolve any diplomatic crisis. There are other examples such as Korea but I think the picture is reasonably clear that there is no consistent ideological doctrine nor realpolitik emanating from the White House. It just expedient chasing of winners who need to win now.

Unfortunately, in the fast changing sands of the Middle East, a rudderless foreign policy endangers lives as the Egyptians found out the day after Obama turned on a dime on Mubarak. And winner chasing is a recipe to build enemies in the Middle East who spot your weakness and disrespect its shallowness. Obama is likely to confront more challenges of this sort from Tunisia, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia and I hope he can find the leadership skills and approach to lead, even if it means not winning the current battle. We live in a very challenging and volatile time in the world, expediency is not a winning strategy for the free world today.