This is a very skeptical assessment of Obama strategy from top New York Times security reporter David Sanger. A taste:
He surged forces into Afghanistan only to quickly reverse himself, speeding the withdrawal with the declaration that “it is time to focus on nation-building here at home.” He briefly joined the fight to halt a slaughter in Libya, but left quickly and refused to go into Syria, a far more complex civil war he saw as nothing but a potential quagmire.His speech Tuesday at the United Nations signaled how what some have called the Obama Doctrine is once again evolving.In his first term, that doctrine was defined by Mr. Obama’s surprising comfort in using military force to confront direct threats to the United States. But he split with his predecessor George W. Bush in his deep reluctance to use American power in long, drawn-out conflicts where national interests were remote and allies were missing.
It’s an important article that further confirms the MSM’s disquiet over President Obama’s handling of the foreign policy portfolio. It pins him as the vacillator-in-chief and says that the US has lost influence in the Middle East due to bad presidential decisions.Sanger draws the right conclusions, noting that it’s far from clear to anyone under what circumstances President Obama would use force at all in the next three years. Presumably Iran is a special case and President Obama’s long-stated determination to keep them from going nuclear at all costs still holds. But do the Iranians believe that?