Stratfor Looks At Obama’s Foreign Policy, Sees Bush’s Foreign Policy

(President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev sign documents on nuclear arms reduction before their news conference at the Kremlin in Moscow Monday, July 6, 2009. Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)

From Fabius Maximus:

Many on the right wing describe President Obama in extreme terms, as if he has made large changes from Bush’s policy. Obama-fuhrer, socialist, nihilist, and extreme leftist are some of the labels they use.

With a few exceptions, their premise is incorrect. While Obama promised change, he has delivered continuity. Quite a disappointment for many who voted for him.

In this article George Friedman examines Obama’s foreign policy. Stratfor’s message is clear: US foreign policy is set by our ruling elites, and remains immutable by elections so long as the voters remain sheep. It’s the status quo that you can believe in.

Read more ....

My Comment: There are differences. If not in substance .... definitely in process.
For example .... insulting Putin as a man whose mindset is stuck in the Cold War is something that President Bush would never have said (at least publicly). But by saying such a remark only served to insult on a personal level the Russian leader, a man who is no fan of the Cold War era. So .... President Obama may be following President Bush's lead with the Russians .... but his relationship with the Russian leader does not even come close to President Bush's .... hence no reset.

Further remarks from Vice President Biden on the coming collapse of the Russian economy (and society), and their knuckling down to American pressure was the fait accompli in this relationship. U.S. and Russian relations will continue .... but there is no joy in doing so.

The Middle East peace process is also unraveling for President Obama. President Bush was always public in his strong support of Israel He was also a President who would never associate himself with individuals who have a history of being anti-Israel. President Obama may agree with President Bush's Israeli policy, but the perception is that he is not .... a perception that is helped by President Obama associating himself with people who have an anti-Israel bias.

Again ... process and perception is injuring U.S. foreign policy.

Afghanistan will be President Obama's Waterloo. President Bush knew the limits of intervention in that country, and definitely had no appetite to expand the war and/or get involved in "massive" nation building. For 8 years he kept U.S. forces at a minimum, and relied on allies and Afghans to shoulder much of the burden. President Obama has a different view, and is implementing that strategy in a hurry right now. Unfortunately, I believe that this is going down a path that will be catastrophic for us and for the Afghans. The historical precedent for this is Vietnam. As soon as the Americanization of the Vietnam war occurred, the war then escalated manyfold. The same is going to happen in Afghanistan .... the Americanization of the war is going to escalate the conflict on a level that we as a nation will find unacceptable by next year.

In conclusion, in substance there are many similarities between President Bush and President Obama's foreign policy. It is the perception and process that is different .... and it is this difference that will differentiate the two Presidencies. The big exception is Afghanistan. This war is now President Obama's war, and his handling of this conflict will mark his Presidency.