March 16, 2016 9:08AM # Obama versus Obama’s Foreign Policy By [Benjamin H. Friedman](https://www.cato.org/people/benjamin-friedman) --- SHARE I wish the Barack Obama Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed for the Atlantic’s April cover [story](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/) had been in charge of U.S. foreign policy for the last seven years. Obama’s arguments in the article are similar to those Cato’s foreign policy department are always employing in criticizing the Obama administration. One such argument says that U.S. military leadership promotes [free-riding](https://books.google.com/books?id=mqvOremmrZMC&pg=PA117&lpg=PA117&dq=preble+middle+east+entanglements+us+power&source=bl&ots=jn-cCdfGuo&sig=BedNVvP_NFBG8kNiGNEbjewsoUI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKwvr-r8TLAhXI6CYKHbL4B7sQ6AEIMDAD#v=onepage&q=free%20ride&f=false) [among](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/logan-friendman-obis-spring-2012.pdf) allies. Another is that overthrowing Middle-Eastern dictators by arming their rebel opponents tends to promote chaos [destructive](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/intervention-libya-syria-isn%E2%80%99t-humanitarian-or-liberal-6739) to human life and liberal values and that letting in [more refugees](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/10/syrian-refugees-resettlement-us/411178/) from those conflicts is a better way to help people there. In the interview, Obama agrees that [U.S.](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/syrias-civil-war-dangers-middle-east-power-struggle) [entanglement](https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/arabian-nightmares-washingtons-persian-gulf-entanglement) in the Middle’s East’s civil wars drains U.S. power and security. He sensibly applies [the](https://www.cato.org/blog/dangers-waging-war-proxy) [same](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/lets-not-be-too-hasty-responding-putins-syrian-misadventure) [logic](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-chapman-syria-putin-obama-qaida-russia-saudi-perspec-1015-jm-20151014-column.html) to Russia—dismissing the idea that Russia’s meddling in the Syrian civil war strengthens it. He [too](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/battle-ukraine-us-russia-must-find-exit-not-stage-reset) is critical of Russian aggression beyond its borders but suggests that Putin is [propping](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/friedman_logan_hittingstopbuttononnatoexpansion.pdf) up friendly neighbors rather than launching an expansionist frenzy. He agrees that Russia is [far](https://www.cato.org/blog/few-points-georgia) [weaker](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/no-not-another-cold-war) than the United States but also that, given our relatively [limited](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/us-should-stay-out-russo-ukrainian-quarrel-why-conflict-ukraine-isnt) [interest](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/estonia-worth-war) in states like Ukraine on Russia’s borders, there is [little](https://www.cato.org/arm-ukraine) [sense](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/washington-should-not-defend-ukraine-or-expand-nato-us-should-shift) in trying to bolster those states with aid or bluffs so that they can overcome Russian aggression. Goldberg’s Obama is especially impressive in arguing that it is [stupid](http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-credibility-debate-us-foreign-policy-11049) to make war in the name of signaling or credibility. He [rightly](https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/credibility-over-red-lines-no-reason-war) rejects the idea that foreign leaders start wars because Washington failed to fight in very different circumstances. He even “disdains” Washington’s foreign policy establishment for its credibility “fetish” and [reflexive](https://www.cato.org/blog/our-underdebated-wars) [hawkishness](http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/why-americans-are-less-hawkish-their-leaders-6925). Unfortunately the actual President Obama has sometimes taken the other side of these arguments. He has pushed to do more for allies in Europe, Asia and even the Middle East. In Syria, he is working to [overthrow](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2051361/GADDAFI-DEAD-VIDEO-Dictator-begs-life-summary-execution.html) a [second](http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016/01/06/report-obama-sees-assad-in-power-into-2017) Middle-Eastern dictator by aiding a rebellion. He kept U.S. forces in Iraq and [appointed](http://www.salon.com/2011/12/19/panetta_iraq_war_was_worth_it/) [two](http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/06/03/think-again-bob-gates/) secretaries of defense that supported the prolonged occupation there. He initially [supported](https://votesmart.org/public-statement/316733/obama-statement-on-ukraines-commitment-to-join-nato#.Vujq-fkrLIU) NATO membership for Georgia and Ukraine and subsequently [backed](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/us-imposes-sanctions-on-pro-russian-separatists-in-ukraine.html?_r=0) [military](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/03/obama-nato-support-ukraine-military-russia) aid for the latter, which undermines its willingness to accommodate Russia. He offered NATO’s [credibility](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan) as one reason to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. He initially [gave](http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/) a credibility rationale for bombing the Assad regime to punish it for using chemical weapons, as Goldberg notes. Obama used credibility to argue for bombing on behalf of Libya’s rebels—not intervening, he said, would send a [message](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/19/remarks-president-middle-east-and-north-africa) to other regional dictators that they could [keep power](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/03/28/remarks-president-address-nation-libya) by killing their people. What explains the difference between the policies Obama supported and the arguments he now makes? That will remain a mystery for a while, but I’ll still speculate. One possible explanation is that the President is not totally consistent on these matters, and he can make a decent case for either side. His more [realist](http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/obama-the-realist-15479) side perhaps emerged in response to his interviewer’s hawkish assumptions. Goldberg assumes, for example, that requesting congressional authorization for bombing Syria and then getting a deal where it [gives up](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/06/23/syria-hands-over-last-of-declared-chemical-weapons/11257367/) its chemical weapons is surrender rather than a successful threat. An interviewer pushing from the other side—asking, for example, if bombing [seven](https://www.cato.org/blog/presidents-precedents-perpetual-war) countries is excessive—might have unearthed Obama more interventionist thinking. Another possibility is that the President has learned substantially on the job. [Whether](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/02/11/daniel-drezner-says-donald-trump-is-a-champion-of-foreign-policy-realism-hes-wrong-its-barack-obama/) or not he was a [realist](http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/03/obama-doctrine-goldberg-realist-isolationist/473205/) when he was elected, he has become one, arguably. Or maybe the President has struggled to impose his views on the foreign policy bureaucracy. As Richard Neustadt tells us, Presidents have to [persuade](http://www.amazon.com/Presidential-Power-Modern-Presidents-Leadership/dp/0029227968) people to do their bidding because they have limited time and political capital. Obama probably [exacerbated](https://www.cato.org/events/obamas-national-security-policy-new-approach-or-more-same) that problem through his appointments, which left him as the most dovish person in his cabinet. To be fair, the establishment’s [nature](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdSYKu9mWA) makes it tough to fill cabinets with other sorts of thinkers. Probably some combination of those explanations is at work. If so, three lessons follow. One is that things could always be worse. Those of us that dislike this president’s foreign policy record should consider the [plausible](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9688222) [alternatives](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y). In politics you have to grade on a [curve](http://www.pressherald.com/2015/08/02/barney-frank-deal-better-than-no-nuclear-agreement-with-iran/). Second, experience in national politics, while no guarantor of wisdom, improves presidential performance. Obama could have developed some of these insights before taking office. Third, better foreign policy takes more than better leaders. Better [politics](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/logan-friendman-obis-spring-2012.pdf) could make smarter foreign policies and [better](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2013/1/cj33n1-10.pdf) presidents. ##### Related Tags [Defense and Foreign Policy](https://www.cato.org/defense-foreign-policy) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).