The Foreign Policy of Barack Obama - Essay Example

With the countless decisions to be made by the President, the composition of their national security, or foreign policy team, would be one of the most essential. A team, comprised of individuals with differing skill sets but adhering to a central goal, that would seek to guide the chief executive, as he sought to respond to pressing national and international issues. At any point in time, when individuals are gathered together in such a grouping, personal interests, or agendas, can come to the surface in terms of presenting themselves in such a way, that the resulting outcomes can reflect them. For those who serve the President, in this case Barack Obama, they would claim first and foremost, that they serve at the pleasure of the President. They are loyal workers within a national structure, that seeks to guide the leader of the free world in such a manner, that ensures the safety and stability of the citizenry and its interests. In the months leading up to the 2008 Presidential election, mass examples would exist as it came to general concern over the present state of affairs within the military action taking place, as a part of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The current President, in an effort to champion change in terms of what had become the norm, would make assertions that, for many, would appear to be significant and in that case, would lead the nation in a direction that would have been different from the most recent office holder and most likely, different from the choices made of other previous Presidents themselves. In considering whether or not these individuals, both men and women, would be seen more as self-serving and/or working for the same result, the answer(s) to that, would fall within being in the eye of beholder. An individual(s) can very easily possess intentions that may overtly seem self-serving but on the inside, may have been executed with what the person(s), may have felt were the most sincere of motives. For the President of the United States, one of the placements made to his national security team, would be the very person who sought to defeat him during the previous Presidential election. An individual of considerable political strength, Hillary Clintons placement amongst the foreign policy fray of the Obama Administration, would seem to some, as being a way to ensure that, by the time 2012 came and the President would surely seek re-election, Secretary Clinton would be in the position of being unable to attempt a second Presidential bid. This can be stated by the very thought, amongst many within the political structure, that an individual would not partake in a campaign for elected office that would place them in competition against another person of their own party. From a political standpoint, “When considering any presidential hopefuls foreign-policy promises, its important to remember that what candidates say is, at best, an imperfect guide to their actions in office. What proves to be a more reliable indicator of presidential behavior is a candidates roster of advisers,” (Ackerman, p.1). This statement is telling, when it comes to assessing the very speeches given, by those individuals that seek to be elected to higher office, in this case being the Presidency. While many would agree that President Obama possesses an inherent ability for gifted speeches and forceful deliveries, it would also remain important to mention the indisputable relevance placed upon the composition of the cabinet put forth to advise him. To place primarily those individuals that would have beliefs primarily in sync with the President alone, would give way to concerns over there being a lack of real and honest debate. On the other hand, the presence of continuity within the advisory board, would leave the feeling of there being actual debate and consideration given to every idea possible, rather than just a few. Another prominent member of the Obama foreign policy team, would be the Secretary of Defense, a man by the name of Robert Gates. An individual who served most recently within the power structure of the Bush White House, by retaining the services of Secretary Gates as the new President sought to enforce his own tactics, would seem to some, as a way to retain the knowledge and background information of a man that would have had the experience from the previous administration, of formulating the very foreign policy decisions, to whatever degree, that would have taken shape in the form of present American foreign policy actions within the region. A way to understand the intelligence that would have been gathered and be able, to some respect, grasp the mentality that would have enabled the power brokers from the previous administration, to seek the path they did. One of the most prominent goals of the Obama Administration, would be the gradual removal of American forces from the presently waged campaign in the middle east, one that has been going on since shortly after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. The notion of removing American forces from the conflict, would make President Obama, at least for most people, considerably popular than President George W. Bush. For those who wished to see some form of an end-game scenario for the conflict that had been waged for close to 7 years by the time the election would occur, there were those who had grown tired of the countless assurances by the President and his advisers, that victory was to come and patience was needed. A slipping away of public confidence in the battle plan and a desire for a glimpse of how things may end. A concern that, without some form of exit strategy, the battle would continue at its current levels and thousands more would lose their lives, while no one would be able to decipher when and even if, the war would stop at any point in time. As someone who would be considered as being a great speaker, the oratory of Barack Obama, would greatly surpass the countless speeches offered by George W. Bush. According to the office website for the White House, “President Obama has committed himself and his Administration from the beginning of his presidency to a foreign policy that ensures the safety of the American people,” (White House.gov, p.1). In this respect, the very desire to seek such protection, would link him to others who would have held the very office, that he holds presently. In the case of creating a time table for the Iraq conflict, early in 2009, the President would issue the following, “By August 31, 2010, our combat mission in Iraq will end and Iraqi Security Forces will have full responsibility for major combat missions. After August 31, 2010, the mission of United States forces in Iraq will fundamentally change. Our forces will have three tasks: train, equip, and advise the Iraqi Security Forces; conduct targeted counterterrorism operations; and provide force protection for military and civilian personnel. The President intends to keep our commitment under the Status of Forces Agreement to remove all of our troops from Iraq by the end of 2011,” (White House.gov, p.1). A promise made that would endear him to those closest to his own political ideological beliefs and also, anger the very people that do not share those same thoughts but, in their own minds, are the ones who truly know the correct way of doing things. In his book, The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama, in reference to the events after World War II, he asserts that, “..But even the power of the United States was finite--- and because the battle against communism was also the battle of ideas, a test of what system might best serve the hopes and dreams of billions of people around the world, military might alone could not ensure Americas long- term prosperity or security,” (Obama, p.284). Such a sentiment that would ring true, as it came to the current international battle landscape. With the current fight against terrorism, it would become not only a battle against those followers of the strict belief doctrine but also, a battle against the doctrine itself. The war between a more democratically formed national system and the other, more specific system, based upon strict adherence to acts that many would see as extreme in nature and outcome. For President Obama, he too would have to accept the need for military force when circumstances called for it but also, understand the state of affairs in which, such action would be warranted. The ability to differentiate between extreme confrontation and such situations, where mere diplomacy would achieve a beneficial outcome, without the use of such extreme force. The President would desire a more open approach to communication, amongst the very neighbors of the United States. Nations, however separated by geography, may be able to come together under the central idea of national and world peace. According to the White House, “The United States seeks to engage in dialogue that is honest and grounded in mutual respect, as the best way to resolve disagreements and work towards shared interests. We are committed to strengthening existing partnerships and building new ones to confront the challenges of the 21st century,” (White House.gov, p.1). Putting preference towards real discussion and debate, rather than relying heavily upon the use of military might, which would have been seen as the only possible option, by some of the previous predecessors of President Obama. Understanding the need for real relationships amongst the allied nations, such relationships that would, if best cultivated, create a stronger international alliance for the betterment of mankind. The following are three of the examples the White House offers, in terms of outlining the Presidents approach to nurturing Americas relationship with its allied neighbors. They are: • On his first trip overseas, the President visited Europe to begin this process, with the G-20 Summit, the 60th Anniversary NATO Summit, and the U.S-E.U. Summit. • The President made clear in his speech to the Turkish Parliament that Americas relationship with the Muslim world will be based on more than our shared opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect. • The United States seeks to strengthen our historic alliances in Asia while developing deeper bonds with all nations of the region, so that we might work together to confront the challenges of the 21st Century, including proliferation, climate change, pandemics and economic instability. (White House.gov, p.1). The previously mentioned examples, courtesy of the White House, clearly show the path the President wished to begin, as it came to foreign policy and engagement with other nations. An individual who would, with the assistance of his foreign policy team, create an environment, which would facilitate the growth of new relationships and also, heal the wounds of previous indiscretions towards other nations, so that the United States, would have the greatest possible composition of allies. The passion and conviction held within the speeches delivered, thus showing a man who, from what would be seen, holds dear the very same goals himself, that he seeks to have for his nation. The goal of a unified world through means of similar interests and the desire to achieve that bond through means of diplomacy and not, as has been done by some in the past, only by the use of a firearm. The lack of military experience on the part of President Obama, is not unheard of. The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton, did not have military experience as well. The common bond between those two men, in this case, would have been their ability to reach the masses through great oratory and passionate delivery. The inherent belief that, despite previously held notions, it would in fact be possible to handle specific circumstances that would have arisen, by finding the very common bond that unites us all. Also, just as the case would have been for President Clinton, President Obama, in seeking to solidify himself as the leader of the people in all senses of the word, would seek to do so in the form of combating the horrendous state of the American health care system. Providing relief to the millions of Americans and their families, who without such government intervention, would have had an uphill battle towards obtaining the necessary health care coverage that so many individuals require, in order to maintain a stable level of health and happiness. Despite the pressing issues of the current wars being fought in both Afghanistan, as well as Iraq, Obama would set forth one of his most ambitious goals to date. That is, revise the present health care system to where, when completed, more Americans would have the access to basic medical insurance and services, than they would have had previously. With the increasing costs of fighting overseas, along with the present state of the American economy, there would be those who would argue that, in light of this, such revision to the health care system, was not possible, let alone fiscally responsible. In his defense, Obama would argue that, not only was health care a fundamental human right but also, once such reform would be put into place, the ramifications would be considerably beneficial, as it came to aiding the economy. Such thinking would transpire, for example, in terms of stating that, if health care was more affordable and thus, more were able to obtain it, then the extra funds otherwise used for medical expenses, could in turn, be used to inflict greater growth in the American economic system. Such growth that, over time, could assist the nation in turning around the present economic state and achieve some semblance of monetary stability. In terms of health care reform, the following are key points in terms of the Obama plan, as found on the website HealthReform.Gov, maintained by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Under the section About, they are: • Reduce long-term growth of health care costs for businesses and government • Protect families from bankruptcy or debt because of health care costs • Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans • Invest in prevention and wellness • Improve patient safety and quality of care • Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans • Maintain coverage when you change or lose your job • End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions (HealthReform.gov, p.1). There have been Presidents in the past that have either focused upon national issues, international issues and some, who have elected to focus upon a mixture of both. For Barack Obama, he would seek to focus upon both, as a way to best serve the electorate that placed him in office to begin with. Some of the greatest Presidents throughout history, have achieved such greatness, without any apparent background that would lead to such outcomes. For President John Kennedy, his service would have included both military, as well as public service. When it came to the Cuban Missile Crisis, the President would, through considerable diplomacy, save the nation from nuclear catastrophe. Roughly 30 years later, President Clinton would assume office and over the course of his two terms in the White House, would guide the nation to considerable economic stability through means of the surplus that took shape. Unlike President Kennedy, Clintons background would solely be composed of the government service he performed, such as his time as Attorney General and Governor of Arkansas. For the current President of the United States, Barack Obama, he too would have a resume consist of government service by means of his time in the Illinois Senate and as the US Senator from Illinois. Besides that service, President Obama would bring with him the experiences had, from being a community organizer and attorney. While convention thinking would place better chances of success for achieving higher office, on those individuals who would have served more time in national office, the President would be elected to the White House, after serving just under 4 years in the United States Senate. A man who, without what would have been considered to be the acceptable organizational experience, would gain the highest position within the land. Proof of the American peoples belief in not just organizational experience but also, the desire to have a chief executive, that had the inner passion, to see the very ideas he believed, come to fruition and be successful. As for dealing with issues that would arise in the future, the best way for the President to handle such occurrences, would be to first learn from experience. To utilize previous experiences in such a manner, that the lessons learned previously, would aid in some manner, the future choices that would be made, in whatever capacity that they would need to be made. With the time table approaching for the previously mentioned troop withdrawal, the success of such an action, would yet to have been seen. Only after the removal of forces, as well as time given, would the real ramifications, of any, be able to be seen at all. The clear advantage of maintaining a positive relationship with other world allies would be clear. That is, the opportunity to have a stronger coalition of forces for when, if the circumstances called for it, the international community would be able to band together, for the greater idea of national peace and a better state of mind. A possible disadvantage to such closeness, would be the inevitable nature of societies to bring forth their given desires and feel that, by having such closeness, their needs would take forefront and priority, no matter what they may be and what they may inflict upon the rest of the world. In terms of troop removal, his choice to do so would signify the clear and undeniable intent of the American government, to not take a position of becoming a dictator for other nations but rather, aid those previously ruled under oppressive regimes, in their quest for nation building and achieving individual power within their own national boundaries. Some have argued, in the weeks since the announcement from the President, that such a proclamation being made publicly, would only serve to aid the terrorist campaign. Giving way to the impression that, after a certain amount of time, the western world would vacate the area and give way to the opportunity for the same terrorist groups, or factions of them, to return to the area and finish what they had already sought to start. Continued havoc inflicted upon an already ravaged populous. Throughout the United States itself, feelings towards the President, remain mixed but in most cases, fairly uniform. For many Presidents, they see instances of high public approval, as well as lower public opinion, during the course of their respective terms in office. From a political standpoint, the President would see more support and willingness amongst the mainstream membership of his own political party, especially those considered to be the more hard liners. In the political viewpoint of the opposing party structure, in this case the Republicans, most would not view favorably what they would see as socialism run a muck. After 8 years of combat on two fronts, rising losses of life and considerable issues at home, the American people would seek to answer their questions, in terms of a closer assessment of those leaders of their government, such as President Barack Obama. A man who, during the course of his campaign, sought to be the much needed change as he saw it, in terms of reforming politics as usual in Washington DC and the chance to unite the nation, rather than continue to see it be divided amongst its strongly held political and sociological beliefs. To bring forth greater unity between the United States and the nations abroad, for the opportunity to build strong and lasting relationships. The presence of mind to work with such organizations of nations, such as NATO and the United Nations, so that foreign policy decisions were made through every possible avenue available, without the absence of anything. References Ackerman, Spencer. “The Obama Doctrine”. The American Prospect: Liberal Intelligence. Published: March 24, 2008. Pg 1. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles? article=the_obama_doctrine HealthReform.gov. “About”. US Department of Health & Human Services. Published: no date given. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://www.healthreform.gov/about/index.html Obama, Barack. “The Audacity of Hope”. Chapter 8: The World Beyond Our Borders. Page 284. Published: Three Rivers Press. New York, New York. USA. Copyright: 2006 ISBN: 978-0-307-23770-5. WhiteHouse.gov. “Foreign Policy”. Section: Issues. Published: no date given. Page 1. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy Read More