Norman Podhoretz: Obama knows exactly what he’s doing . . . weakening America’s influence

There has always been a strong element on this site and others of folks asserting that Barack Obama's foreign policy is not incompetent at all. Rather, that he's doing exactly what he intends to do, which is to weaken America's standing on the international scene so as to lessen the need, expectation and ability of the United States to assert its power and authority. Why do liberals want this? Because a) they don't really believe in the virtue of America's influence; b) they don't really have that big a problem with the enemies conservatives would want to confront; and c) they want government to be a force for domestic social engineering, and how dare the Pentagon take up money they want to use for this!

So the Obama-knows-exactly-what-he's-doing folks today get a seasoned, knowledgeable ally in 83-year-old Norman Podhoretz, a long-time hawkish Democrat who pretty well lays it out in the Wall Street Journal:

As a left-wing radical, Mr. Obama believed that the United States had almost always been a retrograde and destructive force in world affairs. Accordingly, the fundamental transformation he wished to achieve here was to reduce the country's power and influence. And just as he had to fend off the still-toxic socialist label at home, so he had to take care not to be stuck with the equally toxic "isolationist" label abroad. This he did by camouflaging his retreats from the responsibilities bred by foreign entanglements as a new form of "engagement." At the same time, he relied on the war-weariness of the American people and the rise of isolationist sentiment (which, to be sure, dared not speak its name) on the left and right to get away with drastic cuts in the defense budget, with exiting entirely from Iraq and Afghanistan, and with "leading from behind" or using drones instead of troops whenever he was politically forced into military action.

---

The consequent erosion of American power was going very nicely when the unfortunately named Arab Spring presented the president with several juicy opportunities to speed up the process. First in Egypt, his incoherent moves resulted in a complete loss of American influence, and now, thanks to his handling of the Syrian crisis, he is bringing about a greater diminution of American power than he probably envisaged even in his wildest radical dreams.

Some of Obama's most basic moves since taking office bear Podhoretz out. One of his first major decisions was to welch on George W. Bush's commitment to install missile defense systems in Eastern Europe, putting the desire of the Russians ahead of those of allies Poland and the Czech Republic. He seems quite fond of pleasing Putin, which is why he told Dmitri Medvedev he could offer such agreeable "flexibility" once he was safely re-elected. His stances toward major allies have towed this line as well, particularly his decision to take a neutral stance in the longstanding Falkland Islands dispute between Britain and Argentina. The U.S. has always backed the Brits on that issue - well, at least until Barack Obama - so maybe it shouldn't be such a big surprise that the British Parliament sees little need to stick their necks out for him in Syria. Obama's decision not to complete a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq is also in line with Podhoretz's theory. The Bush vision was that a major U.S. presence in Iraq would not only help to stablize that nation in its difficult but achievable pursuit of democracy, but that it would serve as a useful deterrent to other problems in the Middle East. Obama shows no stomach for such a U.S. role. And even the proposed strike on Syria hardly smacks of decisive U.S. leadership on behalf of anything worthwhile. Bombing a Baathist regime that's facing an uprising from Al Qaeda is hardly intervening on the side of the angels. And if he bails on the whole plan for lack of congressional support, he can cite it as evidence that America no longer wants to pursue an aggressive leadership role. Hey, I was willing, but you told me you want America to retreat. OK! I realize not all conservatives have a lot of enthusiasm for America's activist role in the world either. But if the president really intends to see us retreat, wouldn't you rather he actually say so and make the case, rather than pretending to be all about freedom abroad when in fact he can't wait to turn us into isolationists?