Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Bin Laden Coup Could Mark New Beginning for Obama

In one swoop, the raid that killed Osama bin Laden could revolutionize the perception of Barack Obama’s foreign policy image.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Inter Press Service

Five days after U.S. Navy Seals shot and killed Osama bin Laden at his secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, U.S. President Barack Obama is enjoying a significant boost in public approval, as well as a transformation in his public image.

The question on most people's minds is what he will do with the new political capital he has gained.

On this, he is being given a great deal of gratuitous advice – from accelerating the timetable for the U.S. withdrawal in Afghanistan that is scheduled to begin Jul. 1, to pushing his own peace plan on Israel and the Palestinians, to pressing Republicans much harder on the necessity for tax increases to reduce the yawning budget deficit.

"The end of bin Laden has given Obama a rare chance for a new beginning," according to Leslie Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). "It gives him the power to get hard things done."

"Just as 9/11 transformed an unpopular and divisive President George W. Bush and empowered him enormously, so 5/1 hands President Obama the rarest of chances to lead," Gelb wrote on the Daily Beast website.

Polls taken since the operation have shown increases in his public- approval ratings to around 50 percent – a strong reversal of a trend that had slowly dragged his poll percentages down to the mid-to-low 40s.

The well-respected Gallup organisation, which Thursday released a three-day-tracking poll, found a six-percent increase in the president's public-approval rating during the three days after the raid in what it called Obama's first "rally event" – a positive reaction to a major international or domestic crisis.

While that was extremely modest compared to the all-time record 35- percent increase George W. Bush received in his ratings after the 9/11 terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the consensus among even right-wing commentators is that Obama has emerged as a more-formidable political force primarily because he has demolished, at one blow, the increasingly widely accepted notion that he is a cautious, even timid, politician who instinctively favours the safest political option and who sees his foreign-policy role as managing the inevitable decline of U.S. power in the world.

"It is this last claim that took such a profound blow when Obama approved the operation against bin Laden and chose the riskiest option involving a face-to-face confrontation with American commandos – on the orders of the president of the United States," wrote E.J. Dionne, Jr., a political columnist at the Washington Post, this week.

A drone strike or bombing the compound from the air would not have put U.S. personnel at risk or so deeply embarrassed, not to say humiliated, Pakistan's military whose cooperation is still regarded as essential in prosecuting the broader war against the Taliban and its allies.

Both would have been much safer options, particularly given the terrible memories of the "Desert One" operation almost exactly 31 years ago when President Jimmy Carter's attempt to rescue U.S. hostages in Tehran ended in disaster when a transport plane and a helicopter collided at a staging area outside the capital, aborting the mission.

Many political pros believe the debacle contributed importantly to Carter's loss to Ronald Reagan in his re-election bid seven months later.

Not a few analysts this week noted the obvious irony that Obama's "rally event" was made possible by an operation that no doubt would have appealed most to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

"The Democrat who was elected as the anti-Bush has seen his popularity and perceptions of his competence soar for serving as the decisive, 'war on terror' commander-in-chief who oversaw a 'High Noon' like showdown between good and evil," wrote David Rothkopf, a national-security expert who blogs on foreignpolicy.com.

"The thoughtful, lawyerly, multilateralist did what had to be done, acting unilaterally, violating another nation's sovereignty, keeping an ally in the dark to preserve security, and gunning down a man without benefit of trial," he noted.

Indeed, right-wing hawks claimed hopefully that the operation marked further confirmation that, despite his campaign promises to reverse Bush policies in a host of areas, Obama has been forced to embrace his predecessor's "global-war-against-terror" paradigm.

"The most striking fact of Mr. Obama's prosecution of the war on terror is how much it resembles Mr. Bush's, to the consternation of America's anti-antiterror left," enthused the Wall Street Journal's neo-conservative editorial writers who went on to warn against any talk of negotiations with the Taliban or accelerated withdrawal from Afghanistan.

But, as noted by James Traub, also writing on foreignpolicy.com, Obama had pledged when he first launched his presidential campaign almost four years ago that he would not hesitate to strike unilaterally against "high-value terrorist targets" in Pakistan and that any changes – such as closing Guantanamo, ending renditions, and relying more on multilateral institutions — he would make to Washington's counter-terrorist strategy would be designed above all to increase its effectiveness in protecting national security.

It was Obama, after all, who said at the outset that he didn't oppose war, only "a dumb war" as Bush was waging in Iraq at the time.

"The great despair of Obama's foreign policy advisors in 2007 was how relentlessly he was pegged as the 'soft' candidate," Traub, who is close to senior administration officials, wrote this week.

"The raid on bin Laden's lair has accomplished something beyond the disposing of Public Enemy No. 1: It has freed Obama from having to prove his toughness," he wrote. "He can advocate 'soft' policies without being seen as soft. Having broken the rules with such éclat, he can now safely argue for the rules he believes in."

Rothkopf agreed that the raid could mark a strategic "pivot point" for Obama. "(O)n the foreign policy front, Obama's most-Bush-like moment may be his last such moment …unless the moment and its headiness changes him as a president more than he or his allies might currently anticipate," he wrote.

"(T)his moment signals not just the death of bin Laden, but the death of American nation-building, counter-insurgency and wholesale investment in the forced transformation of the Middle East," Rothkopf predicted.

"(W)e will view it as the beginning of an Obama-era shaped by an Obama will feel much freer to be his own man and who will make policies much less defensively. After all, who among his opponents will be able to call him diffident or uncomfortable with security concerns ever again?"

Jim Lobe is the Washington bureau chief of the Inter Press Service and a contributor to IPS Right Web (http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/). He blogs at http://www.lobelog.com/.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Jon Lerner is a conservative political strategist and top adviser to US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley. He was a key figure in the “Never Trump” Campaign, which appears to have led to his being ousted as Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser.


Pamela Geller is a controversial anti-Islam activist who has founded several “hate groups” and likes to repeat debunked myths, including about the alleged existence of “no-go” Muslim zones in Europe.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Although overlooked by President Trump for cabinet post, Gingrich has tried to shape affairs in the administration, including by conspiring with government officials to “purge the State Department of staffers they viewed as insufficiently loyal” to the president.


Former Sen Mark Kirk (R-IL) is an advisor for United Against Nuclear Iran. He is an outspoken advocate for aggressive action against Iran and a fierce defender of right-wing Israeli policies.


A military historian, Kimberly Kagan heads the Institute for the Study of War, where she has promoted the continuation of U.S. war in Afghanistan.


A “non-partisan” policy institute that purports to defend democracies from “militant Islamism,” the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) is an influential base of hawkish advocacy on Middle East policy.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Other than the cynical political interests in Moscow and Tehran, there is no conceivable rationale for wanting Bashar al-Assad to stay in power. But the simple fact is, he has won the war. And while Donald Trump has reveled in positive press coverage of the recent attacks on the country, it is clear that they were little more than a symbolic act.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The reality is that the Assad regime is winning the Syrian civil war, and this matters far less to U.S. interests than it does to that regime or its allies in Russia and Iran, who see Syria as their strongest and most consistent entrée into the Arab world. Those incontrovertible facts undermine any notion of using U.S. military force as leverage to gain a better deal for the Syrian people.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

An effective rhetorical tool to normalize military build-ups is to characterize spending increases “modernization.”


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

The Pentagon has officially announced that that “long war” against terrorism is drawing to a close — even as many counterinsurgency conflicts  rage across the Greater Middle East — and a new long war has begun, a permanent campaign to contain China and Russia in Eurasia.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Revelations that data-consulting firm Cambridge Analytica used ill-gotten personal information from Facebook for the Trump campaign masks the more scandalous reality that the company is firmly ensconced in the U.S. military-industrial complex. It should come as no surprise then that the scandal has been linked to Erik Prince, co-founder of Blackwater.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As the United States enters the second spring of the Trump era, it’s creeping ever closer to more war. McMaster and Mattis may have written the National Defense Strategy that over-hyped the threats on this planet, but Bolton and Pompeo will have the opportunity to address these inflated threats in the worst way possible: by force of arms.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

We meet Donald Trump in the media every hour of every day, which blots out much of the rest of the world and much of what’s meaningful in it.  Such largely unexamined, never-ending coverage of his doings represents a triumph of the first order both for him and for an American cult of personality.


RightWeb
share