Obama holding the fort for now

Obama holding the fort for now

Since taking office, President Obama has been more of a manager than a leader. Mostly, he has managed expectations - but also the deteriorating foreign policy he inherited from his predecessor.

He made symbolic foreign policy gestures to please his progressive and liberal supporters, as well as enacting new policies to appease the establishment's military and political heavyweights.

President Obama signed on shutting down Guantanamo but then postponed its closure, extended a hand to the Muslim world, then at his generals' demand, escalated the war in Afghanistan.

He demanded a total Israeli settlement freeze then backed down, announced plans for a world free of nuclear weapons but went on to implement it selectively against Iran.

Obama's foreign policy sermons preached new foreign policy on the basis of "mutual respect and mutual interest" and extended "a hand to those who unclench their fists".

In less than a year, he's seeking to impose more sanctions on Tehran, and extend America's clenched fist to "extremists" in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

Dazzling president ...

The president left no prompter behind. His flowery speeches from Istanbul to Cairo, his appeals from Prague to Ghana and his charming encounters from Trinidad to China have dazzled leaders and people around the world.

But lack of follow up has left people disillusioned, both in America and the rest of the world. But nowhere is it as grave as in the Muslim world where foreign military intervention, chaos and violence go on unabated.

Although the president has reversed much of the damage done to US political language under his predecessor, he has been widely criticised for being long on speech, short on actions.

While that's true, there should be no mistake about the power of language. It is of great significance how the leader of the world's only superpower articulates his vision and formulates his government's strategy.

Replacing the ''War on Terror'' with ''War on Al-Qaeda'' is not insignificant because it steers away from over generalisation. Likewise, disposing of the Bush administration's toxic language  about ''good versus evil'', and ''either with us or with the terrorist'' in favour of pragmatic and inclusionary language has encouraged other leaders to reciprocate.

The same goes for emphasising that America doesn't have to choose between its values and security.

... dizzying presidency

But the widening gap between rhetoric and reality in Obama's policies has confused foes and friends alike.

Nowhere has this been as paradoxical as when the US president accepted a Nobel Peace prize a few days after he announced sending additional 30,000 troops to arguably a war of choice in Afghanistan against the Taliban. His speech about "just wars" doctrine did little to tone down scepticism of America's Commander-in-Chief

The same goes for  his warnings against global warming but not doing all it takes to ensure a climate change treaty in Copenhagen.

However, with an overwhelming domestic agenda including preoccupation with controversial healthcare and banking rescue and reform, the foreign policy agenda has all too often taken the back seat with the exception of managing the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan.

This meant much of the US president's political capital was spent on rallying conservative and sceptical lawmakers to support his domestic agenda.

Likewise, many of the Republicans and Democrats who were willing to support the president on certain domestic issues demanded more in return. And strong lobbies, like the oil, military or Israeli lobbies had much at stake and echoed more of the same demands on the pragmatic US president.

Bailing out America

There is no doubt that Obama has succeeded in drastically slowing down what appeared as a free fall under his predecessor's reckless, arrogant and unilateral foreign and economic policies.

The president's financial rescue plan has, for now, kick-started the economy but with a very heavy cost to the economy in the long run.

And the Pentagon, like the banks, has proven too big to fail. They continue to be subsidised to the tune of $700bn annually, almost double its pre 2001 budget and no less than the combined military spending of all other nations.

Like all great empires, American superpower has been built on financial might and backed by the military. As its debt skyrockets, money dries up, and its military fails to achieve swift military victories against weak opponents, so will its status deteriorate and its might dwindle.

President Obama can hold the fort for only so long.