By declaring the Iraq war over, US President Barack Obama scored what his allies see as a fourth big foreign policy success in six months, starting with Osama bin Laden’s killing. However, these events might play a discouragingly small role in his re-election bid, even if they burnish his eventual place in history.
US voters tend to focus heavily on domestic issues, especially in times of high unemployment. That will limit Obama’s campaign options.
His supporters are seeking ways to make the most of his foreign policy accomplishments. One approach is to contrast them with Congress’ partisan-driven gridlock on taxes, the deficit and other domestic issues.
“Look at the progress the president can make when he doesn’t have Republicans obstructing him,” said former Democratic spokeswoman Karen Finney, who often defends the party on TV or radio.
Former Democratic strategist Rebecca Kirszner Katz made a similar remark on Twitter last week: “Terrorists and dictators, lacking the filibuster, have no effective defense against Barack Obama.”
It referred to the stalling tactic that Senate Republicans frequently use to kill Democratic bills even though they hold only 47 of the chamber’s 100 seats.
These Democrats hope Americans will see a bold and capable president who keeps his promises when Republicans do not create roadblocks. They note that he green-lighted a daring nighttime raid to kill bin Laden in Pakistan on May 1; approved policies that led to last month’s drone-missile killing of US-born terror advocate Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen; backed allied actions that led to former Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi’s ouster and death; and ended US involvement in Iraq on schedule.
“It is very important for any incumbent to be able to talk about promises made and promises kept,” Finney said.
The list of achievements, contrasted with former US president George W. Bush’s erroneous claims about Iraq’s weaponry in the first place, should help Democrats shake their image of being the weaker party on national security, she said.
“That baggage is finally lifted,” Finney said.
Translating that claim into votes for Obama 13 months from now may be difficult, however. The latest Associated Press-GfK poll confirmed that Americans still place far greater emphasis on domestic issues, especially the economy, than on foreign matters, including the “war on terrorism.”
The poll found Obama’s overall approval rating at an all-time low, 46 percent, for the second straight month, even though 64 percent of adults approved of his handling of terrorism. Only 40 percent approved of his handling of the economy.
Ninety-three percent of respondents said the economy was an extremely or very important issue. By comparison, 73 percent put the same emphasis on terrorism.
Democratic officials believe Obama’s foreign policy record will look even better when the Republican presidential candidates hold a debate on that topic on Nov. 15. Leading contenders Mitt Romney and Rick Perry are current or former governors, and Herman Cain has never held public office, so none has extensive foreign policy experience.
However, voters routinely accept that. In recent presidential elections, they have chosen governors from Georgia, California, Arkansas and Texas, plus a first-term senator, Obama.
On Friday, Romney and Perry criticized Obama’s handling of Iraq. Some Democrats found Romney’s remarks unusually harsh.
“President Obama’s astonishing failure to secure an orderly transition in Iraq has unnecessarily put at risk the victories that were won through the blood and sacrifice of thousands of American men and women,” Romney said. “The unavoidable question is whether this decision is the result of a naked political calculation or simply sheer ineptitude in negotiations with the Iraqi government.”
Obama’s defenders fired back.
“Is there anything more hollow than Mitt Romney decrying ‘political considerations’ in decision-making?” former White House spokesman Bill Burton said.
Perry said in a statement: “I’m deeply concerned that President Obama is putting political expediency ahead of sound military and security judgment by announcing an end to troop level negotiations and a withdrawal from Iraq by year’s end,” adding that Obama “was slow to engage the Iraqis and there’s little evidence today’s decision is based on advice from military commanders.”
US House Speaker John Boehner, a Republican, was more generous.
“American forces not only freed Iraq from a vicious tyrant, but — under the strategy developed and implemented by our generals, and the leadership of both president Bush and President Obama — ended a violent terrorist insurgency,” he said.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Obama “kept his pledge to the nation to end the war in Iraq in a responsible way, he has promoted our security in Afghanistan and eliminated key al-Qaeda leaders.”
Long-time Republican strategist Rich Galen said the economy clearly will dominate the election, and it might undo Obama.
Chinese strongman Xi Jinping (習近平) hasn’t had a very good spring, either economically or politically. Not that long ago, he seemed to be riding high. The PRC economy had been on a long winning streak of more than six percent annual growth, catapulting the world’s most populous nation into the second-largest power, behind only the United States. Hundreds of millions had been brought out of poverty. Beijing’s military too had emerged as the most powerful in Asia, lagging only behind the US, the long-time leader on the global stage. One can attribute much of the recent downturn to the international economic
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse