President Obama Gets an "F" For Recent Foreign Policy

Perhaps the reason that Barack Hussein Obama won't reveal his college grades is because he scored about the same as he has in the area of foreign policy as a writer for Family Security Matters has given him a solid "F" for his recent blunders across the world.

The fact of the matter is this - everything that President Obama has touched in regards to foreign policy has turned to shit. The Middle East peace process has never been in such tumult. The War in Afghanistan is like a rudderless ship. Libya has become so intense that it literally could generate a real call for impeachment. Iran has just gotten done firing more missile tests than you can shake a stick at and is pretty much in the driver's seat for nuclear weapons. And at the same time, even with the speech that Obama originally gave in Cairo, Islamic terrorism has never been at this high of a level.

We have never seen the world more confused by the role of America nor have we seen relationships with America's most stalwart allies more strained. And we have never seen America reach out to countries identified before as hostile to us as we are seeing now.

To be blunt, one man could not have screwed up foreign policy for the United States of America so badly even if it had been planned that way. You know, it's almost like an "F" isn't low enough of a grade.

Losing the Plot in Libya and Afghanistan
Presidential Policy: Does It Make the Grade?


Secretary Gates ended his long goodbye last week. The Senate unanimously confirmed Leon Panetta as his replacement. Confirmation hearings were also held for David Petraeus as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. All of this was over shadowed, however, by other news as the president mismanaged America’s wars on two fronts.

Congressional turmoil over the president’s Libya policy persisted. The House pointedly rejected a resolution authorizing support for military operations. Other measures propose cutting off funding may be voted on this week.

There is no question that the House’s anger at the White House is well justified. “Obama’s ham-handed approach has been an insult to the constitutional role of Congress in defining and punishing offenses against the law of nations, as specified in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution,” writes former Congressman and Heritage scholar Ernest Istook, “Obama failed to make any meaningful consultation with Congress before he committed American forces, much less obtain any type of actual approval from Congress.”

Yet, he rightfully adds, “Yes, it’s tempting for Congress to “teach him a lesson” by voting to cut off U.S. funding immediately for Libyan operations. The power of the purse is Congress’ strongest counter-balance to the President’s role as commander-in-chief. But the countervailing argument is that our NATO allies—a key component of America’s national security—have been pulled into the Libya fray based on assurances and urgings from the Obama Administration.

Those may have been improvident, but they are real. A precipitous exit from America’s role in Operation Unified Protector would pull the rug out from under our allies, making it less likely they would ever be willing to stand with America in the future when we have real need for their help.” The need not to abandon NATO, but also send a clear message to the president has left Congress scratching its head on how to square the circle.

Libya, however, is not the only controversy on the front burner. Obama also announced significant troop withdrawals from Afghanistan. While the president touted the drawdown as the “dividend” of success on the ground, that seems unlikely. Military advisors including General Petraeus and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen admitted they thought the speed of the drawdown was “risky.” The fact is, the US counterinsurgency campaign required the NATO troops not only to build-up Afghanistan security forces, but also to drive the Taliban out of the southern and eastern parts of the country. In 2009, Obama gave the generals half the “surge” troops they requested. As a result, they only did half the job. US troops did significantly degrade the Taliban presence in the south. Now, however, as they turn to finish the job, they find they will have far less troops than they need. As a result, casualties could be far greater—and the mission may fail.

In mismanaging both Libya and Afghanistan, the president has contributed greatly to “foreign-policy” fatigue in the United States. At a time when the US must remain vigilant about emerging threats—many are asking if the president won’t act to protect US vital interests—why bother? That is a dangerous attitude to have in a dangerous world.

For grossly mismanaging military deployments the president’s grade for the week has to be an “F” for failure.