(HOST) As Barack Obama begins the second year of his presidency, his critics have begun to raise questions about whether he is tough enough, particularly when it comes to foreign policy. This morning, commentator and veteran ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore examines that issue.
(DUNSMORE) It is the oldest maneuver in the Republican Party play book: portray the Democrats as being weak. For the four decades of the Cold War – call them soft on communism. In the years since communism’s fall – say they’re soft on terrorism. This is a frequently successful political strategy even when it does not conform to actual facts and is not applied in any way objectively.
For instance, in 1983 Ronald Reagan pulled American troops out of Beirut in the wake of a terrorist attack that killed 241 American servicemen, including 220 Marines. Ten years later Bill Clinton pulled out of Somalia after a battle with terrorists that killed 19 U.S. Army Rangers. In both cases the presidents were cutting their losses as it became clear that having American troops in Lebanon or Somalia was not a good idea. But while Clinton was attacked for being soft on terrorism, Reagan was not.
One should bear this in mind when seeing evidence of the campaign that portrays President Obama as a wimp. Among ranters on talk radio and cable news, this has been going full throttle for some time. But the real political impact begins to be felt when the idea crosses from the partisan fringe into the mainstream media and becomes part of the on-going political discussion. That has now started to happen.
The lead story in the "Week in Review" section of last Sunday’s New York Times contained the words "Wimps" and "Wimp" in reference to Obama in two separate headlines. The article duly noted that this was a tried and true Republican strategy and that Obama had actually ramped up the war in Afghanistan, greatly expanded the use of Predator drones in Pakistan, and was now stepping up terror operations with the government in Yemen. But it also posed the question, "What it might take for the president to look strong?" – implying somehow that he wasn’t.
Obama’s policies of being willing to talk to adversaries, of recognizing the opponents’ point of view, and of not trying to impose American values on the rest of the world, are increasingly being criticized as signs of weakness. After all, a whole year has gone by, and Iran and North Korea are still nuclear threats, Russia and China haven’t reciprocated to Obama’s "make nice" approach, and Muslim terrorists are still trying to kill Americans.
It was, of course, fortunate that the Christmas Day attempted plane attack over Detroit failed and no one died. But the fact that this event dominated the news throughout the holidays when there were no other stories competing for attention – has created a new round of public anxiety over the threat of terrorism. These fears feed on the suspicion that Obama is not tough enough with terrorists.
However, if one looks back on where macho foreign policies have taken this country in the past – it should be evident that when America plays the role of global bullyboy, good things seldom happen.