Blogs and Stories
Obama's Next Six Crises
Julie Jacobson / AP Photo; Xinhua, Yao Dawei / AP Photo
Forget the health-care fight: From Pakistan's growing nuclear arsenal to the looming civil war in Iraq, the president will likely face a major global crisis before the year's end. The Daily Beast's Leslie Gelb on the biggest danger zones—and Obama's dwindling options.
As President Barack Obama relentlessly speechifies his way toward the close of his first year in office, world trouble spots are poised to give him more trouble. If the past eight months were full of international thrills, the next ones are more likely to teem with spills. It should be said that the blame for almost all of these foreign crises-to-be will rest not with him. Rather, the fault will reside mainly with the foreign perpetrators themselves and also with the Bush administration’s poor policies. But when you’re in the White House and you’re the president, it’s always your fault. That said, better to be president of the United States than top dog in China, India, France or wherever. Washington still matters most of all major powers by far, and the world still will be looking to President Obama to tame the whirlwinds ahead.
American casualities are likely to surge in Afghanistan. Iraq is on the brink of civil War. North Korea is weaponizing plutonium.
1. The book-end nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran come first to mind. North Korea made nice for a few weeks after President Clinton’s visit to Pyongyang. In more recent days, however, its government has proclaimed that it is now weaponizing plutonium from its reprocessing plant and is in the final stages of enriching uranium. And they have already recently detonated nuclear devices. The United States has no real answer to this besides more economic sanctions, which haven’t worked to date and are unlikely to work in the future without the active support of China. Leaders in Beijing see very little for themselves in getting tough with Pyongyang and thus the expectation is for rising tensions and more stalemate. Curiously, the Obama team never threatens the North Koreans with military action, but conspicuously leaves that particular door open regarding Iran.
2. New American intelligence reports that Iran is now moving swiftly ahead toward nuclear weapons. And the U.N. group charged with inspecting Iranian nuclear facilities continues to charge Tehran with failure to answer questions about its nuclear program. All these quarrels are a backdrop to a deadline proclaimed by Obama and America’s major allies—Iran, they say, must offer serious negotiations on nukes before the end of September, or else. The “or else” means more economic sanctions, but again, it’s hard to see these sanctions having any additional bite without the help of very reluctant Russians and Chinese. As with North Korea, tensions with Iran are bound to ratchet up without anyone having a clear sense of how to put relations on a more promising path.
3. Then comes the ever-present non-crisis crisis, Israeli-Palestinian relations. U.S. negotiator George Mitchell has cooked up a deal: Israel agrees to suspend new settlements for six to nine months on the West Bank and Arab states agree to open up low-level trade and diplomatic contacts with Israel. Few expect this arrangement to produce any real movement in the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Little has been done to lay the political predicates in either community for serious compromises. But in the Holy Land, the next crisis is always only a terrorist attack away.
4. Don’t forget Iraq. U.S. troops are now steadily departing from that star-crossed country. They’re leaving even more rapidly than expected because of the insistence of the Iraqi government, with a good amount of support from the Iraqi people. As the troops leave, religious and tribal violence is expanding. Unless the Obama team can use these remaining months to bring about political reconciliation among the majority Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds, there is a high risk of civil war. The U.S. military surge succeeded in quieting violence, but not in making a stable peace. The surges work only as long as the Americans are surging, and there is a lesson here for Afghanistan.
How Rich People Smoke Pot
Paul Schrodt is a writer living in New York City. He has contributed to New York magazine, Radar, and Esquire.com.
Stars Celebrate the Super Bowl
The Daily Beast is dedicated to news and commentary, culture, and entertainment. We carefully curate the web’s most essential stories and bring you original must-reads from our talented contributors.
Obama's Dangerous China Game
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
The Speech Had Potential
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
New Doubts About Afghanistan
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
penscott
Reading this sober account by a respected observer like Gelb makes me weep with frustration that we have elected a Chief Executive with zero executive or foreign policy experience - a recipe for disaster.
PacificNWMark
No, the true recipe for disaster was the Bush administration's approach to economic, domestic and foreign policy, which has wrought the very difficult straits we now now find ourselves in. The American electorate didn't see much daylight between Bush-Cheney and McCain-Palin and you can hardly fault them for choosing a new approach.
Bottom line: Obama won the election. He IS black. You are going to have to reconcile both of these facts eventually.
numonk
No. Melanin content may be responsible for varying tones observed by our eyes that are simply representative of variable chemical processes possessed within, or by, a 'person'. Also, the color perceived by one to be 'black', or 'white', may well be the exact opposite due to the way the human eye directs the nerve signals to the brain.
But mostly, he's not fucking black. He's brown. He's from people who were white, and whiter before them, and also darker. And darker before them.
Racism is for stupid religious people, illiterates, and those capable of the most amazing mental gymnastics that if they can avoid the first two categories and exist deserve credit for genius and sociopathic tenancies that would surely impress Neitzche and Rand.
octavio
Sept/12/2009
What penscott means is that we should bring Bush/Cheney back and start the killing, torturing and stealing again!
Leslie Gelb is just trying to scare everybody,he is
doing his best to help the republicans get in the way of
passing the Public Health Care Bill!
Barack Obama has the balls to correct whatever
needs correcting in the future!
(1) Pass the Public Health Care Bill
(2) Reinstate the draft and reform the other problems
in our military!
(3) Stop the lobbysts bribing our politicians!
(4) Tackle Pakistan,Iran,North Korea et cetera
when the time comes!
(5) Start prosecuting Bush/Cheney for lying,torturing
and stealing!
(6) Ignore the republicans!
END!
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------
WestVillager
Maybe Penscott is indicating that the choices about how to effectively handle foreign policy is astronomical, and deciding between the level of talking or force isn't as obvious anymore. When the stakes are as high but our goal not as clear as it was last century, it would make him feel better if the president had more experience.
Your list is right to include domestic and int'l issues. they're linked. Could turn out the lack of int'l baggage will help us, but Obama's been much more vocal, passionate about domestic issues than int'l ones.
estcruzer
The list is right, we have bigger fish to fry getting our own house in order. It's been trashed and is on the brink of collapse - what good will we be in the international theater then? The priorities have to be making America the best place to live in the world (like we keep lying to ourselves ourselves). If we can't set a good example why should anyone listen to us - really - why should they?
WestVillager
Hi, est: That's exactly the conundrum the US faces. The solutions we choose to get America's house in order will affect our influence as well as how attractive a place it is to live, comparatively. I, personally, don't think it's possible to focus on our domestic issues without being mindful of our global role. In some cases it's not a leadership one. I just don't know when it's "time" to deal with N Korea or Iran until it's too late.
Though, you've got me wanting to research how we stand up today as a place to live, and how we can maintain its appeal. It might be simple thanks to celebrity.
penscott
Feckless dweebs argue that because Bush had no credentials for the job it is
fine that Obama doesn't either.
Greyfire
Blaming Bush for for Iran, Israel, and North Korea is silly. For both Iran and North Korea the US either continued Clinton era policies or expanded them. For Israel it was under Bush that Israel had a complete withdraw of the Gaza Strip which has done little but create a launching pad for attack against them since it happened. I know blaming Bush is all Democrats can do to explail why Obama hasn't fixed these things but some issues are bigger and longer standing eight years of Bush can create. All these issue can be taken back to at least world war two. And if your not willing to look at the whole history they its unlike any of these issues are to be resolved. Isn't that the whole idea behind "smart power"?
mcmchugh99
These are just problems that have been passed from one president to another, decade after decade. Nothing much can be expected to change unless there is a real change in these regimes like Iran and North Korea--and any real change will only come from within.
Part of the answer will be a reformed global system, that will be much friendlier to social and economic development in the poorer countries.
WestVillager
I think smart power could be interpreted (wrongly) as of conservative values because of everything that's happened since WWII. And since that's evil it might be a tough sell. I've never felt like real foreign policy was at the whim of partisan politics. Some people just like war more.
But I also think people who's first reaction to problems of an administration is to blame the previous, which makes for fine fodder on blogs and TV, is an easy way to articulate frustration. It doesn't really make us better, but it's acceptable.
khepri
America is much more in danger of harming itself than of being harmed by the foreign developments that Gelb outlines. Someone please call in the referee to stop the fight.
mcmchugh99
Having lived in South Korea for five years, my main regret is that the country was not reunified in 1950, but that was not possible once the Chinese intervened. I still think out ultimate goal should be reunification, and policies that favor more integration in Asia--an Asian EU.
Iraq will not hold together. It is already partitioned in face, and we should just let that happen. It was never anything but an artificial country assembled by Britain and France after World War I, so it will just come apart like Yugoslavia. I don't see any way around that, so we should just stand aside, and then deal with the countries that emerge when the dust settles. For my part, I am very concerned that the Kurds are not abandoned and left holding the bag in a very hostile neighborhood.
Afghanistan was never a unified country in its history, so we should just work with what's there on the local and regional level, to bring security, social and economic development on the grassroots level. We will never make it a nice middle class democracy and should not even try.
Pakistan needs similar efforts at local and regional development, since it too is on the verge of becoming a failed state, with corruption and inefficiency running rampant. In places like these, people need real alternatives between the corrupt old order and the Islamic fascism of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
If we cannot develop a reformed global system that does a hell of a lot more to promote internal social and economic development wherever possible, we are not going to win these wars, and we are not going to resolve this world economic crisis. Our failures are systemic, and must be addressed in a systemic fashion.
penscott
"...develop a reformed global system..."
Now there's a modest goal.
mcmchugh99
I have no suggestions for the Arab-Israeli thing, beyond separating them into two states and walling them off from each other. That will just grind on as it has for decades, with lots of peace talks that never really go anywhere.
WestVillager
It would be interesting if instead of choosing sides or trying to peacekeep, someone said what you did. Decided they'll never get along. The more both sides progress, the more it grows apart and say, "in terms of extra aid it stops. you're on your own." Would it be war in 2 seconds?
frontman9000
I disagree with the author. Obama's biggest problems are here at home. His biggest enemies are here and not abroad.
redlotus2
Some of the comments on this article are pathetic. The usual Democrat Vs Republican thing has to stop. When will we get it? When will the public and more importantly, the elected officials understand that blaming the previous administration(s) is not an acceptable explanation for why the current one has failed to do something, or will not do it. Nobody can say 'Obama is weak on Iran' or anything like it, without some Donkey-mad lunatic ranting and raving about how the Bush Administration screwed everything up. The whole point of an election should be that we get people in power who are willing to admit that they are not doing something for a particular reason - to blame the previous people is simply a disgrace.
rfdietl
We all paid for the Clinton era of pacifying the Muslim extremists by not replying to all the attacks on Americans all over the world while he was in office. Bush did the right thing and will some day be recognized for the hero that he is. Now Obama can go on forever blaming Bush for everything but it doesn't stick. No one is against Obama because he is black. It has been stated by black pundits that Obama cheated the United States out of electing a black president. We all, while and black had high hopes for his presidency, but he has repeatedly dashed those hopes by totally ignoring our wants and needs. Health care is just the latest, following the Czars who are in so many cases outright bad citizens.
PunkRockRepublican
Mr. Gelb; I just heard you say on 770 WABC AM, five minutes ago, that instead of fighting the Taliban we should just buy them off. Exactly how do we get traction with the burgeoning nuclear states of Iran, Myanmar, Venezuela, et al IF WE RUN AWAY FROM MACHINE GUNS? And when the 'bought off' Taliban goes nuclear?
Just 'cause all your friends think you're brilliant don't make it so. Take Barbara Streisand for instance ...
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.