In his debate with Jimmy Carter on October 28, 1980, Ronald
Reagan looked at the television cameras and said, “Ask yourself,
‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’” It’s always
a good political question, but it’s too often not asked outside the
context of our domestic issues.
The question is equally important if it’s focused outward: who
among our enemies and allies are better off now than they were on
the day President Obama was inaugurated? The answers are a
cacophony of bad news, as bad as the answer to the current domestic
version of the question.
Let’s go down the list. Since January 2009, how have Iran,
Pakistan, North Korea, Afghanistan, Israel, and our European allies
fared? Has Russia or China become less powerful or more aligned
with America’s interests?
Iran has become far more powerful and much closer to achieving
its nuclear weapons ambitions in the past three years and eight
months. Its uranium enrichment facilities are running at full
speed, at least one of its Russian-built nuclear power plants has
come on line, and a significant portion of the facilities most
important to weapons development have been moved far underground.
The Iranians are approaching — and will quickly reach — the point
at which these facilities are invulnerable to all but the most
sophisticated cyberwar attacks and nuclear weapons.
Iran’s nuclear programs have been undeterred — and unaffected
— by the several rounds of economic sanctions that we have tried
to impose. Its missile force is vastly improved and expanded. And
Obama willfully ignored our opportunity to help topple the Iranian
kakistocracy in 2009. In sum, Iran is much better off today than it
was in 2009.
Israel is worse off in direct proportion to Iran being better
off. Actually, Israel is exponentially worse off: because of
Obama’s break with Israel and his refusal to take any action that
would have ended Iran’s nuclear pursuits (the Stuxnet computer worm
notwithstanding, because its effect was brief and temporary). That
the Israelis have been abandoned by their most important and
powerful ally is clearly illustrated by two recent reports.
First, on August 30 Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, spoke of the possible Israeli attack on Iran’s
nuclear weapons program. Dempsey said, “I don’t want to be
complicit if they [the Israelis] choose to do it.” Using the word
“complicit,” Dempsey labeled the possible military action illicit.
His statement signaled to the Iranians that we would not assist
Israel in any way and that we might refuse to come to Israel’s aid
if the military action went bad. Contrast this with the 1973
Arab-Israeli War when U.S. Air Force aircraft were being armed and
fueled to fly into the fight when the war appeared to be going
badly for Israel.
Second, there had been several reports of a blowup between
Israeli PM Netanyahu and U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro over the Obama
administration’s failure to act on Iran. The Obama administration
has insisted that there was no disagreement but last week the
incident was confirmed by House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Mike Rogers (R-Mich.). According to a Washington Post
report, “The exchange occurred at an Aug. 24 intelligence
cooperation session in Israel and [according to Rogers] it was
‘very tense,’ with sharp, ‘elevated’ exchanges between Netanyahu
and U.S. Ambassador Dan Shapiro… ‘It was very, very clear that the
Israelis had lost their patience with the administration,’ Rogers
said…”
Pakistan fares better since 2009. Its sponsorship of the Taliban
and the terrorist Haqqani network (belatedly labeled “terrorist”
last week by the Obama administration) is thriving. The Taliban,
and the Islamist ideology that pervades both Pakistan and
Afghanistan, have combined to pull off so many “green on blue”
attacks in which Afghani forces have killed U.S. and coalition
troops, that the training of the Afghan security forces has been
suspended. In short, the Pakistanis and their surrogates are better
off now than they were when Obama came into office.
The comparison of 2009 and 2012 reveals much the same results
around the world. China continues its “slow rise,” becoming more
powerful militarily even though its economy has slowed. China’s
bellicosity has increased considerably in confrontations with the
nations in its “near abroad.” The brief military confrontation
between Chinese and Japanese forces over the Senkaku Islands off
Japan — under which are rich oil and gas fields — passed without
an American response. Nations in the “near abroad” from Taiwan to
Vietnam to Malaysia face the same growing Chinese threats. China
has pursued its strategy consistently and has been undeterred —
and unrestrained — in the Obama term.
Russia is no longer the “riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an
enigma” of Churchill’s day. Vladimir Putin has returned to the
Russian presidency that he never really gave up. Since Obama’s
presidency began, Putin has maneuvered Obama into a new arms
control treaty that, for the first time, links our missile defense
program with offensive nuclear forces. Obama’s plans to reduce our
nuclear forces, his abandonment of Bush’s promised ground-based
missile defense deployment to Poland, and Russia’s continuing
partnership with Iran’s nuclear power program are all wins for
Russia. Russia’s reflexive thwarting of U.S. actions seeking UN
action on Iran and every other topic are all wins for Russia. Putin
eagerly awaits Obama’s promised “flexibility” if Obama is
re-elected.
Geopolitically, our European “allies” are faring no better than
their economies. From the beginning, Obama has shunned Britain
symbolically — by returning the Churchill bust that had graced the
Oval Office — to his declaration of American neutrality in the
revived dispute between the U.K. and Argentina over the Falkland
Islands. France, as always, is genetically hopeless. Obama’s
joining in France’s war for Libyan oil emboldened Sarkozy’s France,
but France’s military effort there has exhausted its — and NATO’s
— ability to act. NATO member forces will withdraw from
Afghanistan before American forces. The security of the former
Soviet Bloc nations, especially Poland, has been ignored or, as in
the case of Poland, betrayed. American leadership has been absent
for all of Obama’s years.
Our worst-faring enemy — Syria — is beset by a civil war from
which Obama has remained aloof. Obama’s first defense secretary,
Bob Gates, said we had no national security interest in Libya but
Obama intervened nevertheless. Syria, in which we have a vital
security interest in toppling a terrorist state, is now beyond our
reach, supported directly and strongly by both Russia and Iran. The
only other enemy that has fared badly under Obama is al Qaeda. SEAL
Team 6’s raid that killed Osama bin Laden deprived the terrorist
network of its symbolic leader. But, in truth, al Qaeda’s loss
hasn’t reduced its abilities below the level achieved under George
Bush. Al Qaeda affiliated groups — from al-Shabab in Somalia to al
Qaeda in Iraq and more — pose the same kind of deadly local
threats that existed in 2009. Other terrorist groups, from
Hizballah in Lebanon to the rest of the terrorist networks listed
by the State Department, are still thriving with one exception: the
Mujahedin e-Khalq, an Iranian group imprisoned and abused by the
Maliki government in Iraq. MEK is a thorn in the side of the
Iranian regime, and shouldn’t be included in the terrorist
list.
Egypt, which was a weak ally, is now in the hands of the Muslim
Brotherhood, an international radical group that is — as Andy
McCarthy has written extensively — conducting a silent jihad
against us at home.
In sum, who is better off now than they were four years ago?
America’s enemies are, not our allies.
