Throughout his six years as president, Barack Obama in his major statements was keen to disengage America from major military action or interventions. That was the reaction to his predecessor, George W Bush, using American military power mainly as a response to the 9/11 attacks. The US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was an expression of his strategy to use force to assure American power and primacy. For that he was willing to act unilaterally, even against the opposition of his allies and ignoring international organisations. Obama said in his presidential campaign that he was coming to correct this policy. He was supported by the American public, who were tired of Bush's military adventures. Obama from the beginning capitalised on the American people's dissatisfaction with Bush's military escapades, promising to bring back US troops from Iraq and planning the same for Afghanistan (first in 2014 and then 2016). In departure from his predecessor's policies, Obama was willing even to negotiate with America's adversaries, particularly Iran. By the end of his first term, Obama faced fierce opposition from the Republicans and the American right, accusing him of weakness and scarifying America's status in the world as the leading power. The crisis in Libya, Syria and later in Ukraine came to support Obama's critics. They criticised his “leading from behind”approach in Libya, his reluctance to support the opposition in Syria — approaches that they believe encourage Vladimir Putin to adopt aggressive policies. In a major statement at West Point College on Wednesday, 28 May 2014, Obama tried to defend his policies, and did make a strong case on the use of force. Obama endorsed military action, even unilaterally when the country's vital interests are threatened or when the security of allies is in danger. But in the same breath, he stressed that not every problem has a military solution and warned that, “Some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from willingness to rush into military adventures.” Responding to critics claiming that he ceded America's world dominance, Obama said that the question is “not whether America will lead but how we will lead”. Here, Obama reflected his original thinking that America cannot solve every problem unilaterally but needs partners to work with. To his mind, this does not mean that America is no more a leading power, but that the best approach is to work through and with allies and friends. Two issues deserve comment in Obama's West Point statement. Observers noticed that Obama mentioned terrorism 17 times. This represents a departure from his earlier statements where he did not use the term, which was the focus of his predecessor. We can assume Obama's focus on terrorism is the outcome of US experience in Afghanistan amid the crackdown on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. These organisations' response, instead of being centralised, was defused to various locales, including Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Mali and even Sinai — a development that needs a change in approach and resources. That explains why Obama asked Congress to allocate $5 billion to combat terrorism. The second point was his total neglect of the Palestinian-Israeli issue. Obama may have in mind that after the failure of Kerry's efforts a pause should be given to the two parties to develop their strategy and allow time for his administration to work out a new approach to deal with the impasse. In the final analysis, Obama's address can be regarded as a reading of the world geopolitical map and a search for the best formula to address world conflicts, a formula based on America's experience, its resources, the consequences of its interventions, and the willingness of its allies and partners to cooperate. The writer is managing director of the Egyptian Council for Foreign Affairs.
