Is President Obama Weak in the Eyes of Arab Leaders? Posted by Shadi Hamid

Neoconservatives are likely to be wrong on any number of issues. But there is one critique of theirs that, somewhat to my dismay, has struck me as more compelling than I would have originally hoped. There is an argument to be made that the United States is weaker – and by this, I mean less admired, less respected, and more likely to be perceived as irrelevant – than it was under the Bush administration. It is difficult to establish causality here, since the original cause was President Bush’s failed policies. We are still paying the price for those failures today.

That said, there are some things we do know. According to recent polling, the United States, under Obama, has lower favorability ratings in several Arab countries than it did in the final years of the Bush administration. It was possible, and in some cases fairly easy, to separate Bush from the United States. Arabs seemed to understand that his policies did not necessarily reflect anything true or essential about America’s character. Moreover, those of us who strongly opposed Bush policy told our Arab (or Latin American or European) friends that it was just a matter of time before America regained a sense of prudence.

As I’ve written before, there is little I can now say to my Arab colleagues. We all got what we wished for (even the Muslim Brotherhood was rooting for Obama) – someone who seemed one of the more brilliant, inspiring, and unique American politicians in recent memory. He had a Muslim name, a Muslim family, lived in the Muslim world, and seemed to have an appreciation for the place of grievance in Arab life. What many Arabs have taken away from this is that the problem with U.S. foreign policy is a structural one. Because even with a “good” president, American foreign policy, as they see it, is quite bad. In short, the U.S. is now irredeemable in a way it never would have been under a President McCain. 

Moving on to the neoconservative critique, the argument, as far as I understand it, is that if you go around talking nice, apologizing, and going on about engagement, then this somehow invites bad behavior. Autocrats will take advantage of you. I don’t buy this particular line, but I do think there’s something to be said for Obama’s perceived lack of “toughness” on the international stage. By toughness, I don’t mean projection of power, bluster, or the over-reliance on the American military. I mean more foreign policy “ideology,” the projection of a clear, semi-consistent set of principles and beliefs, and the willingness to consistently articulate them to the international community. And once they're articulated, to stand behind them. 

The week before the recent Egyptian elections, the State Department called for “fair” and “credible” polls. In response, the Egyptian government, traditionally the second largest recipient of US aid, had the gall to stage-manage what was quite possibly the most rigged election in Egyptian history. In the past, as I argue here, Egypt would at least pretend, allowing a semblance of competition. But, this time, the Mubarak regime didn’t even have the decency of playing along with the charade (US pretends it cares about Egyptian democracy. Egypt pretends too). This suggests a certain level of Egyptian disrespect toward the Obama administration.

Issandr El Amrani, in a new policy brief, notes “the unwillingness of Egypt to show even token consideration for U.S. democracy promotion goals.” When the ruling party, presumably a close ally of the US, wins 209 out of 211 seats in the first round, despite our public calls for a “credible” election, it suggests a perception that people can both defy and disrespect the U.S. and get away with it.  As much as I hesitate to say it, that election result would have never happened under Bush, at least in his 2004-5 guise. People hated Bush but at least he was sufficiently frightening to instill a sense of prudence (however brief) among Arab autocrats.  

Comments

[Mike M.]

I guess it's possible that some hated Bush but feared him. The House of Saud surely loved him. I think there's perhaps some annoyance that we're not going to bomb Iran on anyone's behalf. Some powerful folks in the region really, really want us to do that.

But other than that, I'm not sure what you're asking for. The grievance in Arab life should be between its citizens and its elites. are we still treating tyrant governments with legitimacy throughout the region? Yes, we are. But their civil wars are not ours to fight. We treat China as if it has a legitimate government too.

I think you can fault Obama for not taking a hard enough line with Netnyahu. But can you fault his for much beyond that? I voted for him, in part, to get our soldiers our of harm's way in Iraq and Afghanistan and I'm disappointed in his lack of speed and resolve on that issue. But I doubt the Arab elites you're talking about would be any happier with my total withdrawal scenario.

[virility ex]

These blog is really very inspiring it can be really very great to know about it. It can be treat to legitimacy these all are follows in so many things which is cool to know about it.

[Issandr El Amrani]

This is an issue I've given some thought to, and we have remember to bring back the full context. In 2005 the Bush administration was still surfing on a high, he had just invaded an Iraq that had not yet fully sunk into civil war, it was thinking about invading Syria (or decapitating its leadership) and aggressively talking regime change in Iran, and had freshly been re-elected with a pretty clear mandate (or elected for the first time if you consider the 2000 election a coup d'etat by the Supreme Court).

Egypt at that point was in a position to be terrified about a Washington gone insane because of 9/11. By 2006 this changes quickly, though, and by 2008 the deepest regression in Egyptian politics was well on its way, probably reaching its nadir with the constitutional amendments of May 2007. It's not that Bush was more respected, it's that he had a brief period of focus on the Middle East and the democracy agenda (although in fact it was poorly thought-out and structured and seen as a very selective tool for leverage by the likes of Elliott Abrams). When he lost that, he was no longer "respected". Obama inherited all of Bush's problem, and some new ones. Washington simply can't assert itself the way it used to, what it has to do now is be willing to convince its own political class to make radical rethinks about Israel/Palestine, the Camp David framework of US aid to Egypt and Israel, its military deployment in the Middle East and much more. Obama's biggest problem is that he is either unwilling or unable to break with that, and thus defaulting to old Clintonian positions (and of course terrible advisors like Dennis Ross.)

[sesli sohbet]

The week before the recent Egyptian elections, the State Department called for “fair” and “credible” polls. In response, the Egyptian government, traditionally the second largest recipient of US aid, had the gall to stage-manage what was quite possibly the most rigged election in Egyptian history. In the past, as I argue here, Egypt would at least pretend, allowing a semblance of competition.
seslisohbet seslichat

[冷夜]

ition to be terrified about a Washington gone insane because of 9/11. By 2006 this changes quickly, though, and by 2008 the deepest regression in Egyptian politics was well on its way, probably reaching its nadir with the constitutional amendments of May 2007. It's not that Bus

[HIGH PANERAI REPLICA WATCHES]

Thank you for the great post! I wouldn’t have gotten this by myself!

[goodwatches]

it is good
watch5
whowatch
watchse
uwatch
Uwatch
iwatch
needwatch
watcheslife
livewatch

[Cosplay Wigs]

Oh God you are a genius person and a good photographer i like your pics thanks.

[knockoff handbags]

i can get some info form your article,,thanks.

[The best knockoff handbags]

Very glad to see your post