Barack Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy.

Foreign Policy Team Con makes the popular and illogical argument that appointing good subordinates and using them effectively is not evidence of good leadership. To this I ask what my opponent would like, for Obama to parachute personally into Afghanistan and Pakistan with an M-16 to take on the terrorists one on one? Reagan didn’t Rambo into the Soviet Union with a knife between his teeth to cut down Soviet agents. Harry Truman didn’t pilot the Enola Gay into Hiroshima. Presidents lead from the Oval Office, through their subordinates. That is their role. There is only so much that a President can do. They cannot be expected to micromanage the day to day operations of war. Obama’s chosen team has done a much better job than the Bush administration’s Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and L. Paul Bremer who totally mishandled the Iraq war. Obama could have chosen to select a team of democratic cronies; however he chose to put quality, skill and the interests of the US above partisanship. For these reasons, Con’s argument is invalid. America’s Image Con makes the argument that Obama has not improved America’s image, however these are the numbers provided by the US Department of state for US favorability: [1] President Obama’s first term has seen a major positive improvement on US favorability numbers worldwide. Quoting the PEW article cited by Con “while confidence in Obama has slipped, in many of the countries surveyed, people continue to express confidence in President Obama’s foreign policy leadership.”[2] Additionally the drop is minimal when compared to the nadir which international opinion reached during the Bush administration, particularly in 2002-2003. Obama’s approach worked well in Cuba, where it put the regime at a disadvantage when trying to blame the US for all their problems. It is inevitable that some countries will hate the US as it wages war. If Obama has had to anger some people abroad to defend this country, then that is an unfortunate necessity of war. Overall though, Obama has been a net positive to America’s image. War on Terror Con points out that Al-Qaeda (according to FA) has shifted strategies and that they wish to “bleed” the US economy, but so far, there have been no attacks on the US mainland during Obama’s presidency. Where are the thousand cuts? Furthermore, the US economy is large enough to absorb anything the terrorists have thrown at us so far. According to the Congressional Research Service, even the costs of 9/11, which occurred years before Obama, where a minor blip to US GDP and that was the largest terrorist attack in history. [3] The US is not the Soviet Union, the costs of fighting terror easily fit within the US defense budget which was only 4.8% of GDP in 2010.[4] In economic terms, the US has not yet begun to fight. Obama has focused more on killing terrorists but so far the results have been a lot of dead terrorists and no terrorist attacks in the US mainland despite conservative hypotheticals. By the way, the fact that a Seal team member had to shoot Bin Laden was because Bin Laden was allegedly reaching for a weapon.[5] Even so, Bin Laden is better dead than on the run. That the terrorists are seeking new bases is an inevitable result of our assault on Afghanistan. It doesn’t really mean much unless it causes an increase in successful attacks, which it has not. They can move around all they want, US drones and agents can follow. Unless Con is arguing that the US should invade Yemen, Oman, Somalia, and Mali. Pakistan Since it would be extremely difficult to conquer a nation of 190,291,129 people it makes sense to try to work with them. [6] ISI collusion with Al-Qaeda didn’t stop the President from sending in the Seal team against Bin Laden (right in the ISI’s backyard) when it was needed. Infiltration and coercion of enemy terrorist agents combined with drone strikes is working so far and it is a good strategy to adopt for now since it risks few American lives. Iraq Obama does get credit for Iraq. He continued successful policies from the previous administration and shepherded the conflict to its successful conclusion. Whatever the thoughts of FA, America could not remain in Iraq indefinitely. Leaving was the right call as it forced Iraqis to actually rely on their own army and government rather than spend all their time infighting. Nor is leaving American troops based in Iraq a desirable situation since they would be subject to a hostile population and terrorist attacks. Iraq’s own democratic government did not want to keep American troops there without unacceptable conditions.[7] Shouldn’t America respect the sovereign democratic government we installed there? The Arab Spring The Arab Spring has yet to play out, though one thing is certain, no radical Islamic party has yet achieved power in Lybia or Egypt despite the fears of pundits. Is Con arguing that we should have crushed the Arab Spring? Furthermore, intervention in the Green Revolution of Iran would likely not have worked, as the uprising in Iran was by a minority of the educated classes in the cities against the conservative majority which supports the establishment. Not that it would have mattered much since the leaders of the movement were also supporters of Khamenei.[8] Intervention in Syria is being blocked by China and Russia, but it is also an uprising by a small factional segment of the country against the majority.[9] Direct intervention in either country would have had a doubtful outcome for the opposition. Iran I said Obama is using sanctions AND the threat of military intervention, which has been standard US policy. The fact is that the situation in Iran is likely headed for some sort of military confrontation. Allowing some time for a diplomatic solution is not a bad idea since it might actually work, and at least it allows for time to build an anti-Iran coalition. Why rush to war against a dangerous opponent when diplomacy is still an option? Conclusion This debate is not a controversial one. I do not need to argue that Obama has been the greatest foreign policy leader in history or even a great leader in American history. All I have to argue is that Obama has been a good leader on foreign policy. By showing Obama’s leadership in Iraq, Afghanistan, the War on Terror, the Arab Spring, killing Bin Laden and fundamentally in keeping America Safe, I have proven my case. My opponent must show that his foreign policy has been less than good and he has failed to do so. Vote Pro! PS: Um, when did we intervene in Egypt? [1] http://tinyurl.com... [2] http://tinyurl.com... [3] See page 9. http://tinyurl.com... [4] http://tinyurl.com... [5] http://tinyurl.com... [6] CIA World Factbook. [7] http://tinyurl.com... [8] http://tinyurl.com... [9] http://tinyurl.com... ; http://tinyurl.com...