The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

I will certainly provide (in the comments) the full sourcesas Con demands; know that I merely wished to conserve characters. First, on the subject of Con’s “continuum” argument, Obamamust be held accountable for the actions and results that take place under hisadministration. Indeed, Con makes a mistake in assuming that animprovement/regression analysis is relevant to foreign policy. Rather, thepolicy must be judged on whether it has made the US position stronger or weakerin a given area or regarding a certain national interest. In almost every case,the US foreign policy agenda has been weakened by the actions of Obama. Iran The effect of Bush-era policies on the Iranian nuclear programis wholly and utterly irrelevant to this debate, which concerns only Obama’spolicy. Regardless of the circumstances of the issue when he took office, theactions of Obama have undeniably weakened America’s position. Also, the amountof uranium possessed by Iran is ludicrously immaterial; the crisis for the lastdecade has been focused on Iran’s ability to process that raw material into aweapon. Con’s assertion that “some success” has been achieved by Obama’sdiplomatic efforts and the sanctions placed on Iran is completely contradictedby all the evidence of reality; Iran’s rate of production of enriched uranium has almost tripledsince Obama first took office [1]. Finally, the campaign promises of Iran’s newpresident mean literally nothing to American foreign policy. Yes, it representsa desire for reform and change in the Iranian people, but Obama already refusedto capitalize on such a desire when he favored the Ayatollah’s totalitarianregime over the liberal revolutionaries in 2009. Power in Iran, especially inimportant foreign policy matters, still rests with Ayatollah Khamenei and hisRepublican Guard, no matter what rhetoric the new president employs [2]. Russia Obama’s much-touted New START Treaty holds very littlesignificance beyond its PR value. Reports have consistently found that Russiacheated early and often on the 1991 treaty with no real consequences [3].Nothing in the new agreement gives any indication of changing this practice,since Obama still has not successfully challenged the Russian expansion ofinfluence. Con’s contention that America’s increased coldness with Russia isthe result of Putin’s strongman tactics only further highlights Obama’sweakness; Putin has run circles around him and bullied him at every turn. Obama’s go-to institution in times ofinternational crisis, the United Nations, has been utterly neutered by Putin’sveto. Al Qaeda The leading figures in the central Al Qaeda organizationhave been mostly eliminated, however Con fails to take into account theevolving power structure of Al Qaeda. It is now their regional affiliates whooperate with the most power and it is these affiliates who have been on therise during the Obama presidency [5]. This does not constitute any less of athreat to American security. Al Qaeda’s Yemen-based affiliate, AQAP, hasattempted several attacks on the US, including the December 2009 “UnderwearBomber,” which were foiled thanks to stronger security measures rather than anyforeign policy success [6]. Obama’s happy drone trigger finger has only taughtAl Qaeda to decentralize, nothing more. They remain a resurgent threat, whileObama uses his hit list as PR. Allies The “support” given by the UK and other European allies onSyria begins and ends with words. When Bush called his European allies tosupport the War in Iraq, most joined the Coalition of the Willing and providedsignificant aid to American efforts [7]. Bush was able to achieve this supporteven in the face of UN disapproval and a concurrent war in Afghanistan becausehe nurtured a strong relationship with those allies, especially the UK. Obamalacks the real support garnered by Bush because he has utterly neglected thesebonds. When European nations called for support fighting terrorism anddictatorship, Obama answered with reluctance or refusal. In Libya, the UK andFrance begged Obama to intervene with America’s vast resources and influence,but Obama refused to act until extremely late in the crisis and then only withverbal support and minor military assets [8]. He was the last in, first out.When French forces intervened in Mali, they called on their American allies butObama offered only help with communication and transport [9]. Israel Military exercises do not a relationship make. At every realopportunity, Obama has declined to advance the US-Israel partnership. Refusingto act on Iran’s advance, favoring rhetoric about Palestinian independence overserious discussions of Israeli security and regional peace, snubbing Israelileaders at critical times; none of these are conducive to a strong relationship[10]. Eastern Europe Con claims that the missile shield decision had “no negativeimpact on relations,” but fails to acknowledge the actual responses of EasternEuropean governments. Lech Walesa, the great Polish Solidarity leader, harshlycondemned Obama’s move [10]. He joins other Polish leaders like Jaroslaw Gowinand Jarosław Kaczyński, as well asCzech leaders such as Mirek Topolanek [10]. Widely recognized as a move toplacate Russia, Obama’s decision further illustrates his commitment to imageover functional international alliances. Humanitarian Image Please do notignore this argument, as it is a key part of both Obama’s policy strategy andhis failures. He painted himself as a “citizen of the world” in 2008 and hasalways asserted that humanitarian issues have been a central focus of hispolicy [11]. The significance of the crises in recent years is thathumanitarian interests converge with American national interests. The Cold War“realist” strategy of favoring stable, pro-West dictators overCommunist-aligned revolutionaries is no longer relevant. The spread offunctioning, pro-West democracies is now of primary importance to advanceAmerican interests. Con asks for my suggestions; I offer the radical plan ofactually challenging America’s enemies. This includes confronting China ontheir human rights violations and intervening early in situations like Syriawhile we can still influence the character of the outcome. Asia Con mentions theTPP as an Obama victory, but the truth is that the TPP is still undernegotiation and has been delayed primarily by Obama’s own political attachmentsto protectionist lobbies that supported him in 2008 [12]. Additionally, thisagreement represents the only real pursuit of any international trade policy byObama [13]. Finally, though Obama’s rhetoric regarding China’s South China Seaaggression is tough, his willingness to act is always in question. http://www.washingtonpost.com... http://blogs.reuters.com... http://www.washingtontimes.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://www.publicserviceeurope.com... http://www.bbc.co.uk... http://news.bbc.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://www.telegraph.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.commentarymagazine.com... http://www.truthabouttrade.org... http://www.cigionline.org...