The Obama foreign policy has been a failure.

Pro needs to list ALL his sources in the text of the debate or lose the sources point. This is standard DDO practice. I had to use characters on my sources, Pro should too.. Iran Bush-era policies are relevant to the historical context by which we evaluate Obama’s policies. Obama inherited two wars and a massive credibility problem, making military intervention in Iran a much harder sell than Bush had for the invasion of Iraq. Pro has no evidence that U.S. intervention in 2009 Iranian protests would have resulted in a positive outcome. The risks of such an intervention are massive- creating civil war in a country with nuclear material, radicalizing the Iranian public, destabilizing the largest Middle Eastern power and creating regional conflict. Abstaining from intervention was a foreign policy success. The Ayatollah has endorsed the new government as “fresh blood…comprised of experts.” Recently it was announced that the Foreign Ministry would take over nuclear negotiations, notably replacing a more conservative branch of the Iranian government [1]. This signals an opening up to the West – a positive improvement from the state of affairs on Bush’s last day in office. [1] http://online.wsj.com... Russia Pro misses the point on Putin. Putin has always acted as a strongman and a bully, starting actual military engagements under Bush. Russia has blocked US led UN measures for 20 years. None of this is unique or has anything to with whether Obama or Bush or Sarah Palin is in the White House. Pro fails to explain how Russia’s influence has expanded. Again, Russia opposed intervention in Libya, yet the U.S. was able to rally international support. [4] Pro ignored my point that Putin was warming up at the G20 summit. Recent developments show that this warming up is resulting in the US and Russia working together to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile [2]. Syrian disarmament would be a major foreign policy success for Obama. Obama’s threat of military forced prompted a rapid response from both Russia and the Syrian government to placate the US. [2] http://www.theguardian.com... Libya The US built the international coalition that authorized the Libyan strike. Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were crucial in gaining international support from the Middle East. Obama personally pressured the South African president to stand behind the U.N. resolution authorizing action. [4] Yes, early in the conflict Obama did not call for intervention. Hawkishness would have been a mistake given the perception of the U.S. as opportunistic and aggressive due to Iraq. Instead, Obama strategically used U.S. clout to make sure that when the time for action came, it could be done with an unassailable air of legitimacy. [4] http://www.nytimes.com... Al Qaeda I acknowledge the new power structure of Al Qaeda- my R2 argument explicitly accounts for this. The new decentralized power structure means that Al Qaeda no longer has the capability to carry out large scale terrorist attacks. This represents a massive gain in U.S. security- Obama has removed Al Qaeda’s ability to carry out another 9/11. Pro argues that the new Al Qaeda still is a threat by citing a FAILED attempt carried out one year into Obama’s presidency. That this is his go to argument proves how weak his case is. If nothing else, Obama brought bin Laden to justice. Forgetting all other arguments about Al Qaeda, this is in itself a huge foreign policy success. Allies Again, international support of the US was at a low thanks to Bush and Iraq. Gallup polls show that Obama provided a massive boost to perception of US leadership. Bush had us at a meager 34% approval rating; Obama bumped us up to a whopping 49% approval and maintained a strong approval rating. [9] [9] http://www.gallup.com... According to Pro, the UK begged for help with Libya and Obama gave it to them. How is this not supporting allies? Israel Pro doesn’t refute that Obama has materially increased support to Israel. Pro’s argument rests on supposed “snubbing” while mine rests on hard cash and military aid. Obama has aligned himself firmly with Israeli security concerns with respect to Palestine. On a March 2013 trip the Obama backed the primacy of Israeli security in negotiations and opened up talks of long term military aid and acknowledge that Israeli innovation was crucial to US security [8]. In both rhetoric and action Obama has stood behind Israel. [8] http://www.washingtoninstitute.org... Eastern Europe Pro cites a few eastern European politicians who opposed the missile decisions, but this doesn’t prove any damage to eastern European relations. Pro’s source also claims “Czech President Vaclav Klaus said he was "100 percent convinced" that the step was no expression of a cooling in relations between the United States and the Czech Republic. Pro doesn’t dispute that Western allies like France and Germany applauded the move. These allies are more powerful so even if Czech is a little rustled the move was worth it to strengthen ties to an economic powerhouse like Germany. Humanitarian Image Pro’s says Obama has hurt the U.S. humanitarian image, yet offers no evidence of this. Pro merely lists off things he wish Obama did different. I can list things I think he did right, but neither of us will have proven anything about global perception of Obama. Cross apply my [9] which shows that Obama has in fact boosted US image internationally. Finally, Obama has confronted China on human rights [5]. Pro’s other suggestion is for the U.S. intervene everywhere with a humanitarian crisis. Pro explicitly thinks we should have intervened in the Iranian revolution, the Syrian revolution, Mali, and I guess somehow in China. If this is the ideal foreign policy Pro is using to measure Obama, I think it’s a fantastic stroke of good fortune that Pro thinks Obama is a failure. [5] http://www.state.gov... Asia Pro is wrong that the TPP is Obama’s only trade policy- he signed a free trade agreement with Columbia, South Korea, and Panama. This is another foreign policy success, but it also proves Obama’s political will to liberalize trade and it serves as a test case proving he is willing to go against protectionist groups like labor unions. [6] http://money.cnn.com... Pro’s evidence about Obama delaying TPP is bunk- every country negotiating the TPP has sticking points and domestic interests they have to deal with, that’s why treaties have “negotiations.” NAFTA took 6 years to negotiate, TPP will take longer. Obama has more than rhetoric in the South China Sea- he has military power there. Obama has spearheaded a “pivot to the pacific” in realigning US military priority. This pivot has involved intensified exercises with key allies like Australia, Japan and Korea as well as shifting of naval and aircraft capabilities to the Pacific [7]. Obama has worked to shift US military capabilities to reflect the eastward drift of geopolitical power- a forward thinking strategic realignment that will pay off in the coming decades. [7] http://www.foxnews.com... Underview Obama entered office after the military adventurism of Bush crippled US credibility. The ghost of Iraq still haunts US policy as the world questions the trustworthiness US claims on Syria. The over-eager interventionism that Pro advocates has left the US in a bad position. Obama’s restraint and judicious use of military and diplomatic power have allowed him to further US interests while avoiding the pitfalls of prolonged military engagement and erosion of US credibility.