Obama fights foreign policy critics, pledges aid to Syria groups

Wed May 28, 2014 6:58pm EDT

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives for the commencement ceremony at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, May 28, 2014. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

U.S. President Barack Obama arrives for the commencement ceremony at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, May 28, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Kevin Lamarque

WEST POINT, N.Y., Reuters) - President Barack Obama fought back against critics of his foreign policy on Wednesday by insisting U.S. reliance on diplomacy over military intervention was working to resolve global crises like Ukraine and Iran, and he pledged to ramp up support for Syria's opposition.

In the commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, Obama laid out his approach to foreign affairs for the rest of his presidency built on a commitment to act in concert with other nations, and he shifted the fight against terrorism from Afghanistan to more diffuse threats globally.

Obama, stung by unrelenting criticism that he has been passive and indecisive as a world leader, spent a large section of his address countering Republicans in Congress and foreign policy experts in Washington who argue for a more aggressive approach to crises from Ukraine to Syria.

He cast himself as striking a middle ground between war mongers and isolationists.

"Tough talk often draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans," he said. America must lead on the world stage but “U.S. military action cannot be the only – or even primary – component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail,” he said.

The vision he set out reflected a president determined to avoid a repeat of what he considers a mistaken war in Iraq and to end the conflict in Afghanistan, where the United States sent troops following the Sept. 11, 2001 hijacked-plane attacks. But he likely did little to silence critics who feel he is setting aside a global role traditionally filled by robust American policies.

Republican Senator John McCain, whom Obama defeated in the 2008 election, accused the president of "posturing as the voice of reason between extremes," and suggesting that to oppose his policies is to support the unilateral use of military force everywhere. "Literally no one is proposing that, and it is intellectually dishonest to suggest so," he said.

Obama announced a $5 billion proposal to serve as a “partnership fund” to help countries fight terrorism on their soil. The White House said Obama would work with Congress to find the money for the program in the tight federal budget.

The funds would train and equip other countries to fight "violent extremism and terrorist ideology."

Obama’s refusal to use military action against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for use of chemical weapons last year, after he had threatened to do, hurt his image among allies such as Saudi Arabia.

Obama, however, says his threats paid off with an international deal to secure and eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles.

He said he will work with Congress to "ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators," but he offered no specifics.

Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq will also get additional resources to help house Syrian refugees. That money will come from the new fund, a senior administration official said.

"As frustrating as it is, there are no easy answers, no military solution that can eliminate the terrible suffering anytime soon," Obama said about Syria.

The Syrian Opposition Coalition welcomed Obama's promise. "The Syrian people and the opposition forces stand committed to work with their friends and to expand strategic cooperation in countering the terrorism enabled by the Assad regime in Syria," it said in a statement.


Obama pointed to progress toward persuading Iran to give up nuclear weapons as a solid dividend of his multilateral diplomacy. And he said the firm stance by the United States and its European allies has been pivotal in persuading Russia to halt its advances on Ukraine after Moscow’s seizure of Crimea.

“This is American leadership. This is American strength. In each case, we built coalitions to respond to a specific challenge,” he said.

But here too there are caveats. On Iran, Obama acknowledged odds for success are still long and it is yet to be seen how Russian President Vladimir Putin will react to Ukraine’s latest crackdown on pro-Russian separatists in the east.

"We don’t know how the situation will play out and there will remain grave challenges ahead, but standing with our allies on behalf of international order working with international institutions, has given a chance for the Ukrainian people to choose their future," he said.

The president also pledged that the United States would be a leader in forming an international agreement next year on measures to combat global warming and condemned Republicans who question whether climate change is real.

Obama critics were unmoved. "Across the spectrum, there is concern that under Barack Obama, America is in withdrawal mode," said Representative Mac Thornberry, a senior Republican on the House Armed Services Committee.

“Even a president with rhetorical gifts cannot finesse his way out of military weakness or the loss of credibility in the world,” Thornberry said in a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington.

Some in Obama's audience at West Point were also non-plussed. "He was too wishy-washy," said John Dodson, a 1968 West Point graduate. "When you’re not perceived to be strong and vigorous all your enemies are more willing to take chances."

(Additional reporting by Roberta Rampton, Susan Heavey and Jeff Mason in Washington and; Edward Krudy in West Point; Editing by David Storey and Grant McCool)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (55)
bigturkey wrote:
Our foreign policy is basically a throwback to the sixties. Make love, not war. Too many venues around the world are not yet ready for this message and the policy is going to fail. The hope is it won’t fail catastrophically. One scenario for a catastrophe would be overt Chinese aggression on territory claimed by someone (e.g. the Philippines) with whom the U.S. has a security pact, and the U.S. does ….. nothing.

May 28, 2014 8:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse
CountryPride wrote:
The corrupt US government continues to get involved in other nation’s internal affairs. The result? We continue to waste our precious soldier’s lives, destroy their families, and continue to spend money we don’t have adding to our current $17.5 Trillion debt. This is the policy of psychopaths!

May 28, 2014 8:28am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Naksuthin wrote:
Here’s a sobering thought.

For 13 years the most expensive, technologically advanced, and most powerful army on earth has been at war with a few thousand illiterate Afghan farmers in a war that has now become infamously “the longest war in US history”
So the big question is: Why, after 13 years, are a bunch of poor illiterate ill-equipped untrained Taliban farmers who have no tanks, no helicopter gun ships, no predator drones, no aircraft carriers, no nuclear submarines, no jet fighters, no night vision goggles , no bullet proof vests, no satellite communications systems…no boots and helmets…why are they STILL holding the upper hand in Afghanistan against the “most expensive army on earth”?

The United States spends 700 billion dollars a year on defense: Soldiers, guns, ships, tanks, helicopters, jet fighters, submarines and night vision goggles.
We have tens of thousands of US soldiers in Afghanistan.
The Afghans have 100,000 American trained and armed Afghan security forces.
We have thousands of private military contractors helping us fight the war.
We poured 90 billion dollars on reconstruction ALONE. We squandered 10 billion dollars a month for combat.
We’ve lost almost 2000 US soldiers there. And they keep killing more almost monthly.
We’ve tried the “surge”. Nothing
We’ve tried negotiations. Useless
We’ve tried “winning hearts and minds”…a Flop
We’ve tried training the Afghans to defend themselves….They shoot our soldiers in the back.
We’ve tried paying off restive tribes along the border…a waste of money

Yet the enemy is as strong as ever and won’t even sit down to negotiate.

So here we 13 YEARS later, mired in the longest war in US history …..with no light at the end of the tunnel.

It’s time that the most powerful, “technologically advanced, well equipped, best funded army on earth” PACK UP AND GO HOME.

If there’s one thing we’ve learned from the longest war in US history it’s this: Spending more money on the US military DOESN’T win wars.


May 28, 2014 8:30am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.