In an interview on foreign policy with Charlie Rose, President Obama obscured his actual record on war.
The president has an unfortunate habit of portraying himself as opposing foreign adventurism, even though his record has been aggressive in a style reminiscent of George W. Bush.
“What I believe is that the United States as the world’s singular super power has an obligation in all areas of the world, where there’s mayhem and war and conflict, for us to try to be a positive force,” Obama told Rose. “But that does not mean that we should be deploying troops everywhere where a crisis is taking place, that we have to be judicious about how we use military power.”
His judicious rulings on military power, however, have been expansive. The restraint has been verbal, but failed to translate into reality. Obama has bombed seven countries in his tenure: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, Libya, and Syria. That expanded upon Bush’s four countries.
It’s easy to miss that reality because the Obama administration has strived to preserve the president’s image as a Nobel Peace Prize recipient. Even when bombing Libya, the administration declared it a “kinetic military action” to obscure the reality of the situation and avoid the necessity of Congressional authorization for war.
Even when American soldiers are engaged in combat operations, Obama struggles with clarity.
“When we sat down together back in 2009 when I first came into office, we were still in the midst of two active wars,” Obama said. “And since that time, we’ve been able to wind down active combat in those two theaters.”
Except “active combat” is still a reality. In Afghanistan, almost 10,000 soldiers remain to assist Afghan forces against the Taliban. The government insists that the soldiers “train, advise, and assist” Afghan soldiers. Yet American soldiers have repeatedly engaged in combat missions.
In Iraq, too, about 5,000 soldiers remain, “far more than previously reported,” according to The Washington Post. The Obama administration has expanded military operations with an eye to avoiding press and public scrutiny.
It’s a familiar issue with the Obama administration. Journalists have criticized the White House as the “least transparent administration in history” and opposed its “war on whistleblowers.” Obama has continued the policies of his predecessor to stymie public scrutiny and obfuscate the reality of American foreign policy.
The public, especially young people, have grown weary of war. The Obama administration recognizes this in theory, but not in fact. Therefore, Obama will repeat platitudes about restraint and the brutality of war for the press. The public gets an image of a president who is aware of the dangers of foreign entanglements. Then, he quietly expands those entanglements. It’s a dangerous precedent based on dishonesty and a cynical exploitation of the press and public trust.
