Obama's Foreign Policy Naiveté

I took a good deal of grief from two intelligent people over President Bush’s comments about “appeasement” as a dig directed, some think, at Senator Obama’s rather naïve view of meeting with anti-American world leaders with no preconditions. Upon having the time I did my research so I could at least match their intellect with facts. So, to The Boy and Reid-Doh, eat my shorts!

While the Bush comment was likely directed at former President Carter, members of Congress and also Obama, it was Obama who squealed the loudest, likely as an opportunity to showcase his proposed “engagement” dance with any and all despots should he be elected president. By way of predicting the success of his policy, he answered President Bush’s challenge by saying President Kennedy had met with Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in Vienna in 1961 without preconditions.

Kennedy did indeed meet with Khrushchev and it directly led to the building of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban missile crisis, nearly causing World War III with nukes. Even Kennedy admitted he was out of his depth in the meeting and worried that he had performed so weakly that it gave the Soviets carte blanche to make mischief around the world. When the Wall went up a few months later, dividing Berlin for 27 years, Kennedy remarked that a “wall was better than a war.” Not exactly a Lincoln at Gettysburg moment.

At the meeting in Vienna, Khrushchev used the opportunity of a face-to-face meeting to show case the growing strength of the Soviet Union for both domestic and international consumption and to serve as a warning to Kennedy that his country could not be intimidated. Khrushchev’s popularity at home soared and many unaligned countries took notice of a weaker appearing America. It ended up being a huge propaganda victory for Khrushchev and demonstrated that giving an equal stage to problematic world leaders is what concerns Bush as it had previous presidents. It should also concern Obama, but he has painted himself in a corner by his pledge that was made on the spur of the moment during a debate.

Kennedy too should have known better to meet with Khrushchev since his Harvard thesis was entitled “Appeasement at Munich,” a reference to Neville Chamberlain’s ill-advised meeting with Hitler and his declaration of “peace in our time.” Kennedy was warned by old diplomatic hands George Keenan and Dean Rusk that it was a mistake to meet with the Soviet leader without pre-arranged accommodations and a clear strategy of what such a summit would achieve. Ignoring the advice, Kennedy believed his personal charm, on a par with Obama, was enough to win the day. But he was sadly mistaken and spent his remaining presidency trying to show latent strength to the Soviets just to break even following the Wall and missile threat in Cuba.

If Obama wants to challenge the approach of all past presidents – except Kennedy – in how to deal with those who wish us ill, he’ll have to rely on more than his charisma. As good as it sounds to solve all of our problems with nice talk, the purpose of such a meeting would be to negotiate in advance and have each party hope to get something out of such a meeting. It’s not as if Bush and other world leaders haven’t offered plenty of incentives to Iran and North Korea to stop their advanced weapons planning. But if Obama traveled to Tehran or Pyongyang offering nothing more than has been offered and expecting nothing more than talk talk, what would be the point? We’d likely just end up giving a huge propaganda victory to our adversaries who, despite Obama’s rhetorical oratory ability, will still be our adversaries when he steps back on Air Force One and heads home.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy's footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to show strength in a hostile world.