In both the European and Muslim case, the same question must be asked: Why did Obama believe that he was changing relations when in fact his policies were not significantly different from Bush’s policies? The answer is that Obama seemed to believe the essential U.S. problem with the world was rhetorical. The United States had not carefully explained itself, and in not explaining itself, the United States appeared arrogant.
I guess science and logic aren't their strong suits.
A lot of good stuff in this Stratfor article. I've made a number of the points myself.
The problem with President Obama isn't that he's routinely making bad decisions in foreign policy. Despite his naive rhetoric, he has continued a number of Bush policies that help make us safer--to the outrage of his base of supporters.
The problem is that even as he grudgingly makes some good choices eventually, he alienates allies by making them worry that we won't help them if he carries out that rhetoric; and he loses the respect of foes because they can see his heart isn't in it even when he defends our interests, making them wonder if he has the stomach to really stand up to them.
I worry that a foe will test our president, believing he doesn't have the guts to confront some provocation, and we will end up in a needless military confrontation or war because ultimately, President Obama will make the right decision to defend us.
Reputation counts. And our president doesn't have a good reputation abroad.
