Obama and Foreign Policy Flip-Flopping

Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute penned an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal October 16 that took aim at Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama's foreign policy statements, and how those statements would be interpreted by the rest of the world. I recall discussing this issue quite some time ago with some colleagues, and in postings in the blogosphere.

Some of Obama's comments could be chalked up to foreign policy inexperience, to be sure, but Pletka's point about flip-flopping on positions is a valid one given America's leading role in the world, and how that role is seen by friends and foes alike. Here are some excerpts from her op-ed.

"As the election creeps nearer and the polls increasingly favor Barack Obama, it is worth considering the implications of another 'say anything' president. Such a president moves swiftly from state to state and country to country, adapting his talking points for the audience at hand. Consistency is not his goal; he aims to satisfy his listeners. Bill Clinton was such a president, and Mr. Obama promises more of the same."

The problem with adapting talking points to fit the audience at hand creates problems of perception about America's "intentions and resolve," Ms. Pletka says. Giving some examples, she offers the following.

"On June 4, he told a pro-Israel crowd that 'Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.' A day later he decided that it would be 'up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.' Six weeks later, he wrote off his commitment to a united Jerusalem as 'an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech.'"

"In July 2007, Mr. Obama was asked whether he would 'be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.' He said: 'I would.' A year later, to a much different audience in Israel, he said: 'I think that what I said in response was that I would, at my time and choosing, be willing to meet with any leader if I thought it would promote the national security interests of the United States of America.'"

The list goes on.

"In May 2008, in Oregon, he explained to an antiwar audience that Iran doesn't 'pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.' Two months later in a speech in Israel, suddenly Iran 'would pose a grave threat.' A month later he said that 'the danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.'"

"In January 2007, he explained, 'I don't know any expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to privately that believes that [deployment of more troops to Iraq] is going to make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.' A year later he had reversed not only his position, but his memory of his position: 'Now, I had no doubt -- and I said at the time, when I opposed the surge, that given how wonderfully our troops perform, if we place 30,000 more troops in there, then we would see an improvement in the security situation.'"

I, for one, distinctly remember Senator Obama saying that an increase in troop levels in Iraq would not only not work, but would likely make the violence worse.

Ms. Pletka continues. "A few years ago, he excoriated the 'utterly failed' Cuba embargo, but recently told a Cuban-American audience in Florida he would continue the embargo."

The real problem with the constant changing of positions on foreign policy matters is that it sends conflicting messages to both our allies and our enemies. How are they supposed to know what our intentions are, and what our level of commitment is, if we can't adhere to a consistent line of rhetoric?