Obama struggles on Mideast policy as crises mount
Critic says administration factions are pulling him in different directionshttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42256177/ns/politics-white_house/
WASHINGTON — U.S. President Barack Obama is struggling to fashion a coherent Middle East policy that can encompass his decision to launch military action in Libya alongside his hesitant response to repression elsewhere.
It has not been easy to strike a balance between pragmatism and principle, with diverging U.S. national interests at stake in each conflict and an overworked Middle East policy team absorbed with crisis management.
"On a senior level there is a serious challenge on how to navigate all of this," said Brian Katulis, a Middle East expert at the Center for American Progress.
"They are doing the best that they can, but even folks in the White House and the National Security Council only have 24 hours in a day."
Stung by accusations it had sent mixed messages on Middle East events, the White House has said it was putting together a new, overarching strategy that will set out basic principles of U.S. policy toward the region.
Obama ordered the policy review after the Tunisia uprising. But two experts who consult with the White House said the review had been delayed by the Libya crisis and a sense that parts of it were "overtaken by events."
A White House official pushed back on any notion that this or any other initiative would be "put on hold or turned off simply because other issues arise."
"One need not look beyond the events of the past several months to realize that this administration is adept at handling multiple domestic and foreign policy issues simultaneously," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
'Pulled hither and yon'
Still, with U.S. forces now leading United Nations-mandated air strikes in Libya, the prospect seems slim of an "Obama doctrine" emerging soon that can encompass relations with autocratic U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia along with support for pro-democracy movements around the region.
"I certainly don't see any Obama doctrine," said Max Boot of the Council on Foreign Relations, a conservative commentator who has urged a stronger U.S. response to the Libya crisis.
"Instead what I see is the president frantically reacting to the press of events and being pulled hither and yon by different factions in his administration."
Obama has expressed U.S. support for human rights and democracy, seeking to ally himself with protesters who in January toppled Tunisia's strongman leader and in February ousted former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, despite the fact that the United States long worked with both men.
The president was criticized for moving slowly on Mubarak, for decades seen as a pivotal U.S. ally in the region, but ratcheted up pressure and hailed protesters as champions of "the power of human dignity" in the face of repression.
Mubarak's fall sparked fears in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies that Washington would fail to back other long-standing rulers in the region.
On Libya, the United States tacked sharply as events unfolded -- initially resisting calls to intervene as Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi moved to quash a rebellion, before backing air strikes to stop attacks on civilians.
Values vs. interests
Egypt and Tunisia are valued as potential new democratic models, Saudi Arabia is seen as a crucial energy supplier and bulwark against Iran while Libya is portrayed as a test of U.S. humanitarian ideals.
Political analysts say the varying U.S. approaches reflect the different U.S. interests in each country involved as well as the rapidly changing facts on the ground.
Tunisia is seen by U.S. officials as of minimal strategic importance, making it easier for Washington to back protesters. Egypt was more important as the first Arab state to make peace with Israel, leaving U.S. officials reluctant to abandon Mubarak even as they saw sentiment turn against him.
Saudi Arabia, the source of 12 percent of the United States crude oil supply, is vital economically and, as a result, Washington is unlikely to do anything that might fuel instability or undermine the ruling Saud family.
The result, analysts say, is a policy that lacks consistency on the surface but reflects U.S. interests.
"The administration is now trying to carry out a policy and figure out the details at the same time. That always multiplies the problems," said James Lindsay, a former National Security Council official in the Clinton White House now at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Obama is committed to partnering with other countries rather than going it alone as did his predecessor George W. Bush, which both broadens and complicates the decision-making process.
"This is an important shift in U.S. foreign policy. But if anyone expects instant success to build up international institutions to deal with worst cases they are going to be deeply disappointed," said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies."
The impact has been clearest on Libya, where Obama has been criticized by some for not moving fast enough against Gaddafi and by others for involving U.S. forces in an open-ended mission in a third Muslim country after Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. officials say the effort to build an international coalition is crucial to success, but has had limited Arab participation -- only Qatar has publicly offered to help enforce the no-fly zone -- and analysts say the U.S. emphasis on winning Arab cooperation force it into uneasy compromises with countries such as Saudi Arabia resisting change at home.
"The U.S. has an opportunity to fundamentally realign its policy in the Arab world," said Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Institution's Doha Center.
"But it is not easy and it would require bold creative leadership, and that is not something we've a seen a lot of from the Obama administration so far," he said.