When it comes to handling matters of America's national security, Republicans have for decades commanded much more public confidence than Democrats. Not any longer. President Barack Obama has effectively cornered the market on foreign and defense policy, leaving Team Romney on the defensive, struggling to land punches on Obama's record.

In his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention in August, Mitt Romney devoted scant time to foreign policy, effectively an admission that national security is not the Republicans' strong suit. When they do try to score points against Obama, Republicans say that his leadership has been weak and vacillating. They claim that instead of celebrating America's exceptional history and superior strength, Obama apologises for US hegemony and is too accommodating of challenges to US power.

Republicans mistake prudence for weakness.

Obama's statecraft may lack the hard edges and black-and-white absolutes of his predecessor's, but the abandonment of ideological excess in favour of principled pragmatism is, perhaps, the greatest asset of Obama's diplomacy. Washington is again embracing a brand of leadership based on engagement and persuasion rather than coercion and bravado. In this vein, Obama's readiness to talk to adversaries is not, as Republicans would have it, naive appeasement; it is savvy diplomacy aimed at taming longstanding rivalries.

Obama's formula for exercising American leadership rests on striking a balance between power and partnership geared to the dynamic nature of this 21st century world. The Bush administration relied too heavily on power and bluster alone -- a mistake that Romney seems all too prepared to repeat -- failing to understand that brute force and intimidation often do more to invite resistance than acquiescence. Instead, Obama has adhered to a centrist brand of US internationalism that provides leadership through teamwork and consensus building, relying on coercion only as a last resort.

Obama's embrace of multilateralism has shored up America's alliances around the globe. Allies again feel like partners that matter, not objects of American power. Opinion surveys reveal that in many countries, people hold much more positive views of the United States today than they did during the Bush era. Meanwhile, Washington has repaired its tarnished relationship with international institutions, including the UN and NATO. All told, one of Obama's signature accomplishments is the reclamation, at home and abroad, of the legitimacy of American power and purpose.

While emphasizing the value of partnership, Obama has by no means dismissed the need for power; he is anything but gun shy, as made clear by the killing of Osama bin Laden and Washington's regular use of drone strikes against terrorist targets. Indeed, when it comes to countering the terrorist threat, Obama's resort to 'smart power' has proved far more effective and much less costly than George W. Bush's 'global war on terrorism'.

At the same time, Obama understands the limits of US power.

He withdrew from Iraq on schedule, and is in the midst of handing over to Afghans responsibility for managing their country. The primary objective of the US military -- the effective elimination of al-Qaeda in Afghanistan -- has been achieved. The Afghan government and its security forces are admittedly not yet as developed as they should be, and the Taliban have proved more resilient than expected. But without more capable and co-operative partners in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, it makes little sense for the United States and its coalition partners to extend the military mission. Delaying the American withdrawal, as Romney has indicated he would do, is to divorce strategy from realities on the ground.

As to Obama's readiness to engage adversaries, Washington's outreach is neither appeasement nor an apology for campaignAmerican hegemony; it is good diplomacy. Relations between Moscow and Washington have been more difficult of late, in no small part due to Russian President Vladimir Putin's alignment with the Syrian government and his crackdown on the political opposition at home. But the 'reset' between Russia and the United States has yielded significant progress on a number of important issues, including nuclear arms control, Afghanistan, and diplomacy with Iran. Patient engagement with Myanmar has paid off; diplomatic and commercial contacts have deepened in step with political liberalization.

Engagement, of course, does not always produce quick results.

Obama's outreach to Tehran has yet to be reciprocated. In response, Obama has imposed ever-tighter sanctions and taken other steps to disrupt Iran's nuclear programme. A diplomatic breakthrough is still possible, but if Tehran continues its intransigence, Obama holds in reserve the option of a military strike. Meanwhile, US officials have been consulting and co-ordinating with Israel.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, the Arab Spring continues to follow an unpredictable and uncertain path, with risks as well as opportunities. Obama is right to pursue a strategy that differentiates among the unique circumstances in each country experiencing political change. He is also appropriately standing behind the forces of democracy and pluralism, avoiding blanket opposition to Islamist political forces and working with new Islamist governments when interests are shared.

The turmoil in the Arab world has for now diverted attention away from the Israel-Palestine front. After scant progress during the first half of his term, Obama backed off deep engagement in the peace process. But amid distrust between Israelis and Palestinians, Washington will have to facilitate dialogue if a two-state solution is to have any chance of realization.

Even amid ongoing challenges in the Middle East, Obama has begun to rebalance US priorities, of which the pivot to Asia is a key component. The United States is deepening its commercial and strategic presence in the region. With China, Washington is seeking to deepen trust and co-operate on shared interests while at the same time firmly deterring the Chinese from resorting to intimidating or aggressive behaviour.

Obama has admittedly fallen short on some fronts. Economic recovery at home and abroad has been elusive. Partly due to the sluggish economic conditions, he has made little headway in liberalizing international trade. He came into office pledging to close Guantanamo and to take determined steps to address global warming; neither has happened. On these and other issues, Obama has run up against powerful constraints at home and abroad. But the continuing diffusion of global power, fiscal austerity, and the debilitating polarization of American politics only make more impressive the many accomplishments of the Obama presidency.

The American public is aware of Obama's steady stewardship of US statecraft.

That is one of the reasons he has a very good chance of being re-elected in November, affording him four more years to build on the achievements of his first term.

Charles A. Kupchan is professor of international affairs at Georgetown University and Whitney Shepardson senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Bruce W. Jentleson is professor of public policy and political science at Duke University. Both are informal advisers to the Obama campaign

 

 

(c) 2012 Tribune Media Services