Follow us on social

Biden's American bedtime story falls flat

Biden's American bedtime story falls flat

Repeating nostrums from the height of the unipolar moment, the president insists the US must support two ongoing wars because its leadership 'holds the world together.'

Analysis | Middle East

The president’s Oval Office address on U.S. support for Ukraine and Israel was long on ideological declarations and short on real justifications for his administration’s policies.

Repeating nostrums from the height of the unipolar moment, Biden insisted that the U.S. must support both ongoing wars because it is the “indispensable nation” and that “American leadership is what holds the world together.” The president also asserted that Ukraine and Israel’s success was “vital for America’s national security,” but his defense of this claim amounted to little more than a revised domino theory that failure in one place would lead to disasters elsewhere.

If Ukrainian and Israeli success were truly “vital” for U.S. national security, it is doubtful that the U.S would remain in a supporting role. The fact that the U.S. has so far avoided direct intervention in both conflicts strongly suggests that even Biden doesn’t really think that vital U.S. interests are at risk in either place. If so, he would be right that vital interests aren’t threatened. It might be preferable if two non-allies prevail in their respective wars, but it cannot accurately be called vital to U.S. security.

Biden is exaggerating what is at stake to demand more support for both wars at the same time when each should be debated on its own merits.

The danger here is that the president has said publicly that vital interests are at stake in both wars when they are not. That creates a potential trap for the U.S. Biden has made it easy for hardliners to throw his own words back in his face if the situation deteriorates in either conflict. Then he would be under pressure to commit the U.S. to fight more unnecessary and potentially very costly wars.

President Biden’s choice to shoehorn both wars into the same address to build support for funding both is unlikely to persuade skeptics. The two conflicts are different enough in significant ways that trying to make them into part of the same global fight is hard to take seriously. The pairing of tyrants and terrorists in Biden’s speech is a Bush-era rhetorical move that reminds us of the errors that can result from lumping together radically different adversaries.

In the Ukraine war, Russia is the one illegally occupying territory that it seized by force. In the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Israel is the illegal occupier, and it has been occupying another people’s land for more than half a century. The long history of dispossession and oppression of the Palestinians under Israeli rule makes it impossible to treat both conflicts as simple stories of democracies under siege, but that is what Biden tried to do to justify rushing even more military assistance to the region’s most powerful state.

While Biden deserves a little credit for acknowledging that Hamas doesn’t represent the Palestinian people, his lockstep support for the Israeli military campaign, including the crippling siege of Gaza, shows that he is not respecting this distinction in practice.

Biden claimed that if adversaries are not stopped “they keep going” and “the threats to America and the world keep rising,” but that seems extremely unlikely in these two cases. Russia lacks the capabilities to wage an offensive war against countries beyond Ukraine, and even in the worst-case scenario where Ukraine is defeated outright the Russian government would have to be suicidal to try to keep going west into NATO territory.

The president’s desire to exaggerate the larger threat from Russia leads him to call into question NATO’s ability to deter attack. In the other conflict, the threats to America seem much more likely to keep rising if the U.S. ties itself closely to Israel as it wages a devastating war in Gaza.

The assumption that the U.S. is the “indispensable nation” and that its leadership “holds the world together” is an article of faith in a discredited creed. It isn’t true, and there are plenty of examples from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria how U.S. “leadership” has stoked division and conflict to the detriment of all. That belief in America’s “indispensability” fueled some of the worst blunders and crimes in recent American history, and it has done a great deal to undermine and harm U.S. and international security in the twenty-five years since Madeleine Albright uttered that phrase.

It is an astonishingly arrogant belief that holds that the security of the rest of the world hinges on constant U.S. interference. When applied to policy, it condemns the United States to fight or otherwise be involved in foreign wars for the rest of its existence. Far from holding the world together, that will have a destabilizing and destructive effect in many regions as the U.S. keeps trying to prove how “indispensable” it is despite its relative decline.

It is worth remembering that Albright’s formulation didn’t just emphasize that the world depends on the U.S., but that it depended on the U.S. because we “stand tall and see further than other countries into the future” and therefore the U.S. would be justified in using force when it saw fit. As Andrew Bacevich has observed, Albright’s claim was nonsense: “The United States does not see further into the future than Ireland, Indonesia, or any other country, regardless of how ancient or freshly minted it may be.”

The U.S. has no special prescience or greater understanding of the world than other countries, and in many cases it is painfully clear that our leaders have trouble seeing what is right in front of them.

Perhaps the most troubling thing about Biden’s appeal for more support for both wars is his lack of concern about how overstretched the U.S. already is around the world. In an earlier interview with 60 Minutes, the president dismissed concerns that the U.S. was taking on too many extra burdens:

“We're the United States of America for God's sake, the most powerful nation in the history-- not in the world, in the history of the world. The history of the world. We can take care of both of these and still maintain our overall international defense.”

The president’s remarks smack of hubris. Ignoring the limits of U.S. power has typically led our government to overreach in dangerous and self-defeating ways. We have to hope that the president’s overconfidence is not tempting fate.

Biden’s address may have satisfied other believers in America’s “indispensable” role, but it is bound to fall flat with Americans that don’t share that belief and the many more out there that want their government to concern itself more with the domestic problems of this country.

Biden’s sermon-like appeal for more war funding may succeed in Congress in the short term by using pre-existing support for Israel to rally more support for Ukraine, but it could also sour the public on support for both conflicts because of the ever-increasing demands on U.S. resources. The president insists that it is a “smart investment” that will “pay dividends,” but to a growing number of Americans it seems to be nothing more than throwing good money after bad.

President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the situation in Ukraine, Friday, February 18, 2022, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
President Joe Biden delivers remarks about the situation in Ukraine, Friday, February 18, 2022, in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. (Official White House Photo by Erin Scott)
Analysis | Middle East
Will US troops have to  go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)
Biden's Saudi War Obligation

Will US troops have to go to war for Mohammed bin Salman? (VIDEO)

Video Section

Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.

But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.

keep readingShow less
Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.   If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.  Experts say Washington needs to start projecting a long-term strategy toward Russia and its war in Ukraine, wielding its political leverage to apply pressure on Putin and push for more diplomacy aimed at ending the conflict. Only by looking beyond short-term solutions can Washington realistically move the needle in Ukraine.  Since Russia’s full-scale invasion, the U.S. has focused on getting aid to Ukraine to help it win back all of its pre-2014 territory, a goal complicated by Kyiv’s systemic shortages of munitions and manpower. But that response neglects a more strategic approach to the war, according to Andrew Weiss of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who spoke in a recent panel hosted by Carnegie.   “There is a vortex of emergency planning that people have been, unfortunately, sucked into for the better part of two years since the intelligence first arrived in the fall of 2021,” Weiss said. “And so the urgent crowds out the strategic.”   Historian Stephen Kotkin, for his part, says preserving Ukraine’s sovereignty is critical. However, the apparent focus on regaining territory, pushed by the U.S., is misguided.   “Wars are never about regaining territory. It's about the capacity to fight and the will to fight. And if Russia has the capacity to fight and Ukraine takes back territory, Russia won't stop fighting,” Kotkin said in a podcast on the Wall Street Journal.  And it appears Russia does have the capacity. The number of troops and weapons at Russia’s disposal far exceeds Ukraine’s, and Russian leaders spend twice as much on defense as their Ukrainian counterparts. Ukraine will need a continuous supply of aid from the West to continue to match up to Russia. And while aid to Ukraine is important, Kotkin says, so is a clear plan for determining the preferred outcome of the war.  The U.S. may be better served by using the significant political leverage it has over Russia to shape a long-term outcome in its favor.   George Beebe of the Quincy Institute, which publishes Responsible Statecraft, says that Russia’s primary concerns and interests do not end with Ukraine. Moscow is fundamentally concerned about the NATO alliance and the threat it may pose to Russian internal stability. Negotiations and dialogue about the bounds and limits of NATO and Russia’s powers, therefore, are critical to the broader conflict.   This is a process that is not possible without the U.S. and Europe. “That means by definition, we have some leverage,” Beebe says.   To this point, Kotkin says the strength of the U.S. and its allies lies in their political influence — where they are much more powerful than Russia — rather than on the battlefield. Leveraging this influence will be a necessary tool in reaching an agreement that is favorable to the West’s interests, “one that protects the United States, protects its allies in Europe, that preserves an independent Ukraine, but also respects Russia's core security interests there.”  In Kotkin’s view, this would mean pushing for an armistice that ends the fighting on the ground and preserves Ukrainian sovereignty, meaning not legally acknowledging Russia’s possession of the territory they have taken during the war. Then, negotiations can proceed.   Beebe adds that a treaty on how conventional forces can be used in Europe will be important, one that establishes limits on where and how militaries can be deployed. “[Russia] need[s] some understanding with the West about what we're all going to agree to rule out in terms of interference in the other's domestic affairs,” Beebe said.     Critical to these objectives is dialogue with Putin, which Beebe says Washington has not done enough to facilitate. U.S. officials have stated publicly that they do not plan to meet with Putin.    The U.S. rejected Putin’s most statements of his willingness to negotiate, which he expressed in an interview with Tucker Carlson in February, citing skepticism that Putin has any genuine intentions of ending the war. “Despite Mr. Putin’s words, we have seen no actions to indicate he is interested in ending this war. If he was, he would pull back his forces and stop his ceaseless attacks on Ukraine,” a spokesperson for the White House’s National Security Council said in response.   But neither side has been open to serious communication. Biden and Putin haven’t met to engage in meaningful talks about the war since it began, their last meeting taking place before the war began in the summer of 2021 in Geneva. Weiss says the U.S. should make it clear that those lines of communication are open.   “Any strategy that involves diplomatic outreach also has to be sort of undergirded by serious resolve and a sense that we're not we're not going anywhere,” Weiss said.  An end to the war will be critical to long-term global stability. Russia will remain a significant player on the world stage, Beebe explains, considering it is the world’s largest nuclear power and a leading energy producer. It is therefore ultimately in the U.S. and Europe’s interests to reach a relationship “that combines competitive and cooperative elements, and where we find a way to manage our differences and make sure that they don't spiral into very dangerous military confrontation,” he says.    As two major global superpowers, the U.S. and Russia need to find a way to share the world. Only genuine, long-term planning can ensure that Washington will be able to shape that future in its best interests.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin (R) shakes hands with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden during their meeting in Moscow March 10, 2011. REUTERS/Alexander Natruskin/File Photo

Playing the long game with Putin

Europe

Following a largely preordained election, Vladimir Putin was sworn in last week for another six-year term as president of Russia. Putin’s victory has, of course, been met with accusations of fraud and political interference, factors that help explain his 87.3% vote share.

If this continuation of Putin’s 24-year-long hold on power makes one thing clear, it’s that he and his regime will not be going anywhere for the foreseeable future. But, as his war in Ukraine continues with no clear end in sight, what is less clear is how Washington plans to deal with this reality.

keep readingShow less
Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Demonstration at Georgia's Parliament in Tbilisi on May 12, 2024, the night before the vote on a law on foreign influence. (Maxime Gruss / Hans Lucas via Reuters)

Georgia bill passes: Why the West needs to stay out of the protests

Europe

Mass protests are roiling the Republic of Georgia as tens of thousands have taken to the streets against a proposed bill by the Georgian government on “foreign influence” that has worsened tension in an already polarized Georgian society.

That bill was passed Tuesday after turmoil in which punches were actually thrown between lawmakers on the parliament floor.

keep readingShow less

Israel-Gaza Crisis

Latest