Obama's Strategy of Strategic Patience - Has it Paid Off?

In 2008, Obama ran on the idea of Change. This meant a change in US policy both in matters relating to domestic and foreign policy. The over extension of the US abroad created problems at home and therefore it was time to set both the domestic and foreign policy house in order. Obama promised a new direction in foreign policy; withdrawal from Iraq and reorientation towards Afghanistan. But what about the rest of the world?

His speech at the Brandenburg Gate in July 2008 and then again in Cairo and not to mention his Nowruz greeting to the people of Iran, reiterated a change in policy. This meant not only towards adversaries or to the Muslim World but to allies as well.

In the National Security Strategy (NSS) 2015, the official security strategy of the administration mentions the term ‘strategic patience’.[i]The idea had been toiled around by Obama and members of the administration but actually mentioned by the National Security Advisor Susan Rice at the Brookings Institution, Washington DC. As she unveiled the so called new strategy she mentioned “progress won’t be quick or linear”.[ii]

So there are two questions; first, what does strategic patience entail and what are the factors involved both external and internal? The second, has Obama’s policy of ‘strategic patience’ yielded positive or negative results?

External and Internal Factors

The policy of strategic patience has always been part of Obama’s foreign policy agenda. Though it has taken on different forms and is known by different names, it has been at the core of his agenda. The whole idea of engagement, resetting of relations, all signalled patience. After all the President was resetting and re-engaging with nations that were unfriendly towards the US. This would require patience on both sides.

The external factors range from over-extension to a loss of US credibility and opportunity to resetand reengage with nationsneglected by President Bush. As well as seeing all nations in terms of good versus, evil saint versus sinner, this was with specific reference to Iran. The over-extension of US forces in fighting two wars as well as the unilateralism displayed by the US was a public relations nightmare. Therefore there was a need for Obama to strengthen the alliance and prove to the allies the willingness of the US to work together to solve global security problems. In order to do so would take time, and patience on the part of the US. The need to gather consensus became important and played a major role especially as anti-Americanism reached alarming rates.

At the time NSS 2015 was released, Obama’s world was a differentone. The reset in the relations with Russia had ended with Putin. The Arab Spring left many nations like Egypt, Libya and Syria worse off. Iraq and Afghanistan were a mess, with Obama having to send additional troops to Afghanistan and send troops once again into Iraq post withdrawal. The rise of a new face of terror, in Iraq and its rapid spread to Syria has created another lapse in judgement on the part of the US and its leadership. With Iran, negotiations between the P5+1 have demanded a great deal of patience on Obama’s part as it was not easy for the administration to coordinate with China and Russia who were inherently determined to see the President and America fail. However, as it stands, the deal has been approved and awaits congressional approval.

The internal factors that led to the strategic patience range from thefilibuster-proof margins in a  Democrat-packed Congressto Democrats being defeated in 2010, 2012 and 2014. This, together with the slow economic recovery and the rise of the Tea Party meant that Obama still had to invoke patience in the recovery at home as well.

And the results are

Strategic patience as a policy strategy has its advantages and disadvantages. On the up side, it entails that the leadershipwill not be ‘trigger happy’ and is willing to negotiate. If both sides aren’t willing to come to the negotiating table then every crisis, every situation, will end in a dreadlock. The cold war has ended and playing chicken seems fruitless. Strategic patience does not also mean passivity. It is a blend of strength and diplomacy, hard power with soft power.

On the downside, it can be a sign of weakness. This is true of adversaries within and outside. At home, the Republicans andmost conservatives have faulted Obama at every step. Right from his withdrawal in Iraq to his re-engagement with Russia, to his pivot, to the reset in Cuba and the Holy Grail, the Nuclear Deal with Iran.

The Nuclear Deal has been part of an on-going attack from Republicans who have pushed the line and at times acted unilaterally. They not only invitedNetanyahu to speak to the joint session in Congress over the President’s head but also addressed the Supreme Leader of Iran on the issue of ratification of the Nuclear Deal.

The results are mixed: strategic patience has had some success, turning over a new leaf towards Cuba and Iran. This could very well have a positive impact not only with America’s bordering nations but also the Middle East. However, strategic patience has failed when it comes to ISIS. The White House has no clear direct policy towards curbing the growth of ISIS. Obama at first was reluctant and now eager. Does strategic patience also mean reluctance, as it has sometimes come to be seen?.

Though there are advantageous aspects to strategic patience they have to be weighed against the disadvantages. This varies from situation to situation and therefore has to be adaptable. It is no longer a ‘one size fits all’ foreign policy strategy.