How presidential inexperience in foreign affairs harms the nation in the short and long run

Americans in recent decades have elected individuals with scant foreign policy experience to the presidency, and that has at times cost the nation dearly. Consider the list of recent presidents who had little background in foreign policy: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama. How did they fare with the world once in office? It's safe to say that Carter, Bush and Obama (so far) have had real problems with their foreign policies. Carter presided over crises with energy and Iranian hostages and watched as the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. Bush initiated the costly and unpopular Iraq war and announced a problematic policy of extending democracy throughout the globe. Obama has seen the Mideast disintegrate during his watch as Russia grabs territory and the threat of international terrorism and Iranian nuclear weapons grows. Consider the challenges an inexperienced president faces in conducting America's international affairs. First, there is the core problem of knowledge. How deep and thorough is a president's understanding of the history and current state of international conditions? Inexperience usually is accompanied by limited knowledge. Limited knowledge inevitably makes a president more reliant upon his advisors in conducting foreign affairs. That can lead to irresolute policy, as when Carter had to adjudicate differences between Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. It may also lead a president to limit the advice he receives in in order to pursue policy coherence, as George W. Bush did during his presidency and Barack Obama may be doing now. A president more experienced in world affairs, such as Dwight Eisenhower, is more able to sort through competing claims himself and tolerate a wider range of opinion among advisors. He is less likely to fall prey to confusion or narrowness of perspective when making foreign policy. As presidential scholar Richard Neustadt demonstrated, Eisenhower's personal experience with other foreign leaders prior to assuming the presidency gave him a thorough knowledge and self-confidence in steering foreign policy. The country clearly benefitted from Ike's prior experience in world affairs. Presidents with limited foreign policy experience may also take their perspective formed by domestic politics and apply that to foreign policymaking - with adverse results. Lyndon Johnson, an accomplished domestic politician, attempted to bargain with Vietnamese Communist leader Ho Chi Minh in a fashion similar to that he employed with his former Senate colleagues. The Asian Communist ideologue was immune to such persuasion, as Johnson found out to his chagrin. America's domestic politics have become increasingly ideological, and both George W. Bush and Obama have demonstrated strong allegiances to the ideological bases of their parties. Ideology is a poor guide to practical policymaking in foreign affairs. Ideology lay at the root of Bush's bold declaration of the goal of spreading democracy throughout the world, enunciated in his second inaugural address. It also motivated Obama's sweeping efforts to claim a reduced role for the U.S. in the world, evident in his withdrawals from Iraq and Libya, inaction in Syria, and pending departure from Afghanistan. Their ideological declarations have encountered adverse results "on the ground." The world seldom comports well with such sweeping visions. Three relatively successful foreign policy presidents - Eisenhower, Nixon and the first Bush - tended to eschew such sweeping visions and operated from a perspective of considerable experience and self-confidence in foreign affairs. Eisenhower ignored pleas to escalate the Cold War at its height, Nixon initiated better relations with China and the Soviet Union and wound down the Vietnam War, and the second Bush presided over the peaceful end of the Cold War and the liberation of Eastern Europe. The drawbacks born of inexperience do not mean that presidents arriving in office with little foreign policy background are inevitably doomed to failure overseas. Reagan and Clinton had more success, particularly in their second terms. It's safe to say that they "learned" during their time in office and that led to more successful policies. Reagan precipitated the end of the Cold War and Clinton successfully ended the war in the Balkans. Both are remembered by most Americans as successful presidents. So will Obama, in his remaining months in office, follow the path of inexperienced presidents who produced big foreign policy problems - Carter and the second Bush - or those who learned and created late-term successes - Reagan and Clinton? At present, the signs are not positive. Obama has been at times irresolute. Recall his vanishing "red line" regarding the Syrian civil war, his inattention as chaos grew in Libya and Iraq, and his inaction regarding Russian's new power assertions. He also seems to be willfully ignoring stubborn facts on the ground that threaten his policies. His touted "pivot to Asia" assumes that areas like East Europe and the Middle East would fare just fine with less American attention and involvement. That has certainly proven not to be the case. American voters pay little attention to the world and seem anxious to turn inward, despite mounting international dangers. The nation needs pragmatic and experienced foreign policy leadership in the White House. It is up to the American public to demand it. Perhaps only another crisis on the scale of 9/11 will turn their attention to this urgent priority. Such a change in perspective may not be long in coming. Published: Fri, Aug 22, 2014