A President's Report Card: Obama's First Year as President an Interview with Noam Chomsky

You have remarked that see little substantive difference between the Bush administration's and the Obama administration's foreign policies. How are Obama's policies similar to, or different from, the Bush administration policies? Well, to be precise, think there are significant differences between the first and the second Bush terms. And think Obama's policies are fairly continuous with Bush's second term. In the first Bush term, the administration simply went off the spectrum. US foreign policy has a very narrow spectrum, but the Bush administration departed from it. In fact, they were quite harshly criticized right within the mainstream for doing extreme harm to major US interests. During the first term, the image of the United States in the world sank to probably the lowest point in history. Everything they touched turned into disaster, from the point of view of the interests that they represent. Invading Iraq turned out to be as expected. It was anticipated that it would increase terror, which--of course--it did, beyond what was expected. What sensible analysts understood was that it would probably strengthen Iran, which it did. Iran was the victor of the US invasion of Iraq. The invasion destroyed the country. That was true for case after case; just about everything they touched turned into calamity. The second term, they more or less moved back toward the centrist mainstream. Some of the more extreme figures like Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and others were sent away. They couldn't eliminate Cheney because he was the administration. They became somewhat more accommodating to negotiations. Rather than kicking people in the face and telling them, you are irrelevant unless do what they became a more normal administration. And the Obama administration continued on that path. don't see any fundamental changes from the second Bush administration. Both US and international media outlets have applauded Obama for showing sensitivity and ability to understand other cultures, especially when he visited the Middle East. Do think that Obama's different rhetorical approach to engaging foreign policy could translate into substantive policy changes? As know, Obama won the award from the US advertising industry for the best marketing campaign of 2008. His team beat Apple computers. Advertising industry executives were euphoric and talked openly to the business press about how they have been selling candidates like toothpaste ever since Reagan and how this is the greatest achievement they have ever had. Yes, Obama is very effective at marketing. don't happen to like it, but a lot of people seem to like his rhetoric. He gives the impression of being an understanding person, sometimes so much that it's almost comical. He went to Israel--it must have been in June 2008--and Shimon Peres reported to the Israeli press that Obama was a wonderful guy. He said that Obama agreed with him on everything, so they were going to get along fine. Benjamin Netanyahu, who is about the opposite extreme from Peres in the narrow Israeli spectrum, came back and said that Obama was a marvelous guy who agreed with him [Netanyahu] on everything. That is Obama's technique. He says: I really like you; understand you; am sympathetic with you. So yes, it is true: it is a feeling. In Europe, there was almost euphoria, partly because Obama wasn't Bush. The Bush administration was coming straight out and saying literally, you do what say, or are Obama says, we are partners are friends, will listen to you, and so on and so forth. There is no irrelevant. Actually, there is a nice comment about this from 40 years ago, making the essential point. During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy intellectuals were making plans that they knew perfectly well might lead to the destruction of England. They were apparently thinking of implementing plans which, in their own minds, might have led to a Russian retaliation, which would have destroyed England. …