Have US foreign policy pundits and scholars misinterpreted President Obama's ability to apply the teachings of Niccolò Machiavelli?

SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:02:29 -0500

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/digital/pdf/Winter_15/Coletta.pdf

by Damon Coletta and Paul Carrese

The end of Pres. Barack Obama’s first term coincided with the five
hundredth anniversary of The Prince (1513) by Niccolò Machiavelli.
Some analysts combined these milestones and praised the president’s
foreign policy performance as heeding Machiavelli’s classic advice: the
president, impressively, adapted lessons of The Prince in crafting a realistic and prudent first-term grand strategy. Avoiding major war or new commitments, he never agonized over legal or moral niceties when focused violence was necessary, as in the operation to eliminate Osama
bin Laden. In the second term, however, the president’s highly cautious
strain of defensive realism fared poorly—a verdict upheld by commentary from his former lieutenants. This unwelcome turn of fortune calls into question whether strategy pundits and scholars correctly interpreted Obama’s overcorrection, much less Machiavelli’s imprimatur, during the first term. Contrary to the administration’s recent justifications for “common sense” risk avoidance, Machiavelli’s sophisticated notions of realism and statesmanship demand a strategy that more astutely blends daring and caution, including the articulation of an ambitious public purpose for US power. A genuinely prudent strategy, according to Machiavelli, accepts some near-term military risk to do good—and do well—in the long run.

Response by Col Joseph Lenertz made Nov 30 at 2015 9:13 AM

Col Joseph Lenertz — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:13:39 -0500

SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell , your analysis is excellent. I think you may be giving the administration too much credit, however. The young staffers are chosen primarily for their undying devotion to their boss and their demonstrated willingness to do anything that supports his agenda, rather than their understanding of foreign policy, let alone Grand Strategy. I would be surprised if any beyond his military advisors have read a single page of Machiavelli, who is known for his depth but not for his ease of reading. While his actions have sometimes aligned with Machiavelli's lessons, I think it was fortuitous rather than planned.

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Nov 30 at 2015 9:51 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:51:32 -0500

Actually I think that Vladimir Putin is most similar to Niccolò Machiavelli SPC Dr. Ernest Rockwell. However POTUS Obama comes in as a close second disciple of the Prince,
I almost fell out of my chair laughing when I read the statement "Avoiding major war or new commitments, he never agonized over legal or moral niceties when focused violence was necessary, as in the operation to eliminate Osama bin Laden."
I expect he may have agonized over the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens during the operation to take arms from Libyan terrorists and end them to what turned out to be Syrian terrorists. POTUS Obama's Presidential library may be the place to find out what if any decisions he agonized about. His graying hair indicates he has been under stress.
The people of Syria and Iraq would scoff at teh idea that POTUS Obama has avoided major war and new commitments.
I suppose based on the Prince's machiavellian approach the last major war was WWII. The ones since then have been lesser wars. However killing and dying in lesser wars is just as impactful as killing and dying in major wars and targeted operations.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 10:01 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:01:32 -0500

I would bet all of the tea in China that the President never read Machiavelli, much less incorporate that into his worldview. While the parallels are apt, the notion that he would take a page from old Niccolo when crafting his foreign policy is a stretch.

Love the literary reference, though.
If I were to select one, I would say that "Don Quixote" fits nicely.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Nov 30 at 2015 10:29 AM

CPT Jack Durish — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:29:52 -0500

I'm going to quote Hillary Clinton in responding to this one... President Obama has done great harm to America. He has exacerbated every domestic issue from joblessness and a tepid economy to interracial strife. Internationally, he has disengaged diplomatically thus allowing every bully in the world the freedom to terrorize vulnerable peoples. The increase in refugee traffic is testimony to his fecklessness. Now, why? Is it because he is a brilliant disciple of Machiavelli or because he is merely stupid. "At this point what does it really matter?"

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 30 at 2015 11:01 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:01:30 -0500

It's been a little while since I've read the referenced readings but I think this is a stretch. His initial 2008 platform was a two term platform as is evidenced by his second bid platform which is a continuation of the first and builds upon it. Both included health care, tax reform, immigration issues, Guantanimo, gun control, and campaign promises in the second that were very similar to promises made in the first go round. His arrogance at overriding laws and creating new ones to suit his needs alienated supporters, he didn't come up with the plan to eliminate OBL, he didn't avoid new commitments, he didn't avoid major war his actions created new ones and led to the increased armament of nations in the ME and the rampant spread of terrorism not seen since the WWII Nazi movement, our international relations are strained because he didn't stand behind his promises and ultimatums.

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 30 at 2015 11:06 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 11:06:29 -0500

Obama's foreign policy has far been removed from the proactive approach of Machiavelli. If anything it has been a reactive nightmare. There is a legitimate use for all of the terms -- "necessity," "raison d'état," and "Realpolitik" -- and Machiavelli himself knew the difference. Obama not so much.

in either case -
"Put not your trust in Princes."