Rooks: Presidential leadership amid war and peace; why Biden is succeeding

At year’s end our thoughts turn to war and peace — too much of the former, not enough of the latter.

For 75 years, the United States has been the world’s most important nation, and despite constant predictions of decline remains so. Its presidents are central to whatever progress toward peace can be made internationally.

For the nearly half century I’ve written about them, presidents have rarely managed to get the balance right between projecting power necessary to a world order while remaining faithful to our founding ideal, “all men are created equal.”

Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 primarily in response to Watergate, and had less foreign policy experience than any president since World War II ended isolationism, and it showed.

While he had signal successes — returning the Canal Zone to Panama and brokering a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel — his heartening commitment to human rights was compromised by naivete about Cold War adversaries. He was unable to surmount the Iran hostage crisis, with 60 Americans held captive until his administration’s end.

Ronald Reagan benefitted from Carter’s perceived ineffectuality, but veered to the opposite extreme with bellicose rhetoric, including talk about fighting “tactical” nuclear wars.

He launched the first American invasion since Vietnam, against the previously little-known island nation of Grenada in 1982 — diverting attention from the terrorist bombing of a Marines barrack in Lebanon where 300 died.

George H.W. Bush launched his own invasion with a full-scale attack on Panama in 1989 to arrest Manuel Noriega, who was less compliant than the predecessor who’d signed the Canal Zone treaty. Noriega was imprisoned on U.S. drug racketeering charges until he died in 2017.

Drawing on diplomatic experience, Bush’s best moments came in rallying world support to remove Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s army from Kuwait in 1991, but limiting war aims.

By contrast, Bill Clinton was as inexperienced in foreign policy as Carter. He rejected a European plan to partition dissolving post-communist Yugoslavia, doing nothing while Serbia and Croatia carved up Bosnia — an uncomfortable precedent for current Republican attitudes toward Ukraine.

Clinton also displayed extreme reluctance toward assisting the Haitian government of Jean-Bertrand Aristide, losing a chance to transition an ill-governed nation toward democracy.

The misnamed “wars of choice” launched by Reagan and Bush escalated with a vengeance when another inexperienced president, George W. Bush, confronted the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

While few questioned the initial campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush never set attainable goals permitting American withdrawal.

Instead, his misbegotten invasion of Iraq deposed Saddam but turned over the country to Iran’s allies, a huge power shift that haunts us still. In every sense, America’s biggest war since Vietnam was a disaster.

Barack Obama approached foreign affairs with too much caution. He essentially ignored Russia’s initial invasion of Ukraine, then drew a “red line” against Bashir al-Assad’s use of poison gas against Syrian rebels — but did nothing when Assad continued gassing his own people.

Ironically, Vladmir Putin interceded, then helped Assad win the civil war through indiscriminate bombing.

The patterns are clear: Republican presidents overreact to threats to American interests, compromising the Republic’s security and prestige.

Democratic presidents are reluctant to use force, sometimes to the detriment of our ability to advance democratic aims.

Then there is Joe Biden. The first thoroughly experienced Democrat in decades, he’s learned from recent history.

While he suffered politically from the Afghanistan withdrawal, he executed an agreement signed by his predecessor. The alternative was endless war without compelling U.S. interests.

When Russia readied a much larger invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Biden sounded the alarm even as President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was denying that reality.

Biden marshalled NATO behind a complex military operation with skill and tact, leaving the alliance Donald Trump tried to fracture stronger than before.

And when Hamas invaded on Oct. 7, Biden took a gamble by flying to Israel to show solidarity with a long-standing ally which, despite its regrettable prime minister, is the only Middle East democracy.

One can fault individual moves, but Biden gets the big things right. In some respects, the world is a more dangerous place than any time since World War II, but America has a leader who understands its challenges, using power while demonstrating restraint.

As we contemplate our choices, one must compare the fecklessness of a growing number of Congressional Republicans, who neither understand America’s responsibilities nor inspire confidence they would defend our vital interests.

If peace arrives during Joe Biden’s presidency, it will owe much to his unflagging efforts in the face of unreasoning political opposition. Perhaps then we will finally give him some credit.

Douglas Rooks has been a Maine editor, columnist and reporter since 1984. His new book, “Calm Command: U.S. Chief Justice Melville Fuller in His Times, 1888-1910,” is available in bookstores and at www.melvillefuller.com. He welcomes comment at drooks@tds.net.

This article originally appeared on Portsmouth Herald: Rooks: Presidential leadership in war & peace; why Biden's succeeding