Daily Times

Amid serious opposition, President Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for the post of the US Defence Secretary. The influential Jewish lobby in the US accused Hagel of being an anti-Semite. The hawks in the administration thought he was too soft on Iran. Despite all the charges levelled against him, Chuck Hagel won the nomination and seems to be on the way to becoming the new defence secretary to serve President Obama during his second term in office.

Chuck Hagel and John Kerry, who has been appointed as the Secretary of State, are opposed to the US’s policy of direct military intervention. Both of them believe that diplomacy and dialogue are the best ways of solving disputes. Their appointment is widely seen as President Obama’s effort to redefine the US’s role in a rapidly changing world. The US’s cautious approach in Libya and Syria, and the recent French intervention in Mali are clear indications that a fundamental shift in US policy may already be underway.

In Libya, the US did not lead the attack on the regime. Rather, it let France and Britain take the lead, and joined only after the two had fully committed themselves. In Syria, the US has as yet refrained from direct intervention and limited itself to covert assistance of the opposition.

Mali lies at the centre of France’s former African colony where it still holds significant interests. France has enormous investments in Algeria, Niger and Ivory Coast. All these countries are situated around Mali. France stands to lose the most in case there is turmoil in Mali and its periphery. The notable thing about the Mali conflict is that the US has effectively shifted the onus on France. It is providing assistance where necessary to the French troops while carefully avoiding to take part in the actual fighting. The phenomenon can be simply classified as indirect military intervention.

In case Hagel’s nomination is confirmed, he will also be faced with the challenging task of cutting the defence budget and reducing the size of the Pentagon. He opined in an interview last year that the Pentagon needed “paring down.” However, it will not be easy to trim the defence budget since Republican right-wingers are sure to resist any such move.

President Obama categorically stated in his inaugural address that he does not intend to either spend taxpayers’ money or commit US troops in foreign wars. One of the main reasons for the US policy shift is its enormous indebtness that has not only weakened its influence but also curbed its appetite for costly adventures overseas. Presently, Americans are more interested in paying their utility bills rather than bringing democracy to the Arab world. American troops have already withdrawn from Iraq. Next year, they will leave Afghanistan as well. Once out of these quagmires, the US will most probably use its drone technology and precise special operations in order to display its military prowess, rather than putting boots on hostile grounds.

We have already seen a sharp rise in US drone strikes during Obama’s presidency. Unmanned aerial strikes are precise, cheap and do not carry huge logistic risks. However, drone attacks have limited efficiency in prolonged conflicts where the US seeks to achieve not only military success but also enduring political transformation.

The immediate challenge to the policy of indirect intervention will certainly be posed by Syria where the civil war is already spilling into neighbouring Lebanon, and threatens to destabilise the entire region. The US has repeatedly threatened the Syrian regime with military action if it used chemical weapons on its people. If the regime crosses this red line, the US administration will either have to keep its word and commit its troops in a prolonged civil war, or simply go back on its words. These are tough choices that will test the mettle of the new administration in the coming days.

Russo-American relations are as cold as ever. China still remains a mystery. Americans were hoping against hope that China’s newfound wealth and prosperity will translate into socio-political reforms. Instead, it culminated in a more powerful and better-equipped Chinese military, and terrified Japan, Korea and Taiwan, clamouring for their own defence contingency plans.

Syria has descended into a full-scale civil war. The west still has no idea how long will it take for Bashar al-Assad to fall. On the other hand, there is growing apprehension about the kind of regime that will eventually take his place. Egypt is in shambles, both socially and economically. On the other side of the Mediterranean, the European Union is in complete disarray.

In these contexts, a shift in US policy may encourage regional players in several parts of the world to gauge the US’s hesitance to intervene abroad, and embolden them enough to carry out a few geographical adjustments on their own. Reversing an established policy is not easy. It is even more difficult for a world power to admit that its influence is limited by reach and resource. Americans are waking up to the fact that they cannot fight every war — and win. The question is how the world will respond to a weaker US that no more has either the resources or the spine to act as its policeman.

The writer is an investment banker and a freelance columnist for various publications. He can be reached at syedatifshamim@hotmail.com