America’s image abroad seems to have revived significantly with the entry of the Biden administration. But the reason may simply be the changing of the guard, since President Joe Biden’s foreign policy scorecard has been mixed at best.
In the Washington Post this month, however, columnist Jennifer Rubin made the case that "Biden is on a roll as commander in chief." Her piece is a master class in reframing weaknesses as strengths. Rubin claimed that Biden’s recent attack on the global leader of the Islamic State and a recent union of western nations proves that critics were wrong to claim that Biden’s withdrawal from Afghanistan threatened U.S. credibility.
These critics were indeed wrong about the withdrawal’s impact on US credibility, but not for the reasons in Rubin’s column. A sober assessment of Rubin’s errors reveals a far less favorable view of Biden’s foreign policy.
Start with Rubin’s claim that Biden, far from "los[ing] the trust of allies," has "forged a deal with Britain and Australia to allow the latter nation to deploy nuclear submarines to counter China" and has "mounted a formidable NATO response to Russian aggression."
The submarine deal, whatever its merits, undercut France’s own deal with Australia, causing France to label it a "stab in the back," and to urge Europe to assert its independence from the United States. If Rubin wanted an example of alliance unity, the submarine deal was a poor choice.
Indeed, the United States and its allies have had it rough since the beginning of the Biden administration. Europeans were not happy when they were denied sanctions relief with Iran in early 2021. The Biden administration bullied Germany early on to abandon the Nord Stream 2 pipeline with Russia, resulting in Germany’s eventual capitulation in November. Germany remains resistant to effectively supporting Ukraine militarily. In the same week that President-elect Biden sought to "build coalitions of like‐minded partners and allies to make common cause with us" to "compete with China and hold China’s government accountable," the EU signed an investment deal with China, despite the incoming Biden administration "welcom[ing] early consultations with our European partners." European leaders would later explicitly avoid allying with Biden against China. None of this is to mention President Biden’s intransigence on trade with his allies, including Japan. If alliances with the United States have strengthened at all, it is not thanks to, but despite American efforts under Biden.
Putting aside this context, the idea that Biden has "mounted a formidable NATO response to Russian aggression" would be impressive if not for the fact that his actions have also caused Russia and other security threats to ally against the United States. In March 2021, Russia and China agreed to work together against Western and US sanctions. In August, 10,000 Russian and Chinese troops participated in unprecedented military drills with a joint command and control system, where Russian soldiers also used Chinese equipment for the first time, to prepare for a "high-intensity war against a major power." In October, Russia and China held their first ever joint patrol in the Western Pacific. In November, Russia and China signed a roadmap for deeper military cooperation. In December, Russia’s Putin and China’s President Xi Jinping agreed to establish a trading system independent of the United States. In January, China and Saudi Arabia agreed to enhance military ties, referencing a need to balance "hegemonic and bullying practices." This month, Putin and Xi united against NATO expansion and agreed to a new oil and gas deal. Rubin’s column about American alliance-making did not even hint at this deeply concerning pattern of alliance-building against the United States.
Likewise, it would be easier to credit Rubin’s assertion that Russian President Vladimir Putin is "properly seen as the aggressor on the international stage" if she had at least mentioned the long history of provocations from the United States against Russian security stretching back to the end of the Cold War.
Part of the argument for Putin’s aggression was his "efforts to create a pretext for war" by "falsely pinning an attack on Ukrainian forces" against Russians. Rubin applauded Biden’s "willingness to present evidence of Russia’s plan." One problem: there is no evidence for the plan.
Nor is this anything new: the United States has long been "willing" to baselessly accuse Russia of terrible acts in the past, from Biden’s until-recent certainty that Russia was planning to "imminently" invade the Ukraine, to the unsupported and implausible claim that Russia promised bounties for killing US soldiers in Afghanistan, to numerous other fantasies from the US media and government over at least the past five years.
Deceit is not necessary to indict President Putin. His verifiable domestic repression and theft of his own people is bad enough. Biden’s "willingness" to persist in America’s tradition of smearing Putin for all the wrong reasons may trigger a war no one wants. But even if the Biden administration successfully deters Russia from aggression, its unprincipled means do not deserve Americans’ support. Only by avoiding this context could Rubin score points for Biden.
Back to the recent "successful raid" in Syria against Islamic State head Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, which Rubin claimed to have revealed that "the United States has antiterrorism capabilities that do not require troops on the ground in Afghanistan, and it faces threats far from Afghanistan that demand our focus." Yet anyone paying attention is already aware that significant US military operations are ongoing in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere in Africa.
Moreover, the raid was "successful" in the sense that each bop in a game of whack-a-mole is "successful." In 2019, a "nearly identical" raid killed Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Our 20-year war against Islamist terrorism has coincided with an increase in terrorist attacks, personnel, and power. As the FBI concluded as early as 2011, a "broadening US military presence" may partly be blamed for more terrorism. At the very least, its continued activity abroad, one "successful raid" at a time, should not be considered a sign of "success" in the grand scheme.
An accurate view of President Biden’s foreign policy includes ongoing brinksmanship with nuclear powers like Russia and China, continued tensions with European allies, and unending conflict in the broader Middle East. But to defend these policies in an era of rising dissatisfaction with aggressive military policy would not make for popular reading. Perhaps that is why Rubin felt she had to skip a few facts.
Michael Zigismund is an immigration and criminal defense attorney based in New York City. He received his J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, and holds a B.A. from Tufts University in International Relations and Political Science.
“mounted a formidable NATO response to Russian aggression.” LOL The four most important NATO nations – Germany, France, Italy and Spain – are all wavering over the sanctions threat because they know it will destroy their economies. And militarily, there is no NATO threat to Russia, let alone a “formidable” one.