Presidential rhetoric in times of crisis

In keeping with his policy, President Obama pivoted to Asia this week.

Well, at least physically. But it was not a full pivot diplomatically.

Sure, after the G-20 summit in Turkey he attended the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in the Philippines and then the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Malaysia. But geopolitically, Obama never really left the Mideast, and by extension Europe, as he reacted to the growing global threat from ISIL, as well as other crises roiling the region (and beyond, as evidenced by Friday's hotel hostage drama in Mali).

From Manila, Obama and other APEC leaders issued a stalwart statement on terrorism, and ASEAN leaders likely will follow suit. Yet it's not institutions but individuals, and in particular the president, whose words matter most on global turmoil.

Obama is "incredibly sober in times of crisis," said Bill Burton, the president's former deputy press secretary, in an interview before the University of Minnesota grad spoke on Thursday at the U School of Journalism and Mass Communications' Fall Forum.

Some supporters, especially those who voted for Obama because of his pledge to end U.S. wars in the Mideast, may concur with Burton. Other observers of Obama's Monday news conference, and his previous proclamations on Syria, may not.

Most of the reaction this week was withering. The Washington Post called Obama "petulant-sounding," and that was one of the more restrained descriptions. Not surprisingly, Republican congressional and candidate reaction was strong, and even Hillary Clinton seemed to distance herself from her former boss as she spoke about ISIL at the Council on Foreign Relations on Thursday.

And as with any foreign policy issue, international observers were keenly listening, too, just as they took close note of Obama's previous call that Syria using chemical weapons would cross a red line and that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go.

"The administration has badly handled its response to the Syrian civil war since it began, and I suspect that President Obama himself regrets these statements — it was beyond folly to draw that red line absent a prior established determination to enforce it," Andrew Bacevich told me after his speech at Thursday's Westminster Town Hall Forum. But then Bacevich, an academic and an author on U.S. foreign policy as well as a retired lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, added: "That said, I interpreted the president's G-20 remarks as the president pushing back against those in the United States arguing for a major escalation of U.S. involvement in the war against ISIL and by extension in the Syrian civil war. And I believe the president's position reflects his firm opinion that invading and occupying countries is a dumb idea, and I happen to share that view."

James Jeffrey, a former deputy national security adviser and ambassador to Iraq, Turkey and Albania who is now a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that presidential predictability is key.

"Presidents should never say things if they are not willing to carry them out," Jeffrey said. On the immediate crisis, Jeffrey criticized Obama's comments on containing ISIL. "His mission that he's given is not to contain ISIL but to destroy it."

But citing Obama's September speech to the U.N. General Assembly, Jeffrey said that "Obama gets it right [regarding] the international order and America's role in preserving it. It's just that he doesn't carry it through to the conclusion. It's not only important and right and critical that he makes these statements, but then he has to carry them out or we're not predictable. And the most important thing in foreign affairs is to be predictable."

Lately, the only predictability in the Mideast seems to be unpredictability. Asian conflicts, conversely, appear more rational, even if the stakes are higher. "There he's been much better," Jeffries said, citing Obama's "strong statement" regarding the maritime disputes between China and several neighboring nations.

This is crucial, Jeffrey believes, because "the 'pivot' in the end is probably more important, but it's also more manageable, even though we could get into a more serious military confrontation there than anywhere in the Middle East; the Chinese are a formidable foe these days. But it's much more controllable. It's what we diplomats and military people feel is a more rational conflict than the craziness in the Middle East. But the problem is [that] global security is indivisible. If you look weak in the Mideast, you'll be perceived as weak in Asia and be perceived as weak in the Kremlin, and that's the problem he's got."

Speaking beyond the current context regarding presidential rhetoric, Burton believes Obama is "evenhanded and even-tempered." But he added that Obama "does his best work in paragraphs and not in sound bites" and thus favors long-form interviews more than news conferences. Burton concluded with advice for the next president and press staff: "You have to figure out what is the best way to communicate to the American people and the entire world."

Burton's right. Because when presidents speak, the world listens, and the words' weight increases as instability intensifies.

John Rash is a Star Tribune editorial writer and columnist. The Rash Report can be heard at 8:20 a.m. Fridays on WCCO Radio, 830-AM. On Twitter: @rashreport.