As Joe Biden’s tenure approaches its twilight, it seems he prefers painting a rosy image of his presidency rather than embracing retirement quietly. This behavior resembles that of many other holders of the prestigious office who drastically inflate their achievements to shape public opinion.
Underneath Biden’s façade of legacy-building, we witness a desperate struggle to depict himself as an influencer during crucial global events. He imagined, “I hope that history says that I came in and I had a plan how to restore the economy and reestablish America’s leadership in the world.” The reality, however, starkly contrasts with his aspirational dreams.
Perfection, in public service or any other realm, is an ideal often sought but scarcely attained. In Biden’s case, his presidency has been a muddle, reactive and ensnared in his administration’s narrow perceptions and presuppositions. His tenure became synonymous with firefighting rather than leadership.
The conflict in Ukraine presented a mixed bag of results for Biden’s administration. Notably, the decision to disclose information about Russia’s military strategies well in advance did catch the world’s attention. Nevertheless, such a move had more to do with intelligence acumen than Biden’s personal or administrative prowess.
Biden’s rallying of support for Ukraine was more a tale of international cooperation than individual heroism. Yet, the image presented was of a firm leader with a dogged ‘stand by Ukraine no matter what’ stance. His grandstanding may have emboldened Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, possibly leading to strategic miscalculations in the actual conflict.
On a closer analysis, Biden’s decisions could have inadvertently hampered Ukraine’s military capabilities and strategic position. This shows that knee-jerk international policies, however well-intentioned, can lead to unfortunate outcomes.
Turning the lens to the strife in Gaza, the Biden administration’s track record is far from commendable. Despite paying lip service to Israel’s right to defend itself against Hamas’ aggression, his ‘Enjoy the show’ attitude led to a decline in the region’s stability.
The fluctuating U.S. position, oscillating between concern for humanitarian impact and green-lighting aid to Israel, exposed the inconstancy of Biden’s mandate. This inconsistency added fuel to an already volatile situation, leaving a mess behind for future administrations to clean up.
Ironically, the one instance where Biden may have made a correct decision was the withdrawal from Afghanistan. This move, essentially a continuation of the previous administration’s understanding with the Taliban, could have been ignored by him, but he chose not to.
His decision not to renege on the earlier accord, despite opposition, may be his single significant achievement. However, after 20 years, there was little the U.S. military could have done to influence the course of Afghanistan’s future.
The other option, which was to continue defending a desperately inept and corrupt government in Kabul, would have committed the U.S. to a futile and never-ending engagement. Thus, the withdrawal indicates more a dearth of viable alternatives than a strategic masterstroke.
In concluding, Biden’s foreign policy record leaves much to be desired. Perhaps it’s an early verdict, and the complete impact of his choices will only unravel with time.
Yet, looking at the current evidence, it’s clear that Biden’s presidency could have wielded a more competent and consistent hand at the helm of world affairs. Surely, it could have been better, and certainly, it should not have been worse.