New York Times Suddenly Discovers That Obama's Foreign Policy Stinks

That's funny. Before the election, the New York Times was promoting the idea that Obama's foreign policy was his greatest strength. Yeah, I know. Faint praise. But still...

President Obama and his allies made the case for him as commander in chief Thursday night, saying he was a steady hand in a dangerous world, while accusing Mitt Romney of outsourcing his policy to “neocon advisers” who would lead a return to the reckless adventurism of the Bush administration. 

Well now that that pesky election is behind us, it's okay for the Times to cast a jaundiced eye on Obama's record. 

The New York Times suggests this morning that the White House is taking another look at whether to arm the Syrian rebel groups. The trouble is, all the choices are uglier now than they were when the president overruled his top national security officials to block this kind of aid last year. The good guys are weaker, the bad guys are worse, and America has less influence over anybody in Syria as a result of the delay.

It’s a bad week at the Gray Lady for discussions of administration foreign policy. Elsewhere in today’s paper, Roger Cohen sides with Vali Nasr’s sharp criticism of an administration he sees as sacrificing the national interest overseas to short term domestic politics at home and as needlessly contributing to American decline through weakness.

With the election safely over, the foreign policy establishment is taking a long hard look at the administration’s policy mix overseas and the chorus of critics is growing.