Questioning Obama’s State of the Union

I like soaring political rhetoric as much as the next guy, and I’m not a fan of public disrespect for any US president. But while watching the State of the Union address, I always wish I could raise my hand and ask the president a question. If President Obama had taken questions last night, here’s what I would have asked him.

• President Obama: “For more than a year, America has led a coalition of more than 60 countries to cut off ISIL’s financing, disrupt their plots, stop the flow of terrorist fighters, and stamp out their vicious ideology. ….If this Congress is serious about winning this war, and wants to send a message to our troops and the world, you should finally authorize the use of military force against ISIL. Take a vote.”

Mr. President, what sort of military force do you feel would work best against ISIS? How can military force protect the United States from those inspired by ISIS to carry out attacks inside this country? And if we’re not addressing the issues that make ISIS so attractive for some angry young Muslims, why should we be confident that this war will be any more effective than the “war on drugs?”

• President Obama: “We also can’t try to take over and rebuild every country that falls into crisis. That’s not leadership; that’s a recipe for quagmire, spilling American blood and treasure that ultimately weakens us.”

But if we defeat and dismantle ISIS in Iraq and Syria, how do we ensure that new militant groups don’t take their place as soon as US troops leave?

• President Obama: “Fortunately, there’s a smarter approach, a patient and disciplined strategy that uses every element of our national power. It says America will always act, alone if necessary, to protect our people and our allies; but on issues of global concern, we will mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight.”

How do we “mobilize the world” and “make sure other countries pull their own weight” when there are clear, widely recognized limits on our ability to send troops and taxpayer dollars overseas?

• President Obama: “With [the Trans-Pacific Partnership], China doesn’t set the rules in that region, we do.”

Why should China accept American rules in Asia, especially after they become the world’s largest economy? Do we expect our European allies to follow our lead on this? They haven’t so far. Do we expect our Asian allies to have confidence that we will be a lead player in Asia longer than China will?

• President Obama: “We help Ukraine defend its democracy.”

How do sanctions that punish Russia defend Ukraine’s democracy?

• President Obama: “The international system we built after World War II is now struggling to keep pace with this new reality. It’s up to us to help remake that system.”

Political rhetoric aside, is it vital that America leads the international system? Or should we collaborate with those who have the largest stake in it? Should we invite China, whose government has very different values than ours, to have a say in how this new system is organized? Or should the US and its allies make the rules and try to limit China’s influence on them?

*******

It’s hard not to respect President Obama for accepting a share of the blame for the reality that the nation is divided. Plenty of blame to go around. He also made a compelling case that America is much stronger, especially economically, than when he arrived in the White House in January 2009. That’s an easy thing to measure.

But the president’s continued insistence that America can simply “remake” the international system, “mobilize the world to work with us, and make sure other countries pull their own weight” ignores the increasingly obvious reality that the United States no longer has the power to do that.

The US remains the world’s sole superpower, however influential China has become. It will remain the sole superpower for the foreseeable future. But others, not just China, have at least enough power and self-confidence to ignore Washington when the US president wants them to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do.

Accepting this reality and adjusting US foreign policy accordingly will only become more important over time.

Ian Bremmer is president of Eurasia Group, global research professor at New York University and foreign affairs columnist at TIME. You can also follow him on Twitter and Facebook.