Obama: America ‘Does Not Control Everything Around the World’

President Obama arrives to speak to reporters in the Brady Press Briefing Room, on August 1, 2014.

Connor Radnovich/AP

AA Font size + Print

President Obama arrives to speak to reporters in the Brady Press Briefing Room, on August 1, 2014.

In a sober, somewhat resigned press conference, President Obama says the U.S. can’t solve every problem in the world. By Brian Resnick

Lately, the president has been struggling to turn his visions for foreign and domestic affairs into reality. Two salient examples: A U.S.-brokered cease-fire for the Gaza conflict fell through within hours (though for reasons beyond the control of the U.S.), and it’s unlikely he’ll get anywhere near the amount of money he’s asked Congress for to deal with the border crisis.

Obama addressed these shortcomings in a press conference Friday afternoon. He was asked, “Has the United States of America lost its influence in the world? Have you, yours?”

Below is his response. It’s candid, though hopeful, and marked with a shade of resignation. (The later quotes were in response to a separate question, but continued his thoughts on the matter.) Emphasis is ours:

Look, this is a common theme that folks bring up. Apparently, people have forgotten that America, as the most powerful country on Earth, still does not control everything around the world. And so our diplomatic efforts often take time. They often will see progress and then a step backwards. That’s been true in the Middle East. That’s been true in Europe. That’s been true in Asia. That’s the nature of world affairs. It’s not neat and it’s not smooth….

If you look at the 20th century and the early part of this century, there are a lot of conflicts that America doesn’t resolve. That’s always been true. That doesn’t mean we stop trying. And it’s not a measure of American influence on any given day or at any given moment that there are conflicts around the world that are difficult. Conflict in Northern Ireland raged for a very, very long time until finally something broke, where the party decided that it wasn’t worth killing each other. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been going on even longer than you’ve been reporting.

You know, and I don’t think at any point was there a suggestion that America didn’t have influence, just because we weren’t able to finalize an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. You will recall that the situations like Kosovo and Bosnia raged on for quite some time. And there was a lot more death and bloodshed than there has been so far in the Ukrainian situation before it ultimately did get resolved.

And so I recognize with so many different issues popping up around the world, sometimes it may seem as if this is an aberration or it’s unusual. But the truth of the matter is that there’s a big world out there, and that as indispensable as we are to try to lead it, there’s still going to be tragedies out there and there are going to be conflicts and our job is to just make sure that we continue to project what’s right, what’s just….

I mean, the fact of the matter is that in all these crises that have been mentioned, there may be some tangential risks to the United States. In some cases, as in Iraq and ISIS, those are dangers that have to be addressed right now. And we have to take them very seriously. But for the most part, these are not—you know, the rockets aren’t being fired into the United States. The reason we are concerned is because we recognize we got some special responsibilities. We have to be—have some humility about what we can and can’t accomplish. We have to recognize that our resources are finite and we are coming out of a decade of war. And, you know, our military has been stretched very hard. As has our budget. Nevertheless, we try.

Close [ x ] More from DefenseOne

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from DefenseOne.com.
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Software-Defined Networking

    So many demands are being placed on federal information technology networks, which must handle vast amounts of data, accommodate voice and video, and cope with a multitude of highly connected devices while keeping government information secure from cyber threats. This issue brief discusses the state of SDN in the federal government and the path forward.

  • Military Readiness: Ensuring Readiness with Analytic Insight

    To determine military readiness, decision makers in defense organizations must develop an understanding of complex inter-relationships among readiness variables. For example, how will an anticipated change in a readiness input really impact readiness at the unit level and, equally important, how will it impact readiness outside of the unit? Learn how to form a more sophisticated and accurate understanding of readiness and make decisions in a timely and cost-effective manner.

  • Cyber Risk Report: Cybercrime Trends from 2016

    In our first half 2016 cyber trends report, SurfWatch Labs threat intelligence analysts noted one key theme – the interconnected nature of cybercrime – and the second half of the year saw organizations continuing to struggle with that reality. The number of potential cyber threats, the pool of already compromised information, and the ease of finding increasingly sophisticated cybercriminal tools continued to snowball throughout the year.

  • A New Security Architecture for Federal Networks

    Federal government networks are under constant attack, and the number of those attacks is increasing. This issue brief discusses today's threats and a new model for the future.

  • Information Operations: Retaking the High Ground

    Today's threats are fluent in rapidly evolving areas of the Internet, especially social media. Learn how military organizations can secure an advantage in this developing arena.


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.