Like their fellow Europeans, many Lithuanians have expressed dismay that the administration of Barack Obama has turned its back on the Continent.           It appears that he has bigger fish to fry in Asia, that’s why he refused an invitation to meet with EU leaders in a May Summit. Furthermore, in the aftermath of the Georgian-Russian War, his decision to scrap George W. Bush’s anti-missile system in the Czech Republic and Poland has caused many residents of the East Baltic Sea region to express concern about Washington’s pledge to defend their countries. But such concerns are unwarranted and fail to take into account the horrible panoply of domestic and international problems that he inherited from his predecessor.

In any serious attempt to understand the Obama administration’s approach to foreign affairs, it is imperative to appreciate the magnitude of the poisoned legacy that he discovered as he entered office. It accounts for Obama’s laser-like attention to a multitude of daunting problems that he faces at home and is less a matter of his preoccupation with developments in places other than Europe. Also, in contrast to two protracted wars in the Greater Middle East and the prospect that Pakistan, a country with nuclear weapons, could crumble into chaos, Europe is a peaceful place.

The place to begin is Bush’s disastrous decision to invade and occupy Iraq where he embarked upon the “wrong war” in Iraq before he finished the “right war” in Afghanistan. In spite of current efforts on the part of Bush’s Vice-President Dick Chaney and his leading political operative Karl Rove to justify this incredible blunder, the stunning truth is that Saddam Hussein did not possess the military prowess to harm the U.S. nor was he an ally of al-Qaeda.

Specifically, he did not have any nuclear weapons, and his chemical and biological capability was minimal and hardly a threat to the world’s most powerful military force. Moreover, Saddam was not allied with Osama bin Laden and the Iraqi dictator had nothing to do with the al-Qaeda 9/11 strike on the United States. Indeed, bin Laden deemed him an enemy. Some Democrats were mislead into believing false claims perpetrated by the Bush administration to the opposite while others cowardly supported the invasion less they look meek and lose the support of hawkish voters. Obama was not among them.

The fact is, key members of the elder George H. W. Bush’s administration like his national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and his Secretary of State James Baker both opposed the Iraq invasion for the simple reason that Saddam had been contained and represented no threat to the United States. They correctly predicted that if the younger Bush ignored their advice, the outcome would be disastrous for America’s national security.

Consequently, when Obama entered the White House, he had inherited two wars that have resulted in severe strains on the American military; international condemnation of ill-considered unilateralist policies that de-stabilized the greater Middle East and that among other things enhanced the capacity of Iran to make mischief there while giving Tehran the justification for acquiring nuclear weapons; declining faith in the moral rectitude of the U.S. in face of charges of  war crime violations; and finally a global shift in public opinion where-by America was deemed a greater threat to world peace than communist China. Significantly, this was not only the opinion of Muslims but of old American allies like the British.

To add to his misery, the young President was forced to address an economic meltdown that began in the United States and precipitated the worse global financial calamity since the Great Depression of the 1930’s. To make matters worse, Obama’s Republican opponents declared immediately after he entered office that they would obstruct him in his efforts to address America’s daunting problems with the declared intention of “bringing him down.” Indeed, his Republican opponents have been un-relenting in their campaign to sabotage the very policies that are required to address some of America’s most compelling problems.

The most glaring example here is the Republicans’ attempt to deny the American people a national health insurance program. It is unbelievable but until two weeks ago, the U.S. was the only advanced society that had not acknowledged that health care is a basic human right. Opponents of what amounts to a most health care program delayed its adoption by resorting to a disinformation campaign that was based upon distortion, out-right lies and fear-mongering.  It is no exaggeration to conclude that if Obama had lost the health care battle, his administration would have been dealt a lethal political blow. Among other things, it would have undermined his ability to address pressing international problems. It is against this backdrop that he has had little time to address foreign policies matters and then only those that are most urgent.

Also, as I noted in a Veidas article in the summer of 2008, presidential candidate Obama did not believe it was prudent to deploy an anti-missile system in Eastern Europe that did not work against a threat that had not yet materialized. Instead he has selected a system that is designed to meet Iran’s capacity to launch intermediate ranged missiles—that Iran possesses today–against its enemies in the Middle East and Europe. As Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has indicated, this is a better choice than the one that Bush has championed and Gates had earlier endorsed.

Finally a word about the 2008 Georgian-Russian War is in order. Presumably Moscow tricked the young rambunctious Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvilli into launching an attack against South Ossetia, but he took ill-considered actions that made this possible. The EU has concluded that he started the war in the first place. Consequently, former friendly American and European leaders have turned their backs on him less his capricious antics prompt another military exchange with Russia. The recent Georgian TV program that simulated a second Georgian-Russian war has been cited by his critics of further evidence of his irrational behavior. (He has denied having anything to do with it but his disclaimers have not convinced his critics on the one hand while on the other one the provocative program was a gift to Kremlin hard-liners who are bent on bringing him down.) At the same time, his commitment to democratic rule has been called into question. Is it any wonder then that leaders who are responsible for the welfare of their citizens in the dangerous former Soviet-neighborhood such as Lithuania are reluctant to share a diplomatic event with Saakashvilli.

Oh, one more thing. If George W. Bush had not invaded Iraq it is unlikely that there ever would have been a Georgian-Russian war in 2008. Burdened by a war in Iraq that had cost many lives and billions of dollars and a return of the Taliban in Afghanistan, the American military was badly over-stretched. Simultaneously, the international stature of the U.S. had plunged under Bush’s stewardship. To make matters worse, the calamitous economic meltdown was waiting in the wings. Under these circumstances, the military-minded in Moscow believed they could act without interference from a discredited leadership in Washington.

When considering Obama’s policies toward Europe then, the poisoned legacy that he inherited from George W. Bush–compounded by his political opponent’s obstructionist policies and an economy under stress–are the place to start.

Dick Krickus is professor emeritus at the University of Mary Washington University and has held the H. L. Oppenheimer Chair for Warfighting Strategy at the U.S. Marine Corps University.