"The World as It Is" by Ben Rhodes offers a unique insider's perspective on Barack Obama's presidency, from the 2008 campaign through to the inauguration of Donald Trump in 2017. As one of Obama's closest advisors, Rhodes had a front-row seat to some of the most significant events and decisions of the Obama administration. This book provides an intimate look at how foreign policy was crafted and implemented during a transformative period in American politics and global affairs.
Rhodes served in multiple roles during his time with Obama, including speechwriter, national security advisor, and trusted confidant. His account gives readers unprecedented access to the inner workings of the White House and the thought processes behind major policy decisions. From negotiating the Iran nuclear deal to normalizing relations with Cuba, Rhodes details the administration's efforts to reshape America's role on the world stage.
Beyond just recounting events, Rhodes reflects on the challenges of governing in an increasingly partisan political environment and a rapidly changing media landscape. He grapples with the rise of disinformation campaigns, the complexities of military intervention, and the difficulties of translating idealistic visions into practical policies. Throughout it all, Rhodes provides insight into Obama's leadership style, worldview, and personal reflections on the burdens of the presidency.
"The World as It Is" is both a historical record and a deeply personal memoir. It offers a candid, nuanced portrait of Obama as a leader and explores how his unique background shaped his approach to foreign policy. For anyone seeking to understand the Obama years and America's evolving place in the world, this book provides an essential firsthand account from someone who was in the room where it happened.
Obama's Campaign and Early Presidency
A Fresh Approach to Presidential Politics
When Barack Obama launched his presidential campaign in 2007, he represented something entirely new in American politics. As a young African American senator with a unique background, Obama offered voters a dramatic change from the political establishment. His campaign was built on a promise of hope and change that resonated deeply with many Americans who were disillusioned after years of war and economic uncertainty.
One of Obama's key differentiators was his stance on foreign policy, particularly his early opposition to the Iraq War. At a time when most politicians had supported the invasion, Obama's prescient skepticism set him apart. He pledged to bring a fresh perspective to America's role in the world, one that emphasized diplomacy and engagement over military intervention.
Obama's campaign took the unusual step of conducting an extensive foreign tour, visiting key allies in Europe and the Middle East. This was a bold move for a presidential candidate, as foreign policy typically plays a minor role in campaigns. But Obama wanted to prove his ability to represent America on the world stage and to begin rebuilding relationships that had been strained during the Bush years.
A pivotal moment came when Obama delivered a major speech in Berlin to an enormous, enthusiastic crowd. The speech nearly ended in disaster when Rhodes, working on the text, discovered at the last minute that a key phrase was similar to one used by Adolf Hitler. They managed to change it just in time. Despite this close call, Obama's Berlin address was a resounding success. The image of a young, charismatic African American candidate speaking to cheering throngs in the heart of Europe powerfully symbolized the change Obama promised to bring to American foreign policy.
Obama's Unique Worldview
Obama's background and life experiences gave him a perspective on America's role in the world that differed significantly from previous presidents and many of the career officials in Washington. Born in Hawaii to a Kenyan father and a mother from Kansas, Obama spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. This upbringing gave him a more nuanced view of American power and influence.
Obama was acutely aware of how U.S. actions were perceived abroad, including in places where American interventions had led to violence and instability. His grandfather's service in World War II and his great-uncle's role in liberating a Nazi concentration camp also shaped his understanding of America's capacity for both good and ill on the world stage.
This worldview sometimes created tensions, even within Obama's own administration. Many career officials and members of the foreign policy establishment were accustomed to a more unambiguously pro-American stance. Obama, however, believed that acknowledging past mistakes and showing humility could actually enhance American influence and moral authority.
An early example of this approach came during Obama's first foreign trip as president. In a speech to the Turkish parliament, he addressed America's own struggles with minority rights and racism, drawing a parallel to Turkey's challenges. While Obama saw this as a form of patriotism - highlighting America's capacity for self-improvement - it drew criticism at home from those who viewed it as apologizing for America.
Reaching Out to the Muslim World
One of Obama's key foreign policy initiatives in his early presidency was an effort to reset America's relationship with the Muslim world. After years of tension following 9/11 and the Iraq War, Obama believed it was crucial to build bridges and promote mutual understanding.
The centerpiece of this outreach was Obama's landmark speech at Cairo University in 2009. In preparing for the address, Obama drew on his own experiences living in Indonesia as a child. He recalled how the culture there had become more conservative over time, partly due to Saudi funding of religious schools. In his speech, Obama sought to strike a balance, calling on the West to better appreciate Islam's contributions to world civilization while also urging Muslim-majority countries to embrace principles like women's rights and religious tolerance.
The Cairo speech was a powerful expression of Obama's vision for a more cooperative, less confrontational relationship between the United States and Muslim-majority nations. It was met with enthusiasm by many in the audience and around the world. However, it also set high expectations that would prove challenging to meet in the years ahead.
Foreign Policy Challenges and Achievements
The Arab Spring: Idealism Meets Reality
The outbreak of pro-democracy protests across the Arab world in late 2010 and early 2011 presented a major test for Obama's foreign policy vision. Known as the Arab Spring, these uprisings posed a dilemma for an administration that wanted to support democratic movements but also maintain stability in a volatile region.
The protests in Egypt became a particular flashpoint. As demonstrators filled Cairo's Tahrir Square demanding the ouster of long-time U.S. ally Hosni Mubarak, Obama's team was divided. Younger staffers like Rhodes saw an opportunity to support the ideals Obama had outlined in his Cairo speech. They argued it was impossible to defend Mubarak's repressive tactics. Other advisors, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, urged a more cautious approach, wary of abandoning a stable partner in a crucial part of the world.
Obama ultimately sided with the protesters, telling Mubarak it was time for a new government. This decision was criticized by some in the foreign policy establishment who saw it as betraying an ally. But Obama believed it was important to be on the right side of history, even if it meant short-term instability.
The Arab Spring highlighted the tensions between idealism and realpolitik that would recur throughout Obama's presidency. While the administration wanted to support democratic movements, the complex realities of the region often made this difficult. The subsequent chaos in Libya and the brutal civil war in Syria would further test Obama's approach to the Middle East.
The Hunt for Bin Laden
One of Obama's earliest foreign policy promises was to bring Osama bin Laden to justice. In 2011, years of intelligence work finally paid off when analysts identified a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan that they believed might house the al-Qaeda leader.
The decision to launch a raid was far from straightforward. There was no certainty that bin Laden was actually in the compound, with estimates ranging from 40-60% likelihood. A failed operation based on faulty intelligence could have severe diplomatic and military consequences.
Obama approached the decision with characteristic thoroughness, peppering his advisors with detailed questions about the intelligence and operational plans. After careful deliberation, he gave the go-ahead for the raid.
The night of the operation was tense. Obama and his team watched from the Situation Room as the mission unfolded. When word came through that bin Laden had been killed, there was a sense of both relief and somber satisfaction. Obama's decision not to release photos of bin Laden's body, despite pressure to do so, reflected his desire to avoid triumphalism and to focus on the gravity of what had been accomplished.
The successful raid was a major victory for Obama, fulfilling a key promise and eliminating America's most wanted terrorist. It also demonstrated Obama's willingness to take calculated risks when the potential benefits were sufficiently high.
Normalizing Relations with Cuba
The effort to normalize relations with Cuba stands out as one of the few proactive foreign policy initiatives of Obama's presidency. After years of reacting to crises and managing ongoing conflicts, the Cuba opening offered a chance to reshape a long-standing point of tension in America's relationship with Latin America.
Rhodes played a key role in this effort, engaging in a series of secret meetings with Cuban officials, including Alejandro Castro, son of Cuban leader Raúl Castro. These discussions, held in neutral locations like Canada, slowly built trust between the two sides.
A breakthrough came when Cuba demonstrated its seriousness by refusing to allow Edward Snowden to travel through Havana after he had leaked classified NSA documents. This showed that the Cuban government was prioritizing improved relations with the U.S. over scoring political points.
With the help of Pope Francis, who was respected in Cuba for his Latin American heritage, an agreement was reached to restore diplomatic relations. The day before the announcement, Obama had the first call between American and Cuban leaders since the revolution. In a sign of how much history had to be overcome, Raúl Castro spent much of the call listing past U.S. efforts to undermine the Cuban government. Obama patiently listened, recognizing the importance of allowing Cuba to air its grievances as part of the reconciliation process.
The Cuba opening was a signature achievement for Obama's foreign policy, demonstrating his belief in engagement over isolation. It also fulfilled a campaign promise to pursue diplomacy with adversaries without preconditions.
The Iran Nuclear Deal
Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons was a top priority for the Obama administration. By 2013, intelligence suggested Iran was less than a year away from being able to produce weapons-grade material. This created urgency for a diplomatic solution.
Negotiating the Iran nuclear deal proved to be one of the most challenging and contentious efforts of Obama's presidency. There was strong opposition from Republicans in Congress, as well as from Israel and its supporters in the U.S. The administration had to overcome a well-funded lobbying campaign against the deal and combat widespread misinformation.
Rhodes formed a dedicated team, which he called the "Antiwar Room," to build support for the agreement. They emphasized that the deal would prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon through diplomacy, contrasting this with the alternative of military action. They also worked to discredit critics of the deal, particularly those who had supported the Iraq War, arguing that the same people who had led America into that conflict now wanted war with Iran.
Gradually, the administration gained important endorsements from nuclear scientists, former Israeli security officials, and Iranian dissidents. This helped build momentum for the agreement.
The successful negotiation of the Iran deal was a major diplomatic achievement for Obama. It demonstrated his commitment to pursuing peaceful solutions to international conflicts and his willingness to engage with adversaries. However, the intense opposition to the deal also highlighted the deep partisan divisions in American foreign policy that would only grow more pronounced in the years to come.
Race and the Obama Presidency
The Constant Presence of Race
Barack Obama's election as the first African American president was a watershed moment in American history. It represented a breakthrough in the country's long struggle with racism and seemed to herald a new era of racial progress. However, throughout Obama's presidency, race remained a complex and often unspoken undercurrent.
Rhodes observed that while racism was never far from the surface, Obama and his team rarely addressed it directly. In private, Obama sometimes used dark humor to cope with the racial animosity he faced. When preparing for media appearances, he might jokingly attribute opposition to his presidency to his race driving "some white people insane." But in public, he typically downplayed racial motivations, attributing criticism to other factors.
This reluctance to directly confront racial issues stemmed from a political calculation. Obama and his advisors feared that speaking too openly about race would alienate white voters and reinforce perceptions of him as a divisive figure. As a result, they often tried to navigate a delicate balance, acknowledging racial progress while avoiding accusations of playing "the race card."
The Charleston Church Shooting: A Turning Point
The 2015 mass shooting at a historically black church in Charleston, South Carolina, marked a significant moment in Obama's approach to race. The murder of nine African Americans by a white supremacist forced a national reckoning with the persistence of racial hatred.
Initially, Obama was at a loss for words, feeling that he had addressed similar tragedies too many times before. He considered attending the memorial service without speaking. But ultimately, he decided to use the moment to address racial issues more directly than he had previously done.
The night before the service, Obama stayed up late rewriting his speech. He wanted to confront racial taboos head-on, addressing both historical racism symbolized by the Confederate flag and present-day racism in the criminal justice system. He chose to frame these difficult topics through the lens of grace, a concept deeply rooted in the African American church tradition.
During the service, Obama delivered one of the most powerful and personal speeches of his presidency. He spoke about the dignity of the victims and the grace they had shown in their lives. In a surprising and emotional moment, he began to sing "Amazing Grace," with the congregation joining in. This raw display of emotion and connection with the black church tradition was a departure from Obama's typically more reserved public persona.
The Charleston speech represented a turning point in Obama's willingness to engage with race more explicitly. It demonstrated the unique ability he had, as the first black president, to speak to the pain of racial violence while also offering a message of hope and reconciliation.
The Limits of Progress
Despite the powerful symbolism of Obama's presidency and moments like the Charleston speech, the persistence of racial tensions highlighted the limits of progress. The rise of the Black Lives Matter movement in response to police violence against African Americans underscored ongoing racial inequalities.
Obama often found himself in a difficult position, trying to acknowledge the legitimacy of protests against racial injustice while also maintaining support for law enforcement. This balancing act sometimes left both sides unsatisfied, with some activists feeling he wasn't doing enough to address systemic racism, while others accused him of undermining the police.
The racial backlash against Obama's presidency also became increasingly apparent, culminating in the election of Donald Trump, who had prominently promoted the false "birther" conspiracy theory questioning Obama's American citizenship. This stark reminder of the persistence of racial resentment in American politics was deeply disheartening for Obama and his team.
In reflecting on his presidency, Obama grappled with whether he and other liberals had underestimated the importance of identity politics and the extent to which many Americans felt threatened by demographic and cultural changes. The racial dynamics of the Obama years revealed both the progress America had made and the long road still ahead in addressing its legacy of racism.
Foreign Policy Dilemmas
The Syrian Civil War and the "Red Line"
The Syrian civil war emerged as one of the most challenging foreign policy issues of Obama's presidency. As the conflict escalated and reports of atrocities mounted, there was increasing pressure for the U.S. to intervene.
In 2012, Obama declared that the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cross a "red line" that could prompt U.S. military action. This statement was intended to deter the Assad government from using such weapons, but it also created expectations for a U.S. response if the line was crossed.
In August 2013, evidence emerged of a deadly chemical weapons attack near Damascus. This put Obama in a difficult position. There was an expectation that he would follow through on his "red line" threat, but he faced several obstacles:
Lack of international support: Key allies like Germany were reluctant to back military action without UN approval, which Russia would likely veto.
Domestic opposition: Many in Congress, including some Republicans who had previously called for intervention, now opposed military action without congressional approval.
Public war-weariness: After years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, there was little appetite among the American public for another Middle Eastern intervention.
Obama ultimately decided to seek congressional authorization for military strikes, but it quickly became clear that such approval would be difficult to obtain. In the end, a diplomatic solution emerged through negotiations with Russia to remove and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.
While this outcome avoided military intervention, it was seen by some as a failure to enforce the "red line," damaging U.S. credibility. Obama defended the decision, arguing that it achieved the goal of eliminating Syria's chemical weapons without risking American lives in another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Syria dilemma highlighted the complexities of foreign policy decision-making and the often-unsatisfying choices presidents face. It also underscored the limitations of American power in shaping outcomes in complex regional conflicts.
The Challenges of Military Intervention
The debate over intervention in Syria was part of a broader reassessment of the use of military force in Obama's foreign policy. Coming into office in the wake of the Iraq War, Obama was deeply skeptical of large-scale military interventions. He sought to wind down America's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan while being more selective about the use of force elsewhere.
This approach was tested during the 2011 intervention in Libya. Obama initially resisted calls for military action but ultimately decided to support a NATO-led air campaign to prevent a massacre of civilians by Muammar Gaddafi's forces. While the intervention succeeded in its immediate goal of protecting civilians and led to Gaddafi's overthrow, the subsequent chaos in Libya raised questions about the long-term consequences of such interventions.
The Libya experience informed Obama's caution on Syria. He was wary of being drawn into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East without a clear exit strategy. This reluctance to commit U.S. ground troops led to a reliance on other tools, such as economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and limited military support to select groups.
Obama's approach to military intervention reflected his belief in the need for multilateral action and burden-sharing with allies. He was critical of what he saw as a tendency in Washington to view military force as the solution to every problem. Instead, he emphasized diplomacy, economic tools, and targeted operations like drone strikes and special forces missions.
This more restrained approach to military intervention was praised by some as a necessary correction after the excesses of the Bush years. Critics, however, argued that it created a power vacuum in places like Syria that was filled by hostile actors like Russia and Iran.
The debates over military intervention during Obama's presidency highlighted enduring questions about America's role in the world and the proper use of its military power. They also underscored the difficulty of balancing moral imperatives, strategic interests, and the realities of domestic politics when making decisions about war and peace.
Information Warfare and Disinformation
The Rise of Fake News and Disinformation Campaigns
Throughout Obama's presidency, Rhodes witnessed the growing impact of misinformation and deliberately false narratives on public discourse and policy-making. This trend, often referred to as "fake news," became increasingly problematic in the later years of the administration.
One significant source of disinformation was Russia, which invested heavily in spreading false or misleading information to advance its interests. A prime example was the Russian response to the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine in 2014. Despite evidence pointing to Russian-backed separatists as responsible, the Russian government launched a massive disinformation campaign, flooding media and social networks with multiple, often contradictory theories about the incident.
Rhodes and his team found themselves ill-equipped to combat these sophisticated disinformation efforts. While Russian operatives had control over state media outlets and armies of social media accounts to spread their messages, the U.S. government was constrained by laws preventing it from engaging in domestic propaganda. Rhodes had limited resources - essentially just his small press team and his personal Twitter account - to try to counter the flood of false information.
The administration considered creating something akin to Russia's RT network to more effectively communicate America's message abroad, but quickly realized that such an effort would be politically untenable. Republicans in Congress would never approve funding for what could be seen as an Obama propaganda channel.
The Impact on Democratic Discourse
The rise of disinformation had profound implications for democratic discourse and decision-making. Rhodes observed that an increasing number of people, particularly on the political right, seemed to operate in an alternative information ecosystem divorced from factual reality.
This was exemplified by the persistent belief among many Republicans that Obama was not born in the United States, despite abundant evidence to the contrary. The "birther" conspiracy theory, prominently promoted by Donald Trump, demonstrated how even thoroughly debunked falsehoods could maintain a hold on a significant portion of the electorate.
The proliferation of fake news and conspiracy theories made it increasingly difficult for the administration to build public support for its policies. Even when presented with clear facts, many people seemed to retreat into partisan echo chambers that reinforced their existing beliefs.
This erosion of a shared factual basis for political debate became particularly apparent during the 2016 election campaign. Russian interference, including the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails and the spread of divisive content on social media, exploited and exacerbated these divisions in American society.
Lessons and Reflections
The challenges posed by disinformation campaigns and the fracturing of the media landscape led Obama and his team to grapple with fundamental questions about the health of American democracy. They realized that the United States was vulnerable to information warfare in ways they hadn't previously appreciated.
Rhodes came to believe that the rise of fake news and the declining influence of traditional media gatekeepers had created a "soft spot" in American democracy. This vulnerability allowed foreign actors like Russia to exploit existing divisions and sow further discord.
The experience also highlighted the limitations of facts and reason in political discourse. Obama and his team had often operated on the assumption that if they could just explain their policies clearly enough, they could win public support. But the rise of alternative information ecosystems challenged this belief, suggesting that emotional appeals and tribal loyalties often trumped factual arguments.
As they left office, Obama and his advisors were deeply concerned about the long-term implications of these trends for American democracy. They recognized that addressing the challenge of disinformation would require not just government action, but a broader societal effort to promote media literacy, strengthen institutions, and rebuild a shared sense of civic responsibility.
The 2016 Election and Its Aftermath
Surprise and Disbelief
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 came as a profound shock to Obama and his team. Despite some warning signs, such as the Clinton campaign's last-minute request for Obama to visit Michigan, they had remained confident that Hillary Clinton would prevail.
In the aftermath of the election, Obama struggled to make sense of the result. He was particularly puzzled given the positive economic indicators of his presidency - low unemployment, affordable gas prices, and expanded health insurance coverage. This led him to question whether he and other liberals had lost touch with the importance of identity politics and the extent to which many Americans felt threatened by demographic and cultural changes.
Rhodes, reflecting on the campaign, realized that Trump's message against Clinton had echoes of Obama's own 2008 campaign. Both had portrayed Clinton as part of an establishment that couldn't be trusted to bring about real change. This continuity in anti-establishment sentiment, albeit expressed in very different ways, suggested deeper currents of discontent that transcended party lines.
Meeting with Trump
Obama's first meeting with President-elect Trump left him even more perplexed. Trump seemed more interested in discussing the size of their respective campaign rallies than in substantive policy matters. He expressed openness to Obama's views on various issues but seemed to take pride in avoiding clear positions on any specific policies.
This encounter reinforced Obama's concerns about Trump's preparedness for the presidency and his understanding of the complexities of governing. Obama's parting advice to his team for dealing with the Trump administration was telling: "Find some high ground and hunker down."
Reflections on the Obama Legacy
As the Obama administration came to a close, Rhodes and others grappled with questions about their legacy and the future of American democracy. They had entered office with high ideals and a vision of transforming America's role in the world. While they had achieved significant successes - from the Iran nuclear deal to the normalization of relations with Cuba - they also faced setbacks and unresolved challenges.
The rise of Trump and the apparent rejection of much of Obama's worldview forced them to confront difficult questions:
- Had they underestimated the persistence of racial resentment and nativism in American politics?
- Had their faith in reason and facts been naive in the face of emotional appeals and tribal loyalties?
- Had their efforts to engage with the world diplomatically been perceived as weakness by both adversaries and some domestic critics?
These questions did not have easy answers, but they highlighted the ongoing tensions in American foreign policy between engagement and confrontation, between idealism and realpolitik.
Looking to the Future
As Obama prepared to leave office, he and his team were deeply concerned about the future of American democracy and the country's role in the world. The election of Trump, with his "America First" rhetoric and skepticism of traditional alliances and international institutions, seemed to herald a dramatic shift in U.S. foreign policy.
Yet Obama remained cautiously optimistic about the long-term trajectory of the country and the world. He believed that the arc of history bent towards justice and progress, even if there were setbacks along the way. He encouraged his staff to stay engaged and to continue fighting for the values and ideals they believed in.
For Rhodes, the experience of working in the Obama White House had been transformative. It had given him a front-row seat to history and a deep appreciation for the complexities of governing in a rapidly changing world. As he looked to the future, he was committed to continuing the work of promoting diplomacy, human rights, and international cooperation, even in the face of new challenges and uncertainties.
Final Thoughts
"The World as It Is" provides a deeply personal and insightful account of the Obama presidency, offering readers a unique perspective on some of the most significant events and decisions of the early 21st century. Through Rhodes's eyes, we see a president grappling with immense challenges, from economic crises to intractable conflicts, always striving to live up to his ideals while navigating the harsh realities of global politics.
The book highlights the tension between Obama's vision for America's role in the world - one of engagement, diplomacy, and moral leadership - and the often-messy realities of implementing that vision. It shows how domestic political constraints, entrenched interests, and unforeseen global events repeatedly forced the administration to adjust its ambitions and settle for imperfect solutions.
Rhodes's account also serves as a valuable historical record, providing context and behind-the-scenes details for many of the key foreign policy decisions of the Obama years. From the Iran nuclear deal to the opening with Cuba, from the intervention in Libya to the decision not to intervene directly in Syria, the book offers insights into the complex deliberations and competing pressures that shape foreign policy at the highest levels.
Perhaps most importantly, "The World as It Is" is a reflection on the nature of American power and influence in the 21st century. It grapples with fundamental questions about how the United States should engage with the world, balancing its ideals and interests in an increasingly multipolar and interconnected global system.
As Rhodes recounts the triumphs and disappointments of the Obama years, he also offers a cautionary tale about the fragility of progress and the persistent challenges facing American democracy. The rise of disinformation, the deepening of partisan divides, and the election of Donald Trump all serve as reminders that the work of building a more just and peaceful world is never finished.
Ultimately, "The World as It Is" is both a celebration of the idealism that drove the Obama administration and a clear-eyed assessment of the limits of that idealism in the face of harsh geopolitical realities. It challenges readers to think critically about America's role in the world and to remain engaged in the ongoing struggle to build a better future, even in the face of setbacks and disappointments.
For anyone seeking to understand the complexities of modern American foreign policy and the challenges of leadership in a rapidly changing world, Rhodes's memoir offers invaluable insights and a compelling narrative of a pivotal period in recent history. It is a testament to the power of idealism tempered by realism, and a call to continue striving for a more just and peaceful world, even when that world falls short of our highest hopes and aspirations.