Obama, An Enigma No More
There have been a flurry of op-ed pieces during December on how to define President Obama. Liberals have been frustrated with him with his lack of focused attention on Health Care, helping Wall Street over Main Street, and his adoption on a number of Bush approaches on dealing with the war in Afghanistan, Guantanimo, etc. And then there was that Nobel "peace" prize acceptance speach where he spoke of the "just war" concept (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html). Is he "liberal" enough, or just pragmatic?
The fact is that Mr. Obama is a "counter-puncher" - he lets others commit, assesses the results, and then, at the last moment, commits himself when it is safe to do so. The evidence of this can be seen in his administration's actions on Health Care. He let his party's legislative leaders take all of the heat, so he could claim success when the Senate finally passed that atrosity of a bill.
Why did the Afghanistan stratgy take so long? Because he was placed in a situation where he had to lead, instead of waiting for someone else to try it. There wasn't a clear, safe answer - too much risk. He had Sec. Clinton, Sec. Gates and the military brass on one side, and VP Biden and the liberal wing of his party on the other. Just read carefully his speach on his Afghanistan
decision" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html). Lukewarm at best IMHO.
This isn't a new pattern. Mr. Obama took the same approach in the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate (remember the "here" votes).
Thus, he is not a "leader" in a traditional sense but more of a risk-adverse, political opportunist.
The problem with being a counter puncher is in the hestancy to commit, and a skilled opponent can take advantage of the hesitancy by constantly putting situations in front of the counter puncher. Think of the recent attempted bombing of the jet on approach to Detroit. True, the bomber was inept (thank goodness), but there are scores of these idiots with their PETN and syringes just waiting to slip by TSA again.
Bush/Cheney may have been carelessly proactive, but Obama is overly cautious and reactive. Too much (of the wrong) vision vs. not enough vision.
One wonders what the world would be like if Mr. Obama with his counter-punching techniques were to have been president during the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) instead of Pres. Kennedy.
Scary.
The fact is that Mr. Obama is a "counter-puncher" - he lets others commit, assesses the results, and then, at the last moment, commits himself when it is safe to do so. The evidence of this can be seen in his administration's actions on Health Care. He let his party's legislative leaders take all of the heat, so he could claim success when the Senate finally passed that atrosity of a bill.
Why did the Afghanistan stratgy take so long? Because he was placed in a situation where he had to lead, instead of waiting for someone else to try it. There wasn't a clear, safe answer - too much risk. He had Sec. Clinton, Sec. Gates and the military brass on one side, and VP Biden and the liberal wing of his party on the other. Just read carefully his speach on his Afghanistan
decision" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/01/obama-afghanistan-speech-text-excerpts_n_376088.html). Lukewarm at best IMHO.
This isn't a new pattern. Mr. Obama took the same approach in the Illinois Legislature and the US Senate (remember the "here" votes).
Thus, he is not a "leader" in a traditional sense but more of a risk-adverse, political opportunist.
The problem with being a counter puncher is in the hestancy to commit, and a skilled opponent can take advantage of the hesitancy by constantly putting situations in front of the counter puncher. Think of the recent attempted bombing of the jet on approach to Detroit. True, the bomber was inept (thank goodness), but there are scores of these idiots with their PETN and syringes just waiting to slip by TSA again.
Bush/Cheney may have been carelessly proactive, but Obama is overly cautious and reactive. Too much (of the wrong) vision vs. not enough vision.
One wonders what the world would be like if Mr. Obama with his counter-punching techniques were to have been president during the Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) instead of Pres. Kennedy.
Scary.
posted by Stephen at 3:32 PM
3 Comments:
Thanks Dad. It's about time.
I don't think that is a fair assessment. I would bet that many a president has followed this pattern and sometimes you can be labeled a counter puncher while trying to evaluate all options. JFK may have done the right thing during the cuban missile crisis but what about the Bay of Pigs? Kennedy acted not on instinct but out of fear to not be labeled soft on communism. Is that the kind of president you want?
The Bay of Pigs Invasion occurred before the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was the weakness shown during the Bay of Pigs embarrassment which gave the Russians the encouragement to push the Kennedy administration to the brink. Fortunately, Kennedy acted differently.
Post a Comment
<< Home