Mr. Obama passes a test
Presidents are handed a lot of ticking time-bombs during their time in office, and Barack Obama has already juggled more than his share of ordinance.
His tenure began with the economy circling the drain, with even the most temperate analysts suggesting that we might be sliding into a second Great Depression.
He inherited not one but two wars. Our first African American president was elected by a nation that is deeply divided along social, political, racial, and geographic lines.
And then there’s illegal immigration, and deep, systemic budget deficits, and did I mention the fact that oil giant BP set off another high explosive in the Gulf of Mexico?
Americans have generally given Mr. Obama a passing but mediocre grade in his first three years in office.
About half of voters approve of his job performance, and a somewhat higher number say they like the man personally.
Meanwhile, the narrative in Washington these days is that his Democratic Party will be handed a walloping in November.
If Republicans do take control of the House or Senate, it will certainly be seen as a referendum on the President’s agenda.
The jittery mood surrounding the White House hit a new pitch this week when it was revealed that one of the Administration’s top military leaders, General Stanley McChrystal, had bad-mouthed Mr. Obama in a Rolling Stone interview.
As the scandal spread, pundits wondered out loud whether Mr. Obama would survive this particular explosion.
Bill O’Reilly, with Fox News, called the situation “chaos.”
“This is the low point for the Obama administration, right now, today, the low point. On almost every front things are going badly.”
Politico’s chief political columnist, Roger Simon, published an essay asking bluntly if Obama had “run out of luck.”
But within 24 hours, Mr. Obama had replaced Gen. McChrystal in a fashion which even many of his fiercest critics found impossible to condemn — installing Gen. David Petraeus in the post.
By all accounts, the President responded calmly to the crisis, gathering facts, and then acting confidently. The Washington Post called the performance “a prime example of strong and decisive leadership.”
Time magazine described his handling of l’affaire McChrystal as the “firm action of a hands-on executive.”
Obviously, Mr. Obama will face many more tests before his term is done. The BP oil spill remains painfully unresolved. The national economy is fragile bordering on anemic.
And negotiating this leadership crisis doesn’t resolve the deeper and thornier questions surrounding the future of the Afghan conflict.
Still, the President’s performance this week is noteworthy. Mr. Obama may not be the wunderkind that many of his more breathless supporters hoped for.
But it’s also clear from this performance that he is nothing like the bumbling and indecisive ideologue portrayed by his opponents.
What do you think? Did Mr. Obama raise his grade this week? Comments welcome below.
Was there ever really any question as to his replacing the General? No, there wasn’t. And Petraus is the obvious choice given his experience. So with that in mind I’ll give Obama a “C”. Barely adequate, just passing, mediocre.
All presidents go through a learning curve, usually performing better as their term progresses. (Which is why I have always voted for the incument, with the exception of GW Bush.)
It is impossible for Obama to live up to our huge expectations right out of the starting gate. However, he is a good learner, therefore I still have faith in hin.
No comment on Obama concerning the General. This happens every once in awhile and the generals always loose. My guess, General Stanley McChrystal was tired of pretending to be in charge and decided this was an easy way to retire.
I would like to comment on the so called wars we have fought since the end of WW II.
Certainly in Viet Nam and even more so in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have decided to fight with one or more hands tied behind our backs.
If we had fought WW II the way we are fighting and reporting in Afghanistan, we would have lost.
I am not a fan of war but if we go to war, we should go to war with the idea of killing until someone cries uncle or there is no one left to cry uncle. Worrying more about so called civilians than worrying about our troops is sick.
Pete –
The important thing to acknowledge here is that most military thinkers disagree with you.
It’s not a question of hippies in the White House tying one hand behind our Armed Forces’ back.
Most of the wars we’ve fought since WW2 have been insurgencies, not big army-vs-big army affairs.
There are no cases of armies winning this kind of guerrilla fight through superior firepower and “killing until someone cries uncle.”
In places like Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Nicaraugua, El Salvador, Iraq, and northern Ireland, “victory” was produced by a delicate chemistry of military power, negotiations, and (most difficult of all) patience.
Afghanistan is, arguably, an even more difficult insurgency fight than any of those.
That’s why Petraeus and McChyrstal (not Team Obama) pushed for these rules of engagement. They want to win.
And they don’t think they can win with the approach you describe.
Finally, you talk about “so-called” civilians. That’s a dodge.
If you’re going to push for a shoot-first-and-ask-questions later approach, you should accept and wrestle with the moral consequences.
–Brian, NCPR
President Obama did the correct thing in this case in my opinion for me it might be a turning point for him. Part of my frustration with him up to this point is that he often talks more like he is not the one in charge, but someone on the outside who is advocating against the entrenched powers. The guy needs to start taking ownership of his war, his oil spill and his economy, fair or not that is how Presidents are judged and he needs to step up to the plate and maybe this is the start of him doing that.
pete and brian i think you’re both right- but that in mind our leaders should have decided, based on the fact we can have they olde timey alll out war , that we never should have entered the game. instead we needed to place our national guard at our borders, airports, security risk areas, and rebuilt OUR crumbling infrastructure. roads, bridges, buildings are literally falling apart.
bush had this oppertunity for all the world to be sympathetic to our pain right after 9-11, instead he got all cowboy, and we got no co-operation from any of our so called allies.
if we can’t go into a country with both six shooters blazing then we should not have done that.
we should have made sure that we could not be attacked here first, then screwed with our “targets” economically, psychologically, and covertly, just like they are doing to us.
we could have saved money, lives, and “face”.
now we are half way between the boat and the shore and are panicing as to wich way to swim.
we blew it- plain and simple. there is no gracefull or even a correct way to get out of this mess.
bring all the boys home- let the instability crumble their countries, and start anew after the dust settles.
meanwhile we can clean our own house, repaint it, get a new roof and feel better when it starts to rain.
i give obama a “b” for effort and an “f” for foolish to even take the job in the first place.
if war is no longer an issue of troops marching, overpowering the enemy, shooting to kill indiscriminately, a true brutal slugg-fest, then we should’nt play at all- sending men to frustration and their deaths.
keep them home to protect from within and send the diplomats to play nicey-nice.
will we remember any of these lessons NEXT TIME?
hippies or hawks? how about plain old idiots – all of us
I agree with just say no.
Trying to sanitize war only leads to more and more of a mess. War must be brutal so that it is avoided until you are committed to its horrible results.
It is not a game. It is not politics as usual.
Question.
Is anyone of our so called enemies trying to win our hearts and minds?
i guess obama’s handling of the mcchrystal situation may improve his standing in the media, and that’s not nothing, but i don’t personally really care. surely my list is incomplete, but imo he’s made two really fundamental mistakes. the first is that he and his economic advisers misjudged the severity of the recession upon taking office, which led them to request a too-small stimulus bill, which led to a too-small stimulus bill being passed, which has led to continued economic distress. the second has been an insufficient break with the bush administration on matters related to the wars and terrorism. afghanistan is looking more and more hopeless. and obama’s embrace of the bush torture regime is appalling. why are there still black sites? why aren’t the torturers from the previous administration being prosecuted? obama is practically guaranteeing that our government will continue to torture again and again and again.
What grade would Obama have earned had he not accepted McC’s resignation?
Treating a crime as an act of war was pretty dumb to start with. Not having any idea of what might constitute victory ws dumber. Getting involved in the kind of military action, that, as Brian says, has never been won in any real sense…priceless.
We already won. We should give the keys to the drug/war lords or the parts of the Taliban we can deal with; turn out the lights and leave.
The idea of treating attacks by organized groups of foreigners who have declared war on us; on our soil killing thousands of people; as a crime is what got us into the situation in the first place. But I would agree that we don’t have a real clue about how to fight these groups effectively. However, given the success of Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Saudi Arabia in keeping these same terrorist groups on the run, brutality is certainly part of the mix.
typed too fast, too rantingly–
should read ..based on the fact we CAN’T have THE….
Brian Mann,
I’m not an Obama hater, but I think that as a journalist you should stop cheerleading the administration.
It’s great to see someone is cheerleading the administration. It would be nice to see the home team win once in awhile. Rah-Rah-Rah! Go-O-Go!
Brian,
fyi, it’s “ordnance.”
Unless you’re talking about parking violations.