Obvious Inexperienced Amateurism

From U.S. News and World Report by Mort Zuckerman:

"The reviews of Obama's performance have been disappointing. He has seemed uncomfortable in the role of leading other nations, and often seems to suggest there is nothing special about America's role in the world. The global community was puzzled over the pictures of Obama bowing to some of the world's leaders and surprised by his gratuitous criticisms of and apologies for America's foreign policy under the previous administration of George W. Bush. One Middle East authority, Fouad Ajami, pointed out that Obama seems unaware that it is bad form and even a great moral lapse to speak ill of one's own tribe while in the lands of others."

This was evident early in his Presidency. As to the last bold part, I wrote a while ago it's a simple axiom of etiquette to follow. Coaches in sports rarely speak ill of a predecessor and successor. It's plain bad form and suggests arrogance to do so.

"Even in Britain, for decades our closest ally, the talk in the press—supported by polls—is about the end of the "special relationship" with America. French President Nicolas Sarkozy openly criticized Obama for months, including a direct attack on his policies at the United Nations. Sarkozy cited the need to recognize the real world, not the virtual world, a clear reference to Obama's speech on nuclear weapons..." 

"Vladimir Putin of Russia has publicly scorned a number of Obama's visions. Relations with the Chinese leadership got off to a bad start with the president's poorly-organized visit to China, where his hosts treated him disdainfully and prevented him from speaking to a national television audience of the Chinese people. The Chinese behavior was unprecedented when compared to visits by other U.S. presidents."

In his effort to "fix" things he only confused them further.

"Obama clearly wishes to do good and means well. But he is one of those people who believe that the world was born with the word and exists by means of persuasion, such that there is no person or country that you cannot, by means of logical and moral argument, bring around to your side. He speaks as a teacher, as someone imparting values and generalities appropriate for a Sunday morning sermon, not as a tough-minded leader. He urges that things "must be done" and "should be done" and that "it is time" to do them. As the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, Les Gelb, put it, there is "the impression that Obama might confuse speeches with policy." Another journalist put it differently when he described Obama as an "NPR [National Public Radio] president who gives wonderful speeches."

Again. Evident very early on in his Presidency. Way too preachy. "The time is now!" Pause. "Oh, you want me to lead? You want me to do what?"

"Les Gelb wrote of Obama, "He is so self-confident that he believes he can make decisions on the most complicated of issues after only hours of discussion." Strategic decisions go well beyond being smart, which Obama certainly is. They must be based on experience that discerns what works, what doesn't—and why. This requires experienced staffing, which Obama and his top appointees simply do not seem to have. Or as one Middle East commentator put it, "There are always two chess games going on. One is on the top of the table, the other is below the table. The latter is the one that counts, but the Americans don't know how to play that game."

Aw man, the last part is something that I've been talking about for years. Americans don't seem - or at least willing to be - furba as we say in Italian when it comes to Mid-East politics. Not sure what the direct translation is but crafty, resourceful, cunning and clever all in one. Can someone please tell the President it's "Tal-eh-ban" and not "Ta-lee-ban?"

American liberals on this front are the worst offenders. They're completely clueless as to how the Arab/Mid-East mind works. As they smile, they're frowning, and even if you figure that out it shifts to sterness. It's a moving target. A deal in the Western mindset - specifically in North America - is not interpreted the same in the Mid-East.

"Recent U.S. attempts to introduce more meaningful sanctions against Iran produced a U.N. resolution that is way less than the "crippling" sanctions the administration promised. The United States even failed to achieve the political benefit of a unanimous Security Council vote. Turkey, the Muslim anchor of NATO for almost 60 years, and Brazil, our largest ally in Latin America, voted against our resolution. Could it be that these long-standing U.S. allies, who gave cover to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions, have decided that there is no cost in lining up with America's most serious enemies and no gain in lining up with this administration?



The end result is that a critical mass of influential people in world affairs who once held high hopes for the president have begun to wonder whether they misjudged the man. They are no longer dazzled by his rock star personality and there is a sense that there is something amateurish and even incompetent about how Obama is managing U.S. power. For example, Obama has asserted that America is not at war with the Muslim world. The problem is that parts of the Muslim world are at war with America and the West. Obama feels, fairly enough, that America must be contrite in its dealings with the Muslim world. But he has failed to address the religious intolerance, failing economies, tribalism, and gender apartheid that together contribute to jihadist extremism."

 He's less like The Fonz and more like Potsie.

This thing he "inherited a mess" is a ridiculous cop out. A strawman. No one forced him to take this job. Real leaders don't subscribe to such meek assertions.

"The underlying issue is that the Arab world has different estimates on how to deal with an aggressive, expansionist Iran. The Arabs believe you do not deal with Iran with the open hand of a handshake but with the clenched fist of power..."

Kind of ironic considering they don't like the heavy handidness of American power. But it is true.

Arab leaders fear an Iran proceeding full steam with its nuclear weapons program on top of its programs to develop intermediate-range ballistic missiles. All the while centrifuges keep spinning in Iran, and Arab leaders ask whether Iran will be emboldened by what they interpret as American weakness and faltering willpower. They did not see Obama or his administration as understanding the region, where naiveté is interpreted as a weakness of character, as amateurism, and as proof of the absence of the tough stuff of which leaders are made. (That's why many Arab leaders were appalled at the decision to have a civilian trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York



.After 9/11, many of them had engaged in secret counterterrorism activities under the umbrella of an American promise that these activities would never be made public; now they feared that this would be the exact consequence of an open trial.)

America right now appears to be unreliable to traditional friends, compliant to rivals, and weak to enemies. One renowned Asian leader stated recently at a private dinner in the United States, "We in Asia are convinced that Obama is not strong enough to confront his opponents, but we fear that he is not strong enough to support his friends."

Yeah, moving KSM to New York was pretty shocking if not remarkably misguided and short sighted. They've sinced back tracked. Which begs the question: What the heck were they thinking?

"The United States for 60 years has met its responsibilities as the leader and the defender of the democracies of the free world."

I always thought America was a republic. A republic is meant to secure private freedoms; something the Founding Fathers understood and wanted to enhance and preserve. A democracy, as John Stuart Mill wrote, falls prey to tyranny of the majority which itself leads to "one size fits all" egalitarian policies that erode personal liberties.

And didn't Zuckerman support Obama? Shouldn't this type of homework have been done before he was elected? Reminds of when the steroids story broke in baseball. It took a former ball player of dubious credibility to expose the truth. When it came out, only then did the press act shock and with indignation. What the heck were they doing prior to? Were they doing their jobs or were they busy cozying up trying to get on an athlete's good side to share text messages? Sports and political journalists suffer from the same disease: They want to be popular. To be popular they have to play a certain game. They play ball they get access and invitations to an exclusive world. The opportunity cost is they become reluctant to reporting ugly truths. How can they talk bad about someone who gave them free tickets to a $1000 a plate gala? Not suggesting this is the case with the author here, but offering a wider, generalized observation.