Timidity Vs. Audacity? The Tests Are Yet to Come

A year ago today I was sitting on a cold floor of a dark elementary school at 5am determined to be the first in my precinct to vote for Barack Obama. I could not sleep the night even though as a veteran of other election campaign nights I could feel the anticipated outcome coursing through my veins -- one of those few and far between great election highs. How great it felt -- no artificial stimulation necessary!

The world is a far better place because Obama is president. In most of the world (but in too many vital places not necessarily so where it may matter, such as Russia and Israel) Obama has shepherded a restoration of trust and confidence in the ideals that rekindle America's role as a beacon of hope. The President has positioned himself as a first among equals on the world stage -- and has done so with aplomb, steady bearing and an incredible grasp of national security minutiae. For those who questioned this young president's national security experience he has been consistently sure-footed on the world stage and a credit to his countrymen.

And yes, just ask them. Obama and his talented national security team are globally "engaged." Engaged with Russia, engaged with Europe, engaged with Latin America, engaged with Iran, and today, even engaged in Myanmar. Engagement is great. I am all for it. But "engagement" is a means to an end, and not a national security strategy, but a tactic -- an important one given what was inherited from the un-engaging (please read pejorative into my use of this word) Bush Administration.

But to date, other than the impending monumental Afghan troop decision, there's not many "buck stops here" tests of presidential leadership on which history books are written.

Much of the initial global euphoria has given way to the hard reality of inherited messes, and the Oval Office is becoming a lonely place for our global hero, who confronts life and death choices that will shape his presidency and the nation's future.

Afghanistan is a "buck stops here" decision. So, too, is what to do about Iran's "give and take back" uranium export offer. What will Obama do if the Iranians kick more sand in his face on fulfilling its IAEA obligations? Is conflict avoidable and, if so, at what cost to our security? And what can be done to move the Israeli-Palestinian equation off its dead center? Time's a-wastin' and in a year of best intended efforts we're not much closer to any acceptable Palestinian state goal line. Extremism and terrorism remain ever constant threats to our homeland. And nothing gives me more pause than the future stability of Pakistan. Like the scene out of "Naked Gun", one can't help fearing the world's dictators and terrorists are gathered around some mountain hideaway contriving up a crisis to surely test presidential mettle.

These are the tests that may likely make a 3am wakeup call a certainty in the months ahead.

So far there has been a tendency to vocalize intent and engage in convenient can-kicking, rather than actionable resolve. That's not timidity....that's testing the state of the ship's rudder. Well, I for one am glad that the Nobel Peace Prize will sit on its rightful pedestal in the White House as a tangible reminder of what constitutes unfinished business.

But these are damn difficult problems and they would have been easier to contend with had Bush and Co. not fallen flat on their proverbial derrieres while on the job. And Cheney's neocons have the audacity to accuse Obama of making the country less safe...what temerity!

I know this President is determined to make his mark internationally -- and the canvas is before him. Transforming eloquent word into sustainable deed will be the true test of his audaciousness.

So, one year after the election, what do you think Candidate Obama would think of President Obama? Tweet your response (our Twitter hashtag is #OneYearLater), or post it in the comments section.

 

Comments

[Nhad53]

“I know this President is determined to make his mark internationally -- and the canvas is before him. Transforming eloquent word into sustainable deed will be the true test of his audaciousness.”

The international mark has been done. It appears that he went from audaciousness to timidity. How can you use the same tools and ideas and expect different results. He said it himself last year. I appears sadly that he is going to be a one term president. I rather have someone else that I can be mad and angry at and not having to justify my disappointment.

[buttonz]

This is nonsense. Name one thing good Obama has done in the global arena?? Let's count:

-Hondurus was handled embarrassingly (also admitted by the state department) by his aggressive stance with all or nothing. The only shred of dignity that was saved was issuing a compromise after his bold stance went sour. Most Hondurans no longer like the guy.

-Russia: Immediately after removing the missile defense in Eastern Europe, Russia engaged in a simulated military exercise of nuking Poland. The fact that the country's name of Poland was mentioned in the exercise is extremely audacious as when nations with nuclear weapons engage in simulations always use names of fictional countries. Furthermore, Russia has already refused to help the US deal with Iran.

-Obama's uncompromising stance on Israel and trying them to force them to immediately halt settlements has resulted in the Israel government retaliating and ignoring the US altogether. Now we have NO influence. What Obama didn't understand that if the Israeli govt made such a bold move that the officials would be voted out of office in which he would have to deal with far less compromising officials. This is the opposite of diplomacy.

-His constant dealings with Iran and other authoritarian governments (and ignoring human rights) has led many people wanting freedom in Myanmar and Iran to disdain the US.

-Never mind how he has betrayed NATO in Afghanistan by saying one thing and doing another and threatening a trade war.

[dim]

Why should Russia help? We've been screwing them pretty consistently by arming Georgia prior to their invasion of Ossetia, putting military installations right on their borders, encroaching on their oil interests in the Caspian, accusing them of economic terrorism when they charge fair market prices for natural gas, etc.

As far as Israel is concerned, they have no business settling the occupied territories, unless they formally annex them as spoils of war, which they are loath to do because of electoral demographics and other factors. We overthrew British rule for far less.

Dealing with governments, authoritarian or not, is the president's business. Nixon went to China, Carter kissed Brezhnev on the lips, Rumsfeld shook hands with Hussein, Bush walked holding hands with Saudi royals, so?

[ziploked]

Great article, and I hope people appreciate what you've written. I tire of all the nay-sayers who think Obama was supposed to walk into the White House with a magic wand, and Presto--the economy is instantly fixed, all wars end, and the Republican Party becomes the party of "Yes."

So many point fingers and complain, but how many honestly think they could do a better job in arguably the most difficult job on the planet.

Thank you for setting an example of patient, and support for our President.

[buttonz]

He isn't remotely patient.

He has tried to strong arm multiple countries trying to obtain impetuous results, and inthe process making things worse. Look what he did to Hondurus and Israel, his failure to compromise and do proper research on the situations (yet he decides to take his time on Afghanistan...) has lead to massive misunderstandings and in both situations he cost the US valuable influence.

[buttonz]

And how does ignoring conflict end wars? Just because we choose not to fight them doesn't mean they aren't occurring. Head and sand policy has never worked before. Just ask Chamberlain.

[dim]

So the Soviets did the opposite of Chamberlain. They invaded, conquered and occupied Afghanistan. How'd that turn out?

[siegfried]

I suppose that your disdainful mention of Chamberlain refers to 1938 Munich agreement which postponed WWII by a year. In that year England built all of the Spifires and Hurricanes with which they won the Battle of Britain.