The success of a President is measured not only by how well he handles the agenda he sets for his term in office, but by how he responds to the unexpected. This week President Obama was tested by challenges of each type. There are new questions being raised about the war in Afghanistan (America's longest war) and growing concern about the ever-expanding oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (America's most devastating environmental disaster). While the first of these is being called "Obama's Vietnam," the other is sometimes referred to as "Obama's Katrina."
It is fair to say that Afghanistan is a disaster that this President inherited from his predecessor, but it also a fact that Obama embraced this war early in his campaign for the presidency. At pains to establish his national security credentials and to make clear that he would be a responsible Commander in Chief, then candidate Obama contrasted his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he termed the "wrong war", to the "right war" in Afghanistan which he declared he must fight and win.
In making his case, Obama correctly observed that the Bush Administration, though failing to meet its objectives in Afghanistan, had mistakenly abandoned the task of eliminating the threat of al Qaeda shifting resources and attention to Iraq. As a result they allowed al Qaeda to metastasize into a regional menace and the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan.
As President, Obama worked with his military leadership to develop a plan to dramatically increase troops and resources in Afghanistan. Facing stiff opposition from Democrats in Congress, he was forced to include in his plan a somewhat vaguely worded timetable leading to a withdrawal of U.S. forces - beginning in July of 2011.
On paper the plan seemed clear, but whether it would lead to victory or even progress was not so clear. As we approach the plan's first big test - a major intervention in Kandahar - serious questions are being asked. The pre-Kandahar effort to "liberate" tiny neighboring Marjah, though initially touted as a success, is now seen to be unraveling, with the Taliban resurgent in that area. General Stanley McChrystal acknowledged as much last month when he referred to Marjah as a "bleeding ulcer". All of this does not bode well for efforts in significantly larger Kandahar.
The problems plaguing Afghanistan are many, with some pre-dating even the neglectful and reckless policies pursued during the Bush era: a wily leadership of questionable legitimacy, fueled by corruption, war-lordism, and drugs; deep resentment of outsiders; and fierce competition between neighboring powers seeking to project or protect their interests in Afghanistan.
All of this has been compounded by the spreading of the conflict into Pakistan and the unpopularity of the U.S. in that country owing both to its broader regional policies and to the expanded use of sometimes inaccurate drone missile attacks against suspected al Qaeda and Taliban targets.
With U.S. casualties growing (soon more Americans will have been killed in Afghanistan during the Obama presidency than in Bush's time in office) and destined to increase even more as the conflict intensifies, domestic opposition both in Congress and the broader public is mounting. The disaster was Bush's, but this war is now President Obama's.
This week, General Petraeus faced tough questions about the war's progress and whether or not the Administration was sticking to its July "deadline". While it is becoming increasingly clear that this war will not soon be "won" (or even that it can be won), the President's dilemma is the same as it was a year ago, with bad choices all around.
Obama had a somewhat better week in dealing with the unexpected disaster in the Gulf. After facing weeks of criticism for failing to act, much of it partisan and unfair, the Administration has begun to make its case and demonstrate leadership. The President spent the first two days of the week in the Gulf region speaking with officials and individuals whose livelihoods are being impacted by the spill. He returned to Washington to deliver his first address to the nation from the Oval Office. While the speech was not particularly compelling, it did provide the President the opportunity to outline his Administration's response to date - the resources they have committed and the actions they have taken. The President established the seriousness with which he views this challenge and issued a "call to war" - making clear his resolve to spare no effort until the spill is stopped and the Gulf region is restored.
The next day, the President met with executives from BP, the company responsible for the leak, and was able to deliver on the first of his commitments. BP officials issued an apology for the damage done, announced that they would place $20 billion in an escrow account to pay to claimants for damages incurred, and would forego paying dividends to shareholders. To understand the magnitude of this accomplishment one need only recall that in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, while claims against Exxon totaled $7.1 billion, the company contested these and in the end paid out a mere $383 million (while reporting almost $9 billion in profits in '89 and '90).
If this leak can be stopped, if the damage can be contained, and if efforts to restore the Gulf coast can bear fruit (all big "ifs"), the President's efforts can, despite early criticism, be judged successful. Afghanistan is a different and more difficult story with no clear way forward.
Warner Chabot: Big Oil's Hazardous Path to Repeal California's Clean Energy Law
The tragic Gulf oil spill is now 'spilling over" into California's politics. It now threatens to undermine an oil industry funded proposition on the November ballot to kill California's landmark clean energy and air pollution law.
Rep. Jay Inslee: Simple Answer to "Who Should Pay?"
Words are cheap - clean up is expensive. So if Republican Minority Leader John Boehner really believes, as he said last week, that BP should pay for the Gulf oil spill recover, he needs to back up his words with action now.
Derrick Crowe: General Petraeus Starts Moving the Goalposts on Afghanistan Withdrawal
Petraeus says he supports the president's policy. His comments this week, though, serve only to validate the critics of the withdrawal portion of the president's policy. He's not a supporter of this policy. He's a concern troll.
These people want to kill each other. Get out of their way.
I am truly sorry for the children who will not know peace , who will be brutalized , who will never be able to read or write - especially if they are girls. But we cannot stop this. Only they can. We cannot want it more than they do. A large portion will fight forever over something that happened in the thirteenth century. Cruel religious leaders will impose their will on their people. Warlords will protect their and their families "right" to any wealth that might be had.
The greatest military the world has ever known can flatten the entire region , but cannot kill small groups that are protected by the local populace.
I would be all for pulling every American out of the region with the message , we can help - but only if you want it and only if you ask , only if you have a plebiscite , and ONLY under American control , with American rule of law , and only if you accept complete equality of the sexes and subservience of religion to the law of man.
I admire him for that, I voted for him to do that, since G W Bush had already started that war and then failed to give the soldiers he sent there any meaningful support what-so-ever.
I also admire the President for having the foresight to set a clear time line for troop withdraw soon after he took office.
It was up to the Afghans and Karzai to decide to change their country with our help, or not.
It appears they have made their decision, which makes it clear there is nothing we can do to help them keep their country out of the hands of the Tailban.
A real mess for any executive to inherit.
The gulf coast is Obama's mess. When coupled with "lackadaisical" approach to financial reform, I'm afraid it's revealing a different man than the one I thought I was voting for
Obama and his agents have now gutted banking/finance reform, and they can be predicted to do the same with energy & environmental legislation.
Who in their right mind can continue watching the horror?
That's a big mischaracterization - the timetable was Obama's strategy, and he fought rather strongly with McChrystal, Gates, and Petraeus to get it in. From what I understand, it was the biggest confrontation between civilian and military leadership since Truman during Korea.
I present my respect to the human love for liberty. Liberty is dignity. No human should take it from another human. All men on Enez Sun (ile de sein), between the age of 14 and 50, joined one day general De Gaulle to refuse occupation, Britain welcomed them. The Afghani are as proud as the people of Enez Sun, they refused Russian occupation and now the NATO one. There must be a way to fight Al-Qaeda without humiliating Afghans. The Koran praises the son of Adam who refused to kill his brother even in self defense! How can the innocents killers (Al Qaeda) pretend that they are serving Islam? In fact, the best way to fight Al-Qaeda is through Islamic – Western rapprochement based on common values. Yes common values. I presented one day to President Chiraque a list of common values Islamo-French. I heard later that it was well received. Can the voice of human respect be heard?
As much as the oil spill is an environmental and regulatory disaster, and rest assured it is a HUGE one, the BP spill is also a clear economic issue. First off profit margins dictate a lot in American society but they should never dictate safety. Second the state of America's oil addiction is such that such risky deep sea drilling is even necessary and that is a scary thought. So powerful is our demand that we must push the limits of technology just to satisfy it? Tell me that doesn't sound a bit like a drug addict pursuing risky activities just to make enough money for their next high. Money makes the world go round people, fix the money and the other problems may just fix themselves.
President Obama made it clear from the outset that there is a time limit on the present action in Afghanistan. If the military cannot deliver within that limit, the President then has the option of pulling out most of the combat forces and reverting to what has been called the "Biden Plan" which essentially is an air and special ops war along the Afghanistan border with Pakistan designed to prevent Afghanistan from becoming a training ground, staging area and rallying point for Al-Qaeda and others bent on harming our homeland.
This is a President who wisely has NOT put all of his eggs in one basket vis a vis Afghanistan.
It is up to the White House to remind the electorate from time to time of the options especially in the face of a media that simply is not up to dealing with the multi-faceted effort worldwide to fight terrorism and prevent harm to our homeland.
The corporations are grinding us down. Obama, unfortunately, is a corporatist. We will have austerity programs thrust upon our ailing society, even as the war will escalate, not draw down, as promised.
We all know how Bush botched Afghanistan and allowed the Taliban to grow stronger, but this crisis in the Gulf, is also Cheney's fault for stacking his cronies in postitions that would help his secret energy plans and those of his oil buddies and his crooks. Those same Bush/Cheney cronies are still there and Salazar had not the time to clean his dept, out when this mess started.
I would bet before this is all over, you will see Cheney's Halliburton and Cheney's finger tips all over this BP oil rig, and not reviewing the safety rules and valves and poor concrete Halliburton used to cut corners. And.....his cronies took bribes and favors for letting BP bet by with unsafe conditions.
This Obama's Katrina is just BS, dreamed up by the MSM... or whispered in their ears. by someone like Rove or Luntz or a Republican.