Saving the Obama Revolution

The Obama revolution, and there was the hope of one, might still succeed. But only if Barack Obama follows the model of the incredibly successful Reagan revolution and heeds the political base that made his presidency possible.

Love him or not, Ronald Reagan had at least one outstanding political virtue--his respect for the concerns of those who placed their trust in him. And whenever the political vultures that feast on power tried to lead him astray, they were fired at the insistence of Reagan or his remarkably savvy wife, Nancy. Hopefully Obama and his no-less-impressive mate, Michelle, will do the same.

The first obligation of Obama as president is to be a peacemaker, since he as a candidate seized that mantle, successfully exploiting his early opposition to the Iraq war, which his closest rival, Hillary Clinton, had supported. Obama, as opposed to her flirtations with U.S. imperial arrogance, has stuck to a vision of a complex multipolar world in which the military option is to be chosen only as a last resort.

In that regard the president is making some progress, particularly with his decision to stop provoking the Russians with an unneeded and unworkable missile defense on their border. He also seems serious about getting the Israelis and Palestinians to peace negotiations, the one issue in the Mideast that must be solved if the region's religious fanatics are to be neutralized. And he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general's quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable.

The deal breaker in foreign policy so far has been his escalation of the folly of U.S. nation-building in Afghanistan that feeds rather than mitigates terrorist recruitment. That is the unmistakable, if unintended, conclusion of the 66-page declassified report of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal that became public this week. It states: " ... many indicators suggest the overall situation is deteriorating. We face not only a resilient and growing insurgency; there is also a crisis of confidence among Afghans--in both their government and the international community--that undermines our credibility and emboldens the insurgents."

The report makes clear that the insurgents are deeply divided into three camps (one of which previously fought against the Taliban) and are basically homegrown, and provides no evidence that defeating them has anything to do with making us safer from attack by al-Qaida terrorists. Lest we forget, the 9/11 hijackers found it easier to operate from Germany, San Diego and Florida rather than forlorn Afghanistan.

The foreign influence behind the insurgency comes primarily from one of the countries we are allied with; as the report notes, "Afghanistan's insurgency is clearly supported from Pakistan." And the document goes on to say that the historical India-Pakistan rivalry has now been transferred to Afghanistan, where "the current Afghan government is perceived by Islamabad to be pro-Indian." Great, another Kashmir battlefield in the making.

Obama was right during his appearances Sunday on the TV political talk shows to put the emphasis on going after what remains of Osama bin Laden's forces in Pakistan and elsewhere rather than simply throwing more troops into the Afghanistan war. He raised the all-important question of what U.S. troops in Afghanistan are expected to do.

The McChrystal report agrees that the key is the question of mission rather than simply increasing troop numbers: "Success is achievable, but it will not be attained simply by trying harder or 'doubling down' on the previous strategy. Additional resources are required, but focusing on force or resource requirements misses the point entirely. The key take away from this assessment is the urgent need for a significant change to our strategy and the way we think and operate."

There is a sobering honesty to McChrystal's report that those who want to "win" in Afghanistan must take into account. The mission the general outlines is one of nation-building with a vengeance by U.S. forces that must forsake the safety of their bases, learn the local languages and enter into the administration of local life without being able to count on the support of the hopelessly corrupt and, after the rigged election, illegitimate Afghan government. "Afghans are frustrated and weary after eight years without evidence of the progress they anticipated," the report says.

It's the old winning-hearts-and-minds strategy that has never worked--as Richard Holbrooke, Obama's point man in the region, should know from his failed efforts to win hearts and minds during the war in Vietnam, where he specialized in "rural pacification." That was a Democrat's war, and the base of the party, which knows better than to repeat that disastrous error, should tell the president so.

 

 

Comments

[WorkingClass]

The leader of the Obama revolution was candidate Obama. Now that Obama is no longer a candidate there is no Obama revolution. It's over.

[ThePeacemakers]

I voted for O because he promised transparency and indeed his election has brought about transparency.

More and more people beginning to see right thru the Dem/Repub game.

And it's brought about a national conversation on race (that needs to be extended INTERNATIONALLY and won't THAT be fun, especially with the majority/minority numbers reversed!), even though he "can't participate" in it fully.

[tbone99]

Obama is all about pleasing Reaganites.

[PoliticalAmazon]

Robert Scheer! There he is! He was my favorite LATImes editor, and then they stopped running his editorals to replace it with the drivel of Jonah Goldberg.

I agree that Obama is in danger of losing his core support group. IMO, it's because he has abandoned or flipped on his campaign promises, and is now doing much of what he criticized Bush Jr for doing.

If he spent more time actually working to push his campaign-promised agenda (for which he has our gold-plated voter mandate) in Congress and less time on family trips and making public-relations appearances in an attempt to convince us that we actually LIKE what he's done and what he plans, he would probably win back much of his core supporter group.

But if he continues to abandon important issues like HCR for months, allowing the GOP and blue dogs to set HCR public policy, for which we elected Obama to do, he won't get us back and, in fact, will probably lose more supporters.

[fauxmccoy]

have you looked at today's news? things seem to be progressing quite well i would argue in terms of health care, revisiting the patriot act, rethinking afghanistan mission. . . truly, what more do you desire in 10 months of service.

as for family trips (a red herring issue, for sure) other than the normal presidential vacation time in august what are you griping about? his family did accompany him on some foreign head of state travel, which is usual and customary.

what is it that you contend could be done differently, right now?

[jamaicalover]

fauxmccoy,

I agree with you completely.

It's time for people to turn off the talking heads and visit the White House website for factual information regarding the President's agenda, accomplishments thus far and future tasks. I visit the website at least once a week and spend no less than an hour reading material on what's really going on.

[jamaicalover]

Abandoned or flipped? Seems to me the Republican side of congress is trying to block everything the President wants to do.

Please visit www.whitehouse.gov for a complete list of everything the President is working on and/or completed.

I just kinda feel like the only person(s) abandoning the ship are some of President Obama's supporters because they're impatient.

[JaneK13]

Is Obama in charge? It's coming up on a year since we hired him to lead the nation and, so far, we've seen little evidence of his leadership. He sure does know how to read the teleprompter, tho, as Hillary told us during the campaign. Problem is, we thought that the hope & change presidents would give us more than speeches.

[Estreet1964]

Wow, how insightful. Obama reads a teleprompter. Who knew?

And what president in the last 40 years hasn't?

[alibeamish]

Obama is just not into you.
Get over it.

[mjc]

Whatever the Obama Revolution was, and I don't believe for a minute there really was one, the goals of that force are not readily apparent. Obama is now in the throes of waffling to and fro on whether to use more force, more troops in any case, or once again re-evaluate our position in Afghanistan. He fired one general, well-respected and replaced him with another who is, like Petraeus, staking his perceptions, his PR personality, on some cock-and-bull stuff that sounds a great deal like the stuff that came out of Iraq some months ago. Nation building, as you note, isn't going to work in Afghanistan anymore than it is working in Iraq. Anyone who thinks we had success with nation building in Iraq should re-examine what is happening there, not so notably as in Afghanistan, but nevertheless just as sadly. In Afghanistan our policy has now deteriorated into promoting the "mission creep" as good policy. More of everything, but less of a nation coming as a result.

[fauxmccoy]

it looks a lot less like waffling than serious thought and contemplation on mission, strategy (most notably exit strategy). i would much rather have a president who can readily admit an error and correct it than what we have seen in the past.

[BlueTide]

Reagan was also able to pass his major programs with a Democratic controlled House. He also did not have a fillibuster proof senate, and initial opinion polls showed that his policies were not popular. Yet, he made no apologies and fought for what he believed in. Yes, he did compromise, but he was a tough bargainer. The problem with modern day liberal politicians is their mistaken belief that they must cater to the center to maximize their popularity. They also believe in pleasing their opponents by being the first to give in. When they do that, they lose credibility with the public. Reagan had the right political model in that the public likes a winner.

[ThePeacemakers]

BlueTide,
There is no center. So they don't have any mistaken belief, they just need the politcal cover a mythical third argument to justify taking the corporate money and running when they betray you. They use it on both sides.

Majority of Americans: hated the bailouts of the financial industry, ready to leave Iraq and more and more Afghan, want campaign finance reform, want a public option or non-profit option for health insurance.

The centrists might very well be the MSM. Serving the so-called right when it comes to economic and foreign policy issues and serving the so-called left when it comes to social issues.
Watch closely: whenever there is an issue most Americans are coming to agreement on, the MSM presents the mythical 3rd argument to show why Democracy can't or won't be served.

The new divide and conquer strategy: now we're supposed to be too scared of Repubs to vote for them. Four to eight years from now there will be attempts to sell you the opposite argument. Four to eight years after that, it gets reversed again. Divide and Conquer...don't let any political party get too big for their britches..­.otherwise the lobbyists can't control them.

[jamaicalover]

I would really like to investigate this. Can you give me a website where you obtained this information?

Thanks

[WorldofTomorrow420]

"And he will deserve credit if he backs his attorney general's quest to hold the enablers of a U.S. government torture policy accountable. "

- OK, number 1, Eric Holder has indicated that he only wants to investigate (scapegoat) the small fry, and number 2, Obama has already weighed in with yet another right-wing-friendly opinion that he just wants to "look forward, not backward." Pathetic. And to think I voted for this guy........

[cheforacle]

I do not think Holder ever said he only wanted to go after the small fry. And Obama's statement that he wants to look forward not back is smart politically particularly since he is letting his AG make the prosecutoria decisions not himself as it should be. He cannot afford to get his fingerprints on any investigations because he will need at least one Republican to get health care and global warming legislation through- both of which are critical to our country and major reasons he was elected.

[stageoffools]

Yes - hold President Obama accountable. I think it is a tish premature to accuse President Obama of not living up to the candidate you voted for. There were times during the campaign when I was so frustrated with him - but he always came through. He is not a knee-jerk politician and that IS a good thing. However, the Democrats in congress must be held MORE accountable and deserve to be the target of my frustration. The so called Conservative Blue Dog Democrats should be ashamed of themselves. They are the weak link in the majority the Dems hold. Make sure your disappointment and anger is directed to the real source of the problem. President Obama is not letting down the base - the Blue Dog Democrats are not listening to the people they represent - do the research and call and write to your representatives and demand they support a public option.

[DCBarrister]

It's far from premature. I saw through the Obama myth in Dec 2007, back when Obama was willing to be seen in public with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Blago.

I wanted a President who didn't need excuses and would have gotten universal healthcare signed into law by now.

America needed Hillary Clinton as President.

[hyjanks]

It appears as though the Obama I worked and voted for is no longer there. I keep hoping that this incredibly intelligent and perceptive president has four aces up his sleeve that he will eventually throw on the table, but it looks like he's gambling with a pair of deuces while the Dixiepubs have dreams of being dealt a royal flush.
In his effort to please everyone he placates no one; instead of kicking the a$$es of Red Staters and Blue Dogs, he seems content to try and find a way to pass important legislation that the majority of voters want by playing nice with these guys.
It ain't gonna' work. The vicious monstrosity that has become the Republican Party is now primed to put everything they have into destroying Obama and everything he stood for (notice I didn't say, stand for).
I want to see some of that Chicago toughness he keeps referring to in order to combat the idiocy of Republicanism, but so far all I've seen is Kumbaya.

[BamBam2012]

I hear ya, hyjanks.

Where is the fearless, fiery man of vision we worked so hard to put in the White House?

I'm sick of the rosie rhetoric & pretty platitudes. Mr. Obama needs to deliver on his campaign platform. His turn-the-o­ther-cheek schtick ain't working...as if we ever thought it would! I was trick'd into believing that we finally found someone that couldn't be gamed by the Dark Side...now everyday that goes by brings a new disappointment. Dealing with so many bitter let downs by someone I had so much faith in has left me with a deep feeling of betrayal.

By the end of the Bush years, my cynicism was almost total--my trust in our form of goverment was all but destroyed--then Obama came on the scene, and I began to allow myself to hope again.

In Barack Obama I allowed myself to believe again...now his betrayal of me hurts all the more. My cynicism is quickly becoming absolute & permanent. He's fallen short on every single pledge/pro­mise/chang­e of direction he made to us.

To say that I'm thoroughly disgusted with Barack Obama would be an understatement.

[cheforacle]

He did promise to order withdrawal of troops from Iraq - done. Close Gitmo in a yr - done. Send more troops to Afghanistan -done. Seek HCR - is doing. Get equal pay for women - done. SCHIP expansion - done. Reverse no fed'l funding to family planning groups that counsel women on abortions - done. Money for teachers and schools -done. Incentives and money for green technology companies - Done.

For you to expect all of his pledges fulfilled in just 8 months particularly when he has to address the worst economy in 60 years just reaffirms my cynicism about many Americans who grossly fail to understand the difficulties the changes he ran on are to effectuate. Every speech he gave he talked of how difficult change would be. I guess you missed that part.

[den1953]

It took a President 8 years to totally screw up a country to almost the brink of disaster it took one President 9 months to get us back from financial collapse, he has passed a bill along with congress to help kids with health care,he has more regulation in the banking industry which almost ruined the whole world. He has brought civility back to world countries and is willing to listen to there leaders. There is plenty of more to do but that being said i think we owe the President a benefit of the doubt,the Republicans want him to fail because they can't accept the fact they are no longer in power.

[JaneK13]

It's Pres Obama's watch, now. Tiome to stop blaming his predecessor.

[DasBoot]

"credibility," "confidence," note the old Cold War rhetoric in the report. Lofty words that cover up a complete lack of sense of any real goals. But retreat is tough once you have committed. It's another Vietnam-like situation because there aren't any good options. But it's never a good idea to go to war because one is boxed in.

[henryberry]

As many have noted, Obama's campaign was a souffle of grand ideas, curiosity of the media, and electioneering activism of young people. It's apotheosis was the acceptance of the Democratic nomination in a festooned football field. Of course, Obama is not the first American politician to ride into office on a souffle. He may, however, be the first one to try to govern on one.

I'm getting hungry. I just got up. Time for breakfast. I think I'll make myself a souffle.

[PaxEterna]

Reagan, whom I did not vote for, was not afraid to stand tall in his boots, declare himself and what he stood for clearly, and take the nation in the direction he believed it should go without apology, obfuscation, back-peddaling etc.

Obama has yet to become the leader he promised to be, or sadly, that we need.

If his handling of health care is any example of what is to come, I fear for this nation.

Insurance reform? Come on. Where is candidate Obama?

Answer: MIA.

He has already lost so much credibility with the majority of people who voted for him.