More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
William S. Lerach

William S. Lerach

Posted: December 4, 2009 02:27 PM

Gentlemen, Failure Is an Option

What's Your Reaction:

How sad it was to watch young President Obama retreat -- Bush-style -- to a protected location and military audience to deliver the speech which likely marks the end of any hope for a successful Presidency. Some 30 years ago, Jimmy Carter's Presidency died in the Middle East desert when his hostage recovery mission blew up. But at least Carter's failed effort was a noble one. Obama has likely lost hope of success in pursuit of a war started by his political enemies and that has failed miserably to date.

By escalating the war to support a corrupt government in a land that has expelled every other invading power, he assures not only that its inevitable failure will be all the more spectacular -- but also that it will be wholly his -- as they say, he now "owns it." How can it be? This young, handsome and intelligent president escalating a war that his core supporters hate, independent voters increasingly disapprove of and his hateful right-wing enemies will never give him any credit for fighting in any event.

We on the left need to get grounded about this. All the excitement about the election of this "transformative" Harvard-educated, African-American with a beautiful wife and family made for great press and post-election bliss. But none of these superficialities guarantee success. And, to be objective, Obama had never actually achieved anything other than waltzing into a Senate seat and winning a Presidential election that took place in the middle of the worst financial crisis and stock market crash in decades -- beating an opponent who had picked a wing nut as his running mate. How hard was all that actually?

Surrounding himself with a bunch of pro-Wall Street advisors and bailing out the banks where their friends work was certainly no great achievement. His economic policies have produced little success in cutting unemployment. He has been hapless in trying to prevent the bankers from continuing to line their own pockets with obscene bonuses - now at the expense of the taxpayers as well as their own shareholders. The banks that were rescued with public money - are now thriving by borrowing from the Fed at 0% and investing in Treasury Securities - earning giant risk-free profits at our expense - while paying themselves bonuses as big as ever. Nothing has changed on Wall Street. Obama has done nothing to support, let alone push, financial reform legislation which insiders know is going nowhere.

On health care, he is allowing a group of Senators who are owned by that industry and Wall Street to craft legislation that is going to provide 40 million new customers to the craven health insurance companies, while preserving their anti-trust exemption that allows them to fix prices and not creating a strong public option to compete with them and control premiums.

Despite his promises, Guantanamo remains open.

Progressives need to face an uncomfortable fact. Obama was never really progressive. His pre-Presidential record was quite centrist. He ran to the left only because he and his handlers saw the political daylight there they needed to exploit to edge out Hillary Clinton. His lack of leadership in the healthcare legislative fight, including his quick abandonment of a public option confirm the reality -- Obama is an accommodationist -- relentlessly pursuing the same kind of non-confrontational behavior that enabled him as a black man to appear sufficiently non-threatening to rise to the top.

Progressives should have seen this coming. Candidate Obama said the Afghan War was the "right" war. We figured he was just saying that for political cover since he was using his purported opposition to the Iraq War to his advantage and thus needed to look "strong" on something. But, now we have it. Did I actually hear him cite the success of the war in Iraq as a justification for his escalation in Afghanistan? Yes, I did -- indicating that we can now add hypocrisy to his growing list of questionable traits. We were bamboozled.

Why is it that all presidents become War Presidents -- captives of the military? Somehow constantly being saluted while surrounded by the pomp -- the helicopters -- Air Force One -- the Situation Room -- seems to make them all want to be Caesars. Commander in Chief is not synonymous with Warrior in Chief.

Now we have our own Democratic War in a far-off land on behalf of a corrupt government. Many years ago, another "liberal" Democratic President (who was close to the military) escalated a war in a far-off land to prop up a corrupt government. That ill-advised adventure and economic policies that generated high inflation made him a one-term president. It also destroyed the progressive political movement for a generation. High unemployment, populist outrage at the bankers who plunder while the economy stagnates and body bags from Afghanistan may produce the same result for this President.

Remember: just because Obama was smart, young, handsome and the first Africa-American President does not mean he was guaranteed to succeed. And right now it looks like he is on the road to failure.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 72
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
11:12 AM on 01/04/2010
Why even mention how "handsome" Obama supposedly is, or how "beautiful" his family supposedly is? What does the exterior appearance of a person have to do with their judgement or integrity?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebtNavigation
Attorney and Author
12:01 PM on 12/10/2009
A victory in Afghanistan would look like Roman Emporer Trajan's victory in Dacia. The Dacians were gone, and Rome had the gold it needed to cover its public debt. Likewise, the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline will undoubtedly be a lucrative proposition, if and when these Brzezinski-mentored minions have blown sufficient numbers of the illiterate and inconsequential natives to smithereens. The Russians simply couldn't do it. Our technology makes it possible, especially if we keep those pesky journalists out.

I hope Americans are ready for how this plays out and what it does to public opinion worldwide.
02:35 PM on 12/08/2009
Well stated, Mr. Lerach.

For many people, Mr. Obama represented the last, best hope that things would one day be different in the White House and perhaps inside the beltway in general. Sadly, we see that this is not the case.

Personally, I have given up all hope that this country has any chance of abandoning politics as usual. It's become clear that no hope remains - the Military Industrial Complex and Corporate America have won and the American people have lost.

Obama has shown absolutely no leadership skills to date - offering only carefully written rhetorical speeches that provide nothing in the end. Having said that, it's clear that his pinky finger has more character, ability and competence than that embarrassing idiot GWB.

I voted for Obama and I'm not sorry I did given the only real choice I had in this terrible two-party system we call democracy. I hope he can find his way, but I realize it's not too likely.
02:04 PM on 12/07/2009
President Obama made a good enough decision, towards the right side: I would have advocated an 80,000+ surge in addition to a "civil" surge, since this effort has been defined as "vital".

Declaring a target time could energize the Kabul local leader into action that allows us the option to draw down or hang in after the 18 months. Keep in mind that a centralized or "federalized" national government model there has never workd.

A "Dual" effort of building up existing tribal system along with a central army would be the smart hedge for nation building that can defend again the Taliban - for that's what were doing to prevent a failed narco-terror state.

I trust Gen. McChrystal, Gen Petraeus, Gen. (ret.) Jim Jones, Adm. Mullen, Sec. Gates, Sec. Clinton, and our "not too liberal" President Obama.
12:47 PM on 12/07/2009
And for Olephart--“If you keep telling the unvarnished truth 2 things will never happen for you--
1. Hume Skeptic will never fan you.
2. You will never get another hp pick.”
09:50 AM on 12/07/2009
With all due respect to Mr. Lerach, what does he know about Afghanistan such that he's so sure the President is making the wrong decision here? While the President actually has the relevant information about Afghanistan and the best, brightest and most well informed advisors necessary to make such difficult decisions, Mr. Lerach doesn't exactly have the kind of detailed, (let alone classified), information one needs to assess the situation and make such decisions. Our current presence in Afghanistan and Pakistan presents complex issues, and it isn't just the military industrial complex that has interests at stake here, believe it or not. Quite clearly, all Americans do and not just due to the risk of terrorism that is unfortunately very real, but also with respect to our own international standing should we just leave the region to fall to the Taliban and other religious fundamentalists (to say nothing of our obligations to the Afghanistan people (and especially women) after we, you know, removed their previous leaders. I mean, you can listen to music and play chess now in Afghanistan. And that's a good thing.) Can't we give the President the benefit of the doubt here?
11:20 AM on 12/07/2009
These "best, brightest and most well informed advisors" are all professional politicians with vested interests in continuing the war. It's just stuff and nonsense to hold that the president is better informed than we are - indeed, my guess is that Rahm Emanuel keeps his reading material severely restricted, and it has been known since VietNam that both the intelligence community and the Pentagon refuses to share all their information with any branch of government. Your innocense is touching but please do at least the research Mr. Lerach has before criticizing him.
As for Afghanistan itself, we pretend it is an independent nation? Then let it stand or fall as one. Colonizers owe nothing to the colonized but the end of colonialization.
12:05 PM on 12/07/2009
What research is it that you think Mr. Lerach has done? He doesn't exactly have access to the outside world these days, let alone classified information.

Further, you are simply factually incorrect. Obama may be dealing with Bush's mess, but he is no Bush. He has surrounded himself with some of the best and most liberal and progressive foreign policy thinkers from our top Universities. Maybe you should do some research. But alas, he's not just a thinker anymore. He's the President.

"Let it stand or fall as one?" It is this type of myopic, oversimplified ideological thinking that I thought we voted out of office! So 2005. If Afghanistan goes to the religious nuts, so too will Pakistan. That would be a big problem for everyone. Complex problems require nuanced solutions.
12:27 PM on 12/07/2009
The notion that the information at the top is better than the information available to us all is, particularly in today's world of instant news and opinion, myopic and misinformed. Information at the top has been filtered so many times by people who have their own agendas that the decisions have already been made before the "intelligence" hits the President's desk - it is slanted in the same way that Cheney slanted the weapons of mass destruction reports that supported the last war. In fact, every war and CIA led incursion that has gone wrong has been made based on information that was classified super-duper-top-secret-eyes-only. There are no secrets when it comes to long term strategic decisions that affect the international community, only political choices. Clearly, this President hasn't delivered on his promised "Hope" theme and he is making it ever more dangerous to be a United States citizen. Next election term his record will result in a resounding "Nope."
01:13 PM on 12/07/2009
How exactly would you know that? Are you privy to where and how the President gets his information and from whom he gets it? I'm guessing not. Again, this isn't George Bush. This is one of the most cerebral, academic Presidents we've ever had. Armchair cynics on Huffpost are a blast! He's actually a really decent, peaceful guy (I was his student) with a serious and difficult job to do. Give him a chance before thinking you know better.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mike Sprinkel
09:14 AM on 12/07/2009
Pundits on the left or right live in perpetual disappointment. Obama may be as left wing as they come - I don't know, I'm just postulating - but at the end of the day he's a government employee. There is a complex system of governance in this country starting with the Constitution, then with the laws passed by both the state and federal legislatures, on down to the rules promulgated by state and federal agencies. The citizenry organizes their lives, and perhaps the lives of their children, around these various regulations. It is not so easy for an elected official to simply subvert all the laws, customs, and practices employed based on good faith reliance on the status quo. Any "change" will be incremental at best.

During the election it was clear to me that Obama wasn't going to be the "change agent" so many supposed him to be. Folks essentially became enamored with him, as evidenced by the slightly creepy verbiage employed throughout the above article. Because of this, they believed he could accomplish the impossible. It's actually pretty basic when you think about it.
08:40 AM on 12/07/2009
< How sad it was to watch young President Obama retreat -- Bush-style -- to a protected location and military audience to deliver the speech which likely marks the end of any hope for a successful Presidency. >
The COMPARISONS between Obama and "HECKUVA JOB, BUSHIE!" are piling up.
uhhh.. items like
- Obam RE-NOMINATING BUSHIE'S OWN Fed Chairman nonminee, Ben Bernanke - despite Bernanke's record of FAILING to do ANYTHING to restrain the banks from doing things that would MAKE THEM FAIL and go BANKRUPT (but for TRILLIONS of dollars of taxpayer 'bailouts')!!

- Bushie IGNORED the poor & minority people in New Orleans both before and after Hurricane Katrina... Obama is pretending that __25%+ UNEMPLOYMENT_ in Black community DOES NOT EXIST. Hell, Obama is IGNORING far MORE Black families in CRISIS today, than Bush IGNORED in New Orleans!
- Bushie GAVE KARL ROVE a FREE HAND to POLITICIZE the DoJ. He SICKED the SEC & DoJ on MARTHA STEWART for "lying to federal officials" about her selling a lousy $55,000 of ImClone stock she had EVERY RIGHT to sell, having NO fiduciary connection to the company.
Obama has LEFT Bush & Karl Rove's PERJUROUS, PARTISAN PROSECUTORS IN PLACE, and has done NOTHING to PROSECUTE REAL, VAST FINANCIAL CRIMES in the markets!
- Bushie LOVED the COMMANDER-in-Chief gig. So too does Mr. Obama...
03:39 AM on 12/07/2009
Barack Obama isn't a war monger. He's not a tool of the military industrial complex. He is a pragmatist and he is the President of the United States, a country he took over just a year ago which, for the previous eight years, was run by war monger. It's a tough position to be put in, and progressive or not, he has to deal with what's on the table.

Mr. Lerach's criticizes the President for "surrounding himself with a bunch of pro-Wall Street advisors and bailing out the banks where their friends work". Who in particular does he mean? While he has economic advisors and has made political appointments from Wall Street (believe it or not, that is where the bankers are who know the most about...banking), he also has plenty of academic advisors too. Who would Mr. Lerach rather advise the President about banking and economic matters? Perhaps his personal banker that controls his hundreds of millions of dollars he made in his career out of the pockets of, gasp, shareholders? To criticize a President for having advisors from Wall Street is empty and absurd.
08:48 AM on 12/07/2009
< To criticize a President for having advisors from Wall Street is empty and absurd. >

he has NOTHING BUT "advisors from Wall Street" and most of them are either ex-GolddamnSachs officials, or CAREER ALLIES of GolddamnSachs, like TIMMY GEITHNER was/is.
(Geithner was a protege, at Treasury, under then Treasury Secretary ROBERT RUBIN... as in FORMER GolddamnSachs CHAIRMAN Robert Rubin, and Geithner, promoted to President, NY Fed Reserve Bank (a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank system, a CABAL of PRIVATE BANKS, of which GolddamnSachs, JPMorgan-Chase, & Citi are 3 of the largest members) during the run-up to the 2008 financial collapse & subsequent "BAILOUTS", did WHATEVER Bush's Treasury Secretary HANK PAULSON asked of him... as in, "FORMER GOLDDAMN-SACHS CHAIRMAN Hank Paulson."
Thanks for the TEXTBOOK example of "I don't care if OUR guy IS AS BAD AS BUSH, as long as he is OUR GUY" "liberalism" !!
09:48 AM on 12/07/2009
So, Geithner and Paulson. Yawn. He's also got:
Romer
Sunstein
Goolsbee
Orszag
Warren

Shall I go on? He gets much input from people who have made careers of criticizing Wall Street.

Paranoia strikes deep!
01:59 AM on 12/07/2009
Well written article ... enjoyed it. In our country's increasingly "all things military" incarnation, apparently failure IS an option if it relates to our economy, our education system, our values and, (as you point out) our chief executive.
01:33 AM on 12/07/2009
This article sums up Obama's presidency. I think we all were worried about having another 4 years of a Republican in the White House that we didn't pay close attention to Obama's political records. He is simply a waste of progressives' time.
12:04 AM on 12/07/2009
Given this well versed, yet incomplete distillation of all of that is putrid in the Obama brew, it is well for the President's handlers to remember that a large contingent of his original supporters didn't vote for him because we actually believed he was a new and different flavor, but because the poison offered by the other side appeared more certain to kill us. What Mr. Lerach's article ultimately questions is whether there was really all that much difference between McCain and Obama or even Obama and Bush. After less than two years of his administration, it appears that the only audacity in the hope theme peddled by the Obama campaign has ultimately proved to be the mendacity of using it to get elected.

Sadly, It doesn't take Air Force One to instill the hubris in people that derails them from the principles they espouse. About they time they begin to fly on private planes, pay attention to how what they say will be received rather than whether they believe what they are saying, and surround themselves with people who can't or won't say no to their every idea, the transformation has begun. And that is typically well before they become candidates for higher office.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:44 PM on 12/06/2009
Barack Obama was the major candidate closest to the centre in the democratic party primary, and in power he's also cleaving closely to the middle of the road. If either of these facts surprises you, you need to be paying more attention to politics, and to give up listening to Fox when Fox tells you someone they hate is a radical. Barack Obama is in many regards a deeply conventional political figure; you can't be otherwise and get elected president, frankly. Especially not if you're black. John Edwards' platform wasn't sincerely held, but if Obama had run on it, the media and the nation would have treated him like the second coming of Jesse Jackson - someone to patronise but never someone to elect.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cbwHouston
"Courage is the power to let go of the familiar!"
05:35 PM on 12/06/2009
Once again, "...based on Gen. McCrystal's assessment of ground-conditions within the Afghanistan War theater in 2011." Trusting Gen. McCrystal...long a well-regarded master of Asymmetrical Warfare, July 2011 is not defined as a "Left-Right" hotly-politicized or expedient target-date meant merely to placate-particularly the ever-insatiable appetite of mass-media. Under President Obama' current strategy...one smartly featuring a conditional exit-strategy, this American-NATO troop surge will inflict with lethality upon both the Taliban and Al Qaeda where it will hurt them the most: opium-field generated cash-hoards, diminished support from defiant Afghani-civilians, higher rebel-forces casualty and recidivism-counts, and a modern American-NATO-trained Afghanistan military force loyally-sworn to tactically battle any such extremist-radicals breaching the security of Afghanistan's boarders fiercely, logistically, and tirelessly... for however long is required for true democracy to take hold. Indeed it's a jump-rope of a tight time-frame, but one I'm confidence America' adroit Armed Forces and NATO are supremely qualified to fulfill in a timely fashion. America' Armed Forces will fulfill their Commander-in-Chief's strategy...successfully, and more-likely-than-not long before... once again "based on Gen. McCrystal's assessment of ground-conditions within all of the Afghanistan War theater," the conditional July 2011 draw-down begins in earnest.
outnow
Ban the bomb
12:04 PM on 12/06/2009
Mr. Lerach correctly predicted the financial collapse. He knows more about Wall Street than any person I have ever met and talked to. I am sorry to say that he is right about the actual policies of Obama the president as opposed to Obama the candidate.

Putting Obama in office is not the same as sending a man to the moon (just because he is half-black). Obama's accomplishments or failures will be judged by his accomodation of the special interests - many who backed him with generous campaigne contributions.

The evidence is in - he sold out or he was always of the right wing in many ways - not the center, which is more to the left than Obama.