Not Ready For Prime Time
By Mitch Berg
On the one hand, I feel for the Obamas; they took a lot of flak from our British friends and allies over their choice of gifts for Gordon Brown during his recent state visit.
Now, I’m a guy. I don’t always have impeccable insticts when it comes to gift giving. Of course, I also don’t have a State Department with a full-time protocol staff, but work with me here; I’m not the kind of guy who’s going to hoot and holler over this sort of thing (like the media would have done had it been President Bush, for example).
Still, I’d have rather had him plead “I’m a guy”, or “I’m a naif from flyoverland” with the critics of his performance with PM Brown, than have his handlers gush that, really, this president isn’t ready for prime time.
His excuse is the same one every high school sophomore tries to pull. He’s tired:
Sources close to the White House say Mr Obama and his staff have been “overwhelmed” by the economic meltdown and have voiced concerns that the new president is not getting enough rest.
But isn’t there a staff to deal with this sort of thing?
British officials, meanwhile, admit that the White House and US State Department staff were utterly bemused by complaints that the Prime Minister should have been granted full-blown press conference and a formal dinner, as has been customary. They concede that Obama aides seemed unfamiliar with the expectations that surround a major visit by a British prime minister.
But Washington figures with access to Mr Obama’s inner circle explained the slight by saying that those high up in the administration have had little time to deal with international matters, let alone the diplomatic niceties of the special relationship.
Not every person in the Administration is “dealing with” the “meltdown”!
How “not ready for prime time” is he? (Emphasis added):
A well-connected Washington figure, who is close to members of Mr Obama’s inner circle, expressed concern that Mr Obama had failed so far to “even fake an interest in foreign policy”…The American source said: “Obama is overwhelmed. There is a zero sum tension between his ability to attend to the economic issues and his ability to be a proactive sculptor of the national security agenda.
So (if the “well-connected figure” is right), Obama can’t multitask? He can’t lead a country in a time of immense international peril and deal with the economy? In other words, he can’t do the job that he convinced 53% of the American people he was perfect for?
Why, it’s almost as if being a one-term Senator and “community organizer” isn’t adequate background for the most powerful, responsible job on earth!
[NOTE to liberal commenters: As an excuse for Obama’s shortcomings, “Oh, yeah? Well, Dubya was stupid!” is rapidly approaching the end of its shelf life. Be advised.]
March 9th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
As an excuse for Obama’s shortcomings, “Oh, yeah? Well, Dubya was stupid!” is rapidly approaching the end of its shelf life.
Mitch, what else do you expect from those who are intellectually bankrupt?
March 9th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Mitch, quoting from a British tabloid that is all pissed off because they think Brown didn’t get the respect he deserves is not evidence that Obama isn’t up to the job. And the allegation that he doesn’t have even a fake interest in foreign policy is preposterous on its face. Since assuming office Obama has:
1. Forumlated and announced a new Iraq policy that has been widely praised
2. Ordered a troop increase in Afghanistan
3. Announced plans to give a major address in Istanbul
4. Began negotiations with Russia regarding Iran
5. Appointed special envoys to deal with Israel/Palastine, Iran and Pakistan.
All this in just seven weeks AND while our economy is in an state of crisis. Tell me, what foreign policy achievements did Bush make in his first seven weeks?
This is a case of a British paper throwing a hissy fit over a triviality.
March 9th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
I would comment, but am still trying to figure our what a “profit to earnings ratio” is.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
In diplomatic circles, failing to respect foreign leaders and ambassadors with the expect they deserve is not a minor issue, Zack. It certain cases, it’s become casus belli.
And lessee…give away a missile shield for an agreement from Moscow that they’ve already reneged on….not exactly what I’d call an accomplishment, Zack. “Carteresque,” yes, but not an accomplishment.
And a new policy for Iraq? Um, you’ve not been reading the papers, Zack.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Zack,
Leaving aside the obvious non-sequitur (we were not at war during Bush’s first seven weeks, or even seven months; he was dealing with the deflation of the tech bubble, but his response did in fact succeed quite spectacularly), and the double-standard (you know very well the left and media, pardon the redundancy, would be bellowing itself hoarse over this had it been Bush), let’s set ’em up and knock ’em down:
1. Forumlated and announced a new Iraq policy that has been widely praised
…if only because it parallels in virtually every respect the policy Bush and Petraeus had largely already settled on.
2. Ordered a troop increase in Afghanistan
That’s worth a post on its own – an utterly non-partisan one, by the way – on what a very bad idea that might be.
3. Announced plans to give a major address in Istanbul
As noted on the NARN last weekend, not a bad idea. One point for PBO.
4. Began negotiations with Russia regarding Iran
As noted above by Mr. Bike, he’s begun these negotiations from a position of weakness and false equality. Dumb.
5. Appointed special envoys to deal with Israel/Palastine, Iran and Pakistan.
In other words, sent bureaucrats to try to deal with issues where either several generations of bureaucrats have failed, where the Obama Administration has dealt from a position of weakness, or to deal with what is largely a Pakistani political/cultural/military issue rather than an American diplomatic one.
It’s action, I guess. Is it useful?
Not holding breath on any of those last three.
March 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
And while we’re on the subject of Bush’s first weeks in office, does nayone remember a certain mid-air collision between a US spy plane and a Chinese fighter? That was a major international incident, with US airmen in Chinese military custody.
March 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Wasn’t handled too bad as I recall. Bimmy Obama prolly wouldn’t have done anything or would have given away our technology…
March 9th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
What nobody has pointed in all of DVDgate is the issue of the DVDs being region locked. The way DVDs work is a DVD will only play in a DVD player that came the same region as the DVD. So, a DVD from the US won’t play on a British player.
If Obama is dense enough to get the leader of our chief partner a bunch of DVDs that could be bought off of Amazon, is it possible that he is dumb enough to have given movies that are unwatchable in England?
March 9th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
MItch and Zack say:
“2. Ordered a troop increase in Afghanistan
That’s worth a post on its own – an utterly non-partisan one, by the way – on what a very bad idea that might be.
”
I just watched the old 1950’s version of Kipling’s “Kim”, with Errol Flynn and Dean Stockwell. Those who do not learn the lessons of history are truly doomed to repeat them. The Brits troubles while they were in India, the Russians more recently….
and
“4. Began negotiations with Russia regarding Iran
As noted above by Mr. Bike, he’s begun these negotiations from a position of weakness and false equality. Dumb.”
I’m not so sure. Russia is stronger than it had been, comparatively, but I think we underestimate how badly other parts of the world have been economically impaired recently, including Russia. I can see some possibilities to this stratagem…. One can play a winning game without being in an obvious position of overt advantage.
“5. Appointed special envoys to deal with Israel/Palastine, Iran and Pakistan.
In other words, sent bureaucrats to try to deal with issues where either several generations of bureaucrats have failed, where the Obama Administration has dealt from a position of weakness, or to deal with what is largely a Pakistani political/cultural/military issue rather than an American diplomatic one.”
I think the envoys selected have some decent professional credentials. Pakistan/Afghanistan and Iran are still unknown quantities in terms of the new guys; but I think the administration is on the right track with Israel and the Palestinians. The latest moves by Israel with Jewish developments in Palestinian eastern Jerusalem is not even popular with a broad spectrum of Israelis. I wouldn’t be surprised if the new admin in Israel doesn’t last long; they don’t have the percentages to succeed.
March 9th, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Dog Gone:
The best pop-history book on the troubles westerners have had when they tried to control Afghanistan:
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Game-Struggle-Central-Kodansha/dp/1568360223
I’ve read it, highly recommended.
The mission of the US in Afghanistan is very different from the missions of invading powers from Pre-Victorian times to the end of the cold war. Back then nations wanted to control Afghanistan because it was the gateway from the Eurasian plateau to South Asia and the Indian Ocean. We just want a stable government that will not allow extra-national terrorist groups to thrive.