Obama's Balancing Act
I waited to write today to provide a snap reaction to the speech President Obama just gave from the Oval Office. I cannot remember another instance when the situation has changed so dramatically between when a presidential speech was announced and when it was actually given. When the White House announced both tonight's speech and yesterday's marathon interview schedule for the president, the goal was clear: convince the American people and Congress to support a limited military airstrike against Syria as punishment for using chemical weapons. The speech was seen as critical to gaining such support, and was scheduled to occur days before Congress would vote on the use of force. By the time Obama gave the speech, however, the question of whether Congress would even vote or not any time soon wasn't even clear, due to a new diplomatic initiative from Russia which would remove all chemical weapons from Syrian control and eventually destroy them. It must have been a busy couple of days for the Obama speechwriters, to put this another way, as the ground shifted significantly hour by hour.
The speech Obama just gave was a balancing act in several respects. I heard post-speech analysis by David Brooks on PBS, and he came up with an excellent way to put the problem Obama faced -- a "Goldilocks moment." How much of an airstrike would be "too much" and how much would be "too little," in other words. The other big balancing act was between calling for military action and pursuing the diplomatic solution.
The speech was pretty comprehensive. Obama laid out the case of the horrors of the chemical weapon attack, and why America should react militarily. He also answered most of the main criticisms that the public has so far raised in a categorical fashion. He made his case for military action, defended his position against criticism, and then at the end addressed the new push for a diplomatic solution. As I said, a pretty comprehensive speech. But I'm not sure it changed anyone's mind.
Obama had to lay out his case to the American public in detail and justify his position. He achieved that tonight. His balancing act between arguing that the American military "doesn't do pinpricks" and also that we would not be drawn into any sort of larger conflict or put troops into Syria was a tricky one, but he made about as convincing a case for his idea of limited airstrikes as was possible. The balance between military action and diplomacy was a bit better, though, as Obama quite rightly pointed out that it was the fear of American military action which got Assad to the table for such a diplomatic effort in the first place. Removing the threat would, obviously, remove the impetus for the diplomacy to even take place.
This might be the best of both worlds -- where the mere threat of military action spurs the exact change the world would like to see: the removal of all chemical weapons from Assad's control. Threatening military action but not having to take it would be the best route for America, obviously.
But any such threat has to be believable. In other words, if the other side doesn't believe America will take military action in the end, then the threat doesn't really even exist, except as empty words. Which is why Obama's still pushing for public and congressional support for such action.
As I said, though, while I thought Obama did a good job of laying out his case -- which was indeed necessary, for any president contemplating an act of war against another country -- I'm not sure how effective it will be in changing people's minds or opinions about attacking Syria. Perhaps by directly answering some of the main criticisms Obama will convince some doubters that he has indeed considered such arguments, and that he knows the risks. But we'll just have to see, in the coming days, whether Obama truly struck the right balance tonight or not.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This whole Syrian situation is just so frustrating as a member of the public, we're kept like mushrooms.
But so far so good, we're talking softly and carrying a big stick, hardly the worst diplomatic strategy. Now we wait for the practicalities of the proposal to disarm Syria.
I think the President did a good job in laying out his case for why the World should be concerned about the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. It's analogous to Winston Churchill's pre-WWII warnings about Nazism: if tyrants are allowed to violate international norms with impunity, than violating established norms will become the new normal. This argument can and has been over-used and misapplied, but in this case, I think it apt.
The President showed he was open to a diplomatic solution, heavily dependent upon Russian cooperation to be sure, and was fairly candid about the potential pitfalls of that approach. Let's hope the pitfalls can be bridged or avoided, because:
Should diplomacy fail, the President fell back on using air strikes "to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime's ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use." However, Obama rejected the option of a sustained air campaign, citing Kosovo and Libya, the two examples where air power alone changed dictatorial behavior by changing the balance of power on the ground. Why limited, targeted strikes will suddenly be effective political pressure against Assad when they have so consistently failed in the past is unclear to me.
The President also rejected the idea of removing another dictator by force, citing Iraq as an example of why "doing doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next." Well yeah, you get mired when you put boots on the ground, but Obama is rather mysteriously ignoring Libya, where the removal of a dictator by means of a sustained but measured air campaign has not entrapped us, and did rather effectively punish a tyrant. Ah, selective memory in response to domestic political necessity.
Speaking of which, some kind words for Congress.
All in all, a bit of a hash, but better hash than served up a few days ago.
But so far so good, we're talking softly and carrying a big stick, hardly the worst diplomatic strategy.
Really??
The way I see it is Obama is talking loudly (red line, remember) and then looking around trying to find a stick...
Now we wait for the practicalities of the proposal to disarm Syria.
Yea, cause that worked so well in Iraq...
Again, I am gabberflasted how ya'all can comment on what a mess this all is, yet not lay the blame where it belongs..
Once again, the power of the almighty '-D' is on display for all to see..
I also find it hilarious how every is marveling at this "diplomacy" when, in reality, it was nothing more than an off the cuff remark by Lurch that was IMMEDIATELY walked back Obama's State Dept..
I can just picture the scene now..
State Dept Spokesman:"The off-the-cuff statement by SecState Kerry was nothing more than diplomatic rhetoric. Of course, Syria can't evade responsibility by playing some......"
In The Wings:"Psssst.. Hay! Putin is accepting the deal!!!"
State Dept Spokesman:"Of course, this magnificent idea was Obama's plan all along!!! It simply shows that Obama really does play 12-Dimensional Chess and is the greatest thing since frozen pizza!!!"
And what is REALLY stunning is that you people are BUYING IT!!!
If there ever was an example of Obama Derangement Syndrome, ya'all are displaying it in spades....
:D
Michale
I'd have to assign most of the blame to Assad, who inherited the leadership position from his dad and proved unequal to the task. Everybody else we are talking about is just reacting to the mess Assad made, acquired, inherited, whatever. When the corporation goes belly up, it is conventional to blame the CEO.
How does Putin look in this? Good? When your client state of 50+ years has literally broken into fragments? Some investment Russia! Still got it! By the way, what do suppose Putin thinks of Assad's chops? Might Mr P. be thinking of new management more to his liking. Or at least take away his chemical weapons. The phrase "you'll shoot your eye out kid" comes to mind.
I'm not throwing any roses at Obama, whose rhetoric got way ahead of his allies, political support and military means. He's trying to cobble a diplomatic solution without really having much of a credible military alternative. Punish and degrade doesn't match up with short air campaign/no boots on ground/no regime change.
Obama Derangement Syndrome can strike anyone Michael. Of any political stripe. Fox News has had a raging case going on six years now. Michele Bachmann was quietly institutionalized due to her severe ODS. You might want to check your vital signs.
Obama Derangement Syndrome can strike anyone Michael. Of any political stripe. Fox News has had a raging case going on six years now. Michele Bachmann was quietly institutionalized due to her severe ODS. You might want to check your vital signs.
Oh that ship has sailed.. :D It's nothing new for me to be accused of having ODS.. Problem is, I have very logical and rational reasons for my Obama complaints.
My only point is that "derangement" is a two way street. Those who think Obama is a great leader can be just as deranged as those who think Obama is a crappy leader...
The thing is, though, that there are MOUNTAINS of evidence that support the latter conclusion and very VERY little evidence that supports the former conclusion...
Since I know how much ya'all just LOVE polls around here... :D
Poll: 64 Percent of Americans Say President Obama’s Handling of Foreign Policy Is Worse or the Same as President George W. Bush’s
http://reason.com/poll/2013/09/10/reason-rupe-september-2013-national-surv
TheStig [2] -
I too noticed the reluctance of just about everyone (politicans and media included) to talk about Libya. It seems odd, because it is the one war Obama was solely responsible for (unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, which he inherited). It also seems to prove the point that airstrikes don't automatically equate to "we're going to get sucked in, it'll be another Iraq!!!" The omission is odd, and noticeable.
Michale [3] -
Yea, cause that worked so well in Iraq...
Um, actually, it did. Iraq got rid of all its WMD during the 1990s. Inspectors went in, found nothing, and that should have been the end of it. Then Bush decided to invade, to find those non-existent WMDs. But the disarmament had already worked.
And, once again, your misuse of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" just shows that you haven't been creative enough to come up with a name for "blindly following some politician" (in politics, "derangement syndrome" is universally understood to mean "blindly being against a politican" and not the opposite). C'mon -- get creative! Maybe it'll catch on and everyone will start using your new term!
Heh.
-CW
And, once again, your misuse of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" just shows that you haven't been creative enough to come up with a name for "blindly following some politician" (in politics, "derangement syndrome" is universally understood to mean "blindly being against a politican" and not the opposite). C'mon -- get creative! Maybe it'll catch on and everyone will start using your new term!
Apparently, I have an ally in TheStig.. :D
Obama Derangement Syndrome can strike anyone Michael. Of any political stripe.
The simple fact is derangement could be love or hate. Hinckley was deranged over Jodie Foster.. The list is endless of psychos who were deranged over someone where it was based on affection, not hatred...
Someone who says Obama hasn't done anything wrong and ALL the attacks against him are based on race is JUST as deranged as any Right Wing fanatic...
All of the signalling in this speech about the scale of damage Obama is willing to do at the risk of his presidency was aimed squarely at Bashar al-Assad.
Right now, the only thing that has brought Assad to any kind of preliminary agreement to turn over his WMD is this nebulous threat of limited force. Pundits quibble over what that could achieve. Some have even spoke of it as an empty threat.
In fact, cratering every one of Assad's runways would severely damage his ability to use aircraft to deliver sarin gas bombs, or bombs of any sort for that matter. It would be the next best thing to announcing a no-fly zone, but would not involve any of the overflight risks that option entails. And how many civilians do you suppose are lined up on those runways?
A high-impact, low-collateral military strike is quite possible given the current technology edge the US enjoys. It might not be enough to tip the scales in favor of the rebels, but it would certainly make Assad's road to victory much harder. Somewhat stifling the doubters, that limited-force threat appears to have worked.
So in this speech, the president announced a diplomatic solution was at hand and would be pursued to the fullest extent. But first, he made sure to repeat and reinforce the message that has apparently worked on Bashar al-Assad. Obama doesn't want that threat to lose any significance in Assad's mind.
Right now, the only thing that has brought Assad to any kind of preliminary agreement to turn over his WMD is this nebulous threat of limited force.
To put it kindly, I would say "assumes facts not in evidence."
Another term would be.. "Bullshit"...
There is absolutely NO evidence that Obama's milquetoast and wimpy "threat" of force is what drove Assad to agree to give up his CWMDs...
Given the history of the region and what is know about the man himself, it's infinitely more likely that Kerry's moronic blunder gave Putin an idea on how to allow Assad to keep his CWMDs and avoid the US's vaporware military strikes...
Contrary to the excessive ODS displayed here, Obama got played. Pure and simple. And Putin was the fiddler...
TS,
He's trying to cobble a diplomatic solution without really having much of a credible military alternative
That's exactly the point I was making to Matt above..
The never was any real threat from Obama. The entire region knows that Obama speaks arrogantly and boorishly and then, when his bluff is called, scrambles around to find ANYTHING resembling a stick...
Obama is just damn lucky his SecState is equally moronic and gave Obama a lifeline that Obama then tossed to Putin so Putin can use it to hang the US with...
Our enemies in the TOP are laughing their asses off at Obama and our friends in the TOP are shaking their heads sadly and altering their milplans to take into account the US's abdication of it's responsibility as a regional player..
I honestly question whether this country can survive another 1228 days, 18 hours and 28 minutes with Obama as our POTUS...
Michale:
I used the phrase you quote in the context of Obama's televised speech. I thought his speech made a good case for why the US and the rest of the "civilized" world should be very concerned , but failed to make a credible case that targeted air strikes of limited duration were going to solve the stated problem. These elements of the speech don't line up IMHO.
The speech was mostly intended for US domestic consumption. It was intended to allay the fear of a long drawn out ground force commitment to a war weary public. It was intended to buy time when Obama Plan A didn't float. All the major actors are trying to buy time, but not for the same reasons.
Assad gets different messages from POTUS through many private and semiprivate channels. There is a lot of diplomatic chatter going on, and it's been going on about Syrian chemical weapons long before the latest chemical atrocity.
I suspect Assad is listening, because he has dispersed a lot of military assets in anticipation of air strikes. That's evidence Obama's military threat is being taken seriously, but not seriously enough to solve the chemical weapon problem. Assad is willing to take lumps if he can stay in power and keep his nerve gas.
Obama's best bargaining chip is Assad's fear of regime change by means of losing the ongoing civil war. Obama could tip the war against Assad with a Libyan style air campaign, but that's politically untenable AT THIS POINT. Another option is to covertly give the rebel forces some critical low tech fire power. They don't need advanced MANPADs, Assad's air force isn't doing all that much. Things like recoilless rifles to uproot dug in government infantry would be very helpful. Selectively arming the Libyan rebels played an important role in defeating Kadhafi, although it didn't get nearly as much attention as the air war.
In the current domestic and international political climate, Obama's best options involve multiple pressures, patience and time.
In the current domestic and international political climate, Obama's best options involve multiple pressures, patience and time.
To which Obama invoking his moronic red line worked against...
I'll get to the rest later today, as you make some really awesome points...
Michale
Oh My Gods!!!
The White House is asserting now that Putin is in charge of the Syria issue...
"{Putin} put this proposal forward and he’s now invested in it. That’s good. That’s the best possible reaction. He’s fully invested in Syria’s CW disarmament and that’s potentially better than a military strike – which would deter and degrade but wouldn’t get rid of all the chemical weapons. He now owns this. He has fully asserted ownership of it and he needs to deliver.”
-White House
Get that???
PUTIN "owns" it...
I guess that means that Putin is in charge of the US's Foreign Policy...
Putin "owns it...
It's like Churchill saying, "Well, we're going to let Hitler do what he wants in Western Europe. Hitler owns it.."
Could Obama POSSIBLY be *ANY* stupider than he is right now???
I honestly doubt it, but am willing to concede that Obama COULD surprise me...
I never thought I would see the day that the US let's Russia run our Foreign Policy...
Michale, Russia isn't running our foreign policy, we're trying to find a solution that works for all the parties and interests involved. Russia is one of Syria's biggest backers, there's no way a non-violent solution can occur without Russia playing a big role. It's like assuming the US would have no role in Israel-Palestine peace talks.
And as you have pointed out, we have very little evidence through which to ascertain exactly what is going on in diplomatic channels. You've latched onto this as the accidental Kerry solution, but I would with-hold any narrative judgments until we have some facts rather than conjecture to go on. We do not know what all the players are actually saying to each other, and probably wont know for years.
YoYoTA,
Michale, Russia isn't running our foreign policy, we're trying to find a solution that works for all the parties and interests involved.
Really??
Well explain to me, then, why we are trying to find a solution that works for ASSAD???
He's the asshole who brutally gassed over 2 thousand innocent men, women and children to death..
Do we REALLY need to find a solution that works for him??
You've latched onto this as the accidental Kerry solution, but I would with-hold any narrative judgments until we have some facts rather than conjecture to go on.
We have facts..
We have the fact that Obama is capitulating to Putin responsibility for Syria..
We have the fact that NOW Assad feels comfortable enough to start dictating terms to Obama..
http://washingtonexaminer.com/assad-dictates-to-obama-stop-arming-rebels-or-no-deal/article/2535700
What I don't understand is why everyone here (with a couple exceptions (yea, I am looking at you TS! :D)) seems to think that Obama is still in control here, that his sheet don't stink...
Obama frak'ed up..
At least have the decency to concede the point... :D
President Obama must promise not to arm rebel forces or Syrian dictator Bashar Assad will not hand over his chemical weapons, the embattled leader told a Russian state media outlet today while demanding that Israel also surrender its nuclear arsenal.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/assad-dictates-to-obama-stop-arming-rebels-or-no-deal/article/2535700
Well....
Apparently it's a deal that Assad and Putin can live with..
I wouldn't give much of a chance for innocent Syrian civilians to be able to "live" with it...
Russia is one of Syria's biggest backers, there's no way a non-violent solution can occur without Russia playing a big role.
In other words, Russia is in control of our Foreign Policy....
That's what I said in the beginning...
We have to make sure we meet the needs of Russia and forget about the over 2 thousand innocent men, women and children that were gassed by Assad..
Gotcha....
Michael:
" I don't understand is why everyone here (with a couple exceptions (yea, I am looking at you TS! :D)) seems to think that Obama is still in control here, that his sheet don't stink..."
Tolstoy, in War and Peace, had a lot to say about how little control leaders have over the vast and complex machinery of war and politics. I agree with Tolstoy.
Obama isn't in control and neither are Assad, Cameron, Putin and for good measure I'll throw in the Pope. Leaders receive information, much of which is inaccurate, out of date or irrelevant. They issue orders which are all too frequently not received, not acted upon, misinterpreted,poorly executed or just plain willfully disobeyed. The signal to noise ratio at the top is low. Just because a leader has a lot of buttons to push doesn't mean he/she has a lot of control. More than Joe Schmoe to be sure, but small is still small. Leaders nudge history, they can't drive it in straight line.
That's situation normal. All leaders make lots mistakes. Obama's Red Line comments don't seem genuinely important to me. His recent failure to line up international support for military action is a disappointment not a decisive failure. We are still in the opening game, end game Syrian Chem Weapons is probably years away. And there isn't just one game being played out there.
I think Obama has some very good leadership qualities, notably unflappability, patience and willingness to make mid course correction. The fact that he loves campaigning more than the day to day political rough and tumble of governance seems his biggest flaw to me.
TS,
Fair enough..
Lemme ask ya something, though..
Would your analysis of POTUS vis a vis control be the same for President Bush?
Careful.. It's a trick question. :D
The fact that he loves campaigning more than the day to day political rough and tumble of governance seems his biggest flaw to me.
While I would agree with you that it is a flaw, it is (by far) not the biggest...
IMNSHO, Obama's biggest flaw is his narcissism... Take any one of Obama's speeches and count how many times he says "I" or "me" in them..
Obama's biggest flaw is that he is a legend in his own mind...
He is not completely to blame for that, however. This flaw is excacerbated by legions of Americans who think that Obama walks on water and can do no wrong...
It's hard to be humble when you have droves and droves of "useful idiots" (Lenin's term, not mine) telling you how completely and utterly awesome and perfect you are...
Yes Michale we do need to find a solution that works for Assad, in fact the ONLY solution is one that works for all parties. We do not want to get rid of Assad (why not is another post) so to stop the fighting requires everybody agree to something. And this is the crux of the problem, the US has never had anything but bad options. Yes Obama has been flailing about searching for something, anything actually, that would make the situation better. Finally by accident he stumbles upon something that just might work. Please explain why this is a bad thing. When no option is good isn't it best to prevaricate until the last minute in the hope that something will come to light? Obama did EXACTLY what i would want a president to do, as opposed to going off half cocked on a bad plan. If Russia can garner some brownie points from this so much the better. This "achievement" on her part may enable us to develop better relations with her going forward.
If all this is so wrong what exactly would you have advocated we do?
Yes Michale we do need to find a solution that works for Assad
Some bearurcrat moron said, "Yes, we need to find a solution that works for Hitler" in the late 30s...
We all know how THAT worked out..
We'll just have to agree to disagree..
Please explain why this is a bad thing.
Because it puts Russia in charge of our Foreign Policy vis a vis Syria..
Do I REALLY have to explain why that's a bad thing???
Back when Libya was burning the question was put, "What does it matter that the US is not leading in Libya"...
That question was answered a little while later by Ambassador Stevens and 3 other Americans..
If our government lets others take charge and events occur contrary to our interests, then our government is solely and unequivocally to blame..
Obama did EXACTLY what i would want a president to do, as opposed to going off half cocked on a bad plan.
I have no doubt that it is exactly what you would want a president to do...
But capitulating our foreign policy vis a vis Syria to our enemies???
How is THAT not "half cocked"???
Personally, I would call that *ALL* cocked...
Putin and Assad are LAUGHING their asses off as they pull on Obama's puppet strings...
If all this is so wrong what exactly would you have advocated we do?
I would not have been so stupid to issue the red line in the first place..
Michale
Please explain why this is a bad thing.
To put it in a better context that you can likely better understand, it would be as if we put Republicans and Corporate CEOs in charge of fixing ObamaCare....
Get it??
"sometimes diplomacy demands silence."
-Russian Foreign Minister after Kerry's very long speech
Yea.. Diplomacy is definitely the way to go.. :^/
Michael:
Out of curiosity, which Bush? However, the answer is yes, I believe the concept is universally applicable to high level leadership of big organizations.
That said, some leaders are better at nudging than others.
Out of curiosity, which Bush? However, the answer is yes, I believe the concept is universally applicable to high level leadership of big organizations.
So, you would agree to the claim that Obama isn't any better of a leader than Bush (GW)was?
Keep in mind, that I don't agree with that statement anymore than I agree with your claim that POTUSes (POTUSii?? POTUSiums??) have little control over events..
I just want to see if your arguments are consistent and free of partisan ideology...
If they aren't, I'll be very disappointed...
"You're not training whales to recover torpedoes or any dip shit stuff like that, are you? Because if you are, I'll be very disappointed!"
"No ma'am. No dip shit.."
-STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME
:D
Fact in evidence: Assad's regime is discussing the terms of surrender for its chemical stockpiles and weapons.
Fact in evidence: Assad's regime is discussing the terms of surrender for its chemical stockpiles and weapons.
Exactly. THAT is the ONLY fact...
It's your conjecture, unsupported by ANY evidence, that Assad is doing this because of Obama's milquetoast and bogus "threat" of military response.
I am glad we agree...
It's your conjecture, unsupported by ANY evidence, that Assad is doing this because of Obama's milquetoast and bogus "threat" of military response.
Given current events and Assad's list of requirements BEFORE he gives up his CWMD arsenal, it's much more likely, almost assured that Assad is using the "discussion" to prolong the issue and make Obama look like an idjut..
As much as I hate to admit it (Obama IS my POTUS, after all) Assad is succeeding beyond his wildest expectations...
I just want to see if your arguments are consistent and free of partisan ideology...
If they aren't, I'll be very disappointed...
Michael:
You’re right, it’s a trick question, and in this case the trick lies in ambiguity of the English language and shades of meaning.
I view leadership as an ability to get people to, more of less, cooperate by using a mixture of the powers of persuasion, personal example and coercion. It’s no accident that English speakers refer to those in office as leaders, not controllers.
Presidents take office with an idealistic agenda that is almost inevitably blindsided by events beyond their control. GWB’s Compassionate Conservatism agenda was lower taxes, deregulation, a stronger military and some social issues. Roughly 8 months into office, the World Trade Center is attacked and Bush becomes a wartime president, first in Afghanistan, then in Iraq.
In evaluating presidential leadership, should we score on the basis of 1) the ability to get people to march in roughly the same direction, or 2) the consequences of where we are marched to?
For leadership of the First Kind, I find GWB impressive simply on the basis of legislation enacted by Congress – tax cuts, environmental rollbacks, free trade agreements, No Child Left Behind, Joint Resolution Authorizing Use of Force Against Iraq, USA Patriot Act, Homeland Security Act, Medicare Prescription Drug Act as well as economic stimulus legislation at the end of term. He also made the Supreme Court far more (activist) conservative with his appointments. Bush was reelected to a second term. Like it or loathe it, this was effective leadership of the First Kind.
But, by evaluation of the Second Kind, Bush’s leadership scores poorly. Bush’s poll numbers started high, and they got higher after 911 and the initial invasion of Iraq, but declined as the public began to perceive the wars they were led to support had proved inconclusive and costly. The readiness of the US military was weakened by multiple deployments of troops and equipment. Bush’s popularity tanked with the economy late in his 2nd term. He is now widely regarded as a failed President and has been effectively disowned by much of his Republican constituency. He’s holed up in a gated community, painting. Contrast that with the active and very popular retirement of his immediate predecessor Clinton. History can be fickle, and GWB’s standing may improve, but I wouldn’t put money on it.
Obama entered office with a basically progressive economic and social agenda, and also inherited an economy in immediate crisis and two ongoing wars. He has been able to push some legislation through congress, most notably the Affordable Health Care Act, but also minor economic reform and recovery legislation. However, with loss of majority in the House of Reps, his ability to get bills through congress has been largely stalled due to effective Republican leadership expressed through delaying tactics and theatrics.
Obama leadership has fared better in the role of Commander in Chief.
He had dramatically lowered the US military profile in both Afghanistan and Iraq, and he was instrumental in defining a limited (but strategically vital) US role in the overthrow of the Kadhafi regime. Obama seems to have played a pivotal role in killing Osama Bin Laden with a commando raid rather than using airstrikes, a high stake calculated risk than worked out well (but might not have but for the professionalism of operational team). Overall, US military style under Obama seems more Judo, less Cowboy and this change in style strikes me as evidence of effective, if low key military leadership of the First Kind. A further step away from WWII style military to a modern military geared towards modern conditions and modern conditions.
Given his shorter time in office, it’s harder for me to evaluate Obama’s leadership using criteria of the 2nd kind. His poll numbers have declined, and there is a lot of vocal popular dissent, but if Obama Care goes into full effect, and proves durable, medically sound and cost effective, he will probably be judged a successful president who slogged through an unsuccessful era. If not, he’ll be ranked a minor president, and a disappointment, if not exactly a complete failure. In either case, I suspect he’ll have an activist, influential and fairly popular post presidential life.
Trick Question, Trick Answer! :)