This is from the NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/08/us/politics/07web-sanger.html I thought it was a pretty good column, while obviously full of praise, I think the author's inferences of Obama's strategy are fairly accurate.
A classic case of not seeing the forest because there are far too many trees in the way. Obama's grand strategy is to do and (mostly) say whatever it will take to get him re-elected in 2012.
You get re-elected by doing a good job. So if you are saying his grand strategy is to do a good job, that is hardly an insight.
"the new administration briefed the allies on a refocused strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan, one intended to halt the establishment of a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other terror groups, while downgrading the goal of turning Afghanistan into a centrally controlled democratic state." Could you please explain how in the world you can possibly hope to "halt the establishment of a sanctuary for Al Qaeda and other terror groups" without having a central government in control of the state?
First - they only said democratically controlled central state. Let the Afghani people decide upon their own form of government. Second - making sure the are is militarily controlled pretty much means it can't be a sanctuary
“For me, it is a different world,” Mohamed ElBaradei, the Egyptian-born director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told a visitor to his office in Vienna on Monday, as Mr. Obama was finishing up his trip. “When was the last time you heard a president talk about moving toward zero nuclear weapons? Or fixing a nonproliferation system that is clearly falling apart?” What he meant was.... "Wow! This new guy is naive!" Pssst. Obama....look over there at North Korea.
Ok. You get re-elected by doing a good job OR . . . byscaring the shit out of people by convincing them that gays are going to marry the hell out of each other all over the place. . . . and their going to move their gay asses into YOUR neighborhood . . . . and their going to take your kids and make them gay kids at re-education camps run by closet lesbian Michelle Bachman. . . and they will take your guns away . . . . so only gays will have guns. . . . . and they will use the gay guns to shoot you with gay transformation serum . . . . . and then do you know what they will do? . . . . they will pass a huge tax with a gay deduction so that your all of your wealth will be transferred to the gays. . . . and they will use their gay wealth to have really big gay wedding receptions . . . . they NEED your wealth because Cher don't come cheap . . . . or you can do a good job.
I thought bush fixed all of our problems with North Korea? Seriously, you guys are going to get burned assuming Obama is naive, the same way the democrats got burned assuming that bush was too stupid to get elected. If you haven't learned by now that Obama is an incredibly skilled politician who is tough as nails under the smooth exterior, then you haven't learned much. He is carrying on the goals stated by Reagan in his famous speech in 1985 and there is no way, no how that he gives away the store. If he does anything unilaterally, it will be a symbolic gesture that won't affect our security.
You get re-elected almost by default, to be honest. Still, every first-term president's strategy is that re-election. Just as every second-term president's strategy is his "legacy."
I disagree. In general and in this case specifically. Most presidents, including the current one, spend the first year and a half to two years trying to get as much of their domestic programs enacted as possible. After that, they have shot their congressional wad. Many then turn to foreign policy since they don't need congress for that. Then they run for re-election over the last year to year and a half. If re-elected, they have another brief window to get stuff done. Of course they normally aren't so brazen as bush declaring "I have political capital to spend and I'm going to spend it." Then its back to foreign policy for a year or two then lame duck status for the last year. Obama isn't running for re-election, he is following through on his promises that got him elected.
Umm.. isn't the fact that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons proof that the nonproliferation system currently in place IS in fact falling apart?
It's more proof that it's untenable and naive to think any nonproliferation system other than MAD works. Iran and NK were and are gonna get there no matter what. BTW, I still question if Obama realizes that he is President of the US and not Prime Minister of NATO. I still fail to see the understanding of the tremendous power he has as his approach to foreign policy has been timid and at times, like with this outrageous statement on a nuke free world almost willing to acquiesce our security and our role as the the nation who gets shit done. I mean his reaction to NK was so weak, Jon Stewart shat down his throat over it. And he's a fanboy. This is troubling and he best un-******** himself quickly.
In short, you're saying that if a politician follows through on his promises, and those actions result in good things happening, his or constituents will want to send him back to office. My God. The implications are staggering. My faith in humanity is utterly destroyed!
Haha Genius post. jk Actually, I'm not saying any of that. I am saying (for the dense ones, and you probably don't know who you are) that politicians are motivated to get elected and re-elected. It's pretty simple, really. Pleasing his constituents is a tactic.
As I am apolitical I am sure that I don't follow politics the way that most of you do. Having said that, I sure seem to remember a lot of complaints from Obama's eventual constituency that GWB was making us a pariah in the rest of the world; Europe especially.