Obama Administration Inexperience Looking Like The Titanic

Obama Administration Inexperience Looking Like The Titanic

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wants National Intelligence Director James Clapper to be fired because he publicly gave a blunt analysis regarding Moammar Gadhafi’s ability to hold off the rebels and for “undercutting U.S. efforts to remove him.” Meanwhile, President Obama’s national security advisor, Tom Donilon criticized Clapper’s assessment as “static and one-dimensional.” Is there turmoil in Obama’s Administration? You bet there is and it is looking more and more like the sinking of the Titanic.

From the onset of the Middle East Uprisings, President Obama has shown a level of inexperience when dealing with Foreign Issues, hasn’t he? I will admit that President Obama has had a lot on his plate since his inauguration, but those early concerns about him being ready to deal with the complexities of our geopolitical world, has reared its ugly head. Of course, we cannot put it all on Obama’s back either. There has been a fundamental failure and breakdown within his gaggle of so-called advisers.

President’s are ultimately measured on the strength of their foreign policy and the ability to deal decisively whenever abrupt changes threaten the balance of our geopolitical world. There is no doubt in my mind that no one in the administration foresaw the popular uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak out of office, but shouldn’t they have seen that coming? As Egypt’s protests grew, the Obama Administration stood flat-footed until forced to show their hand. And now, it seems they have been caught with their pants down again when they under estimated Gadhafi’s resolve not to leave quietly. It is almost as if everyone in the Obama Administration is wearing blinders and totally oblivious to the undercurrents of ever treacherous waters.

People, however, were warned of the possible shortcomings if Obama were elected. And still, they ignored all the signs in front of them. People did not bother to look at his voting record, or lack of it, as a U.S. Senator and State Senator. Unfortunately it is far too late to say I made a mistake. We must now endure the consequences of every misstep.

President Obama’s inexperience, is dangerous. His populist rah-rah speeches do not solve the myriad of problems facing America and the world. Terrorists have been emboldened under his watch. Meanwhile, Lebanon has all but been taken over by Hezbollah and Egypt’s power vacuum has opened the door for Hamas to gain a foothold. Under Obama we have also seen troubling signs out of Pakistan, which will further stymie the fragile balance of the region.

As it stands now, our allies are more than a might confused with President Obama’s leadership. So? Does it surprise anyone that we now see confusion from within the Administration? Obama has not had the Midas Touch since taking up residence in the White House, rather, one disaster after another. Foreign policy is just the tip of the iceberg, too. Our economy continues to flounder, the Federal Budget remains out of control, the transparency we were promised is riddled with exceptions and exclusions and the overall standard of living for Americans has decreased as we forge ahead like the Titanic.

Oblivious until, of course, the iceberg appears.

Hey, Watch Out – We Are Getting Close!

Comments

Leave a comment
  • good post, thanks for post, +1))))

  • In reply to Manameena4:

    Thank You for the comment and for visiting the site. It is appreciated.

  • In reply to Manameena4:

    It is more complicated than you indicate.

    The folks on the left think we should liberate everyone, but don't believe in war and certainly don't believe in spending money on the military. The Egyptian army persuaded Murbarak to take off, but nobody is going to convince Khadaffi, Gadafi, Quadafi, Iamanutjob, Khameni and similar to step aside. Heck, only colon (not Columbus) problems got Fidel to step aside for Raul. So, while Obama gave a very weak statement on "you assume the consequences of bombing your own people," his power base isn't going to let him start another war.

    As far as advisers, all this indicates is that there are too many. I thought that the Secretary of State was supposed to be the head foreign affairs adviser. Of course, there was always talk about the State Dept. having cabals against the advisers in the White House. This sounds similar to too many agencies having jurisdiction over fish.

    Then, you have while Obama gave a fairly centrist State of the Union address, neither side of the aisle will buy any of it. Cf. yesterday's discussion.

    Add in the PC folks who say that it is racist to study Islamic extremism planting people here. Sure, there are other terrorists, but we know about this threat. Studying Loughner isn't going to take the other threat away.

    Of course, while I am convinced that the Democrats don't know how to govern effectively, Bush doesn't get any prize for the economic situation he left, and his foreign policy and military advisers miscalculated various things about Iraq (sure, we believed Colin Powell when he first said that Iraq had WMDs). A couple of terms as a Governor doesn't make one President, especially in the foreign affairs area (ask Sarah Palin about her neighbor to the west), but that's what we got for 42 and 43.

    Maybe being a U.S. Senator gives one more expertise in foreign affairs, but I don't think we want to see a President Durbin (and I believe that Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry lost).

    So, it basically appears that either the President has to put a gag order on everyone, or stuff like this will come out.

  • In reply to jack:

    Can't disagree there; if I were to spell out all the complications it may as well become a thesis or a non-best seller on some list. I will agree that Bush was no prize either. Although he at least had some support in the foreign circles (and they did the leg work too). He wasn't afraid to back up his threats if that is any consolation and Pakistan was at least kept in check.

    Here a point to ponder; go back to Jimmy Carter and study the ineptitude and non-existence of his foreign policy. Then go to Clinton, he only decided to bomb Belgrade because he wanted to take the Hot Lips Lewinkski Scandal off the front pages. Again, another Democratic President that was indecisive. When I was in the service doing covert operations we had the opportunity to eliminate bin Laden - Clinton refused. There is a clear divide between Democrats and Republicans when it comes to foreign policy and/or prosecuting conflicts. Democrats are woeful at best. Heck even FDR was a joke as all he wanted was to profit off both sides of the conflict. So, based on my experience, when it comes to military support and/or intervention I would rather have a Republican president.

    You can't be a dove and talk like a hawk, but you can be a hawk and talk like a dove if you get my analogy. Obama, will never be taken seriously when it comes to his abilities as commander-in-chief. For all his upbringing in Indonesia, he should be the one leader that understands the Muslim dynamic - yet - suspiciously absent.

    Yes it is complicated and yes there are too many advisers. There is plenty of back-stabbing in-between agencies too - Hillary hasn't figured out how to effectively run the State Department and I think that is a big part of the problem too. She has gotten more egg on her face than any S of S that I can recall, which of course plays into the equation of our credibility too. Shit I can go on and on based on my experience but like I said that would require something in the neighborhood of Tolstoy's War and Peace as an introduction.

  • In reply to maciric:

    Failures of intelligence were attributed to most of the above, and I guess you would be in a better position than I to comment on that.

    IIRC, Clinton also dropped a bomb in the vicinity of the bin Laden camp during the Lewinski scandal, but not for any military strategic purpose. Sure didn't prevent 9-11.

  • In reply to jack:

    Carter & Iranian Desert was a condition of Too many Chiefs not enough Indians. Then of course Beirut wasn't any fun either because of bad intelligence. One can go on and on and it still evolves around idiots in the situation room with no experience directing the troops. Sadly, it cost lives for nuthin' and I don't see it changing. Clinton was a military nimrod and I'll leave it at that.

  • In reply to jack:

    This is what Change looks like. God help us all.

  • In reply to gwill:

    Exactly

  • In reply to gwill:

    With all those intellectuals in one place maybe they can't find the right book. Again,being the racist that I am,I just don't agree with his policy not him being black. But maybe I 'm just disagreeing with the white side of him. His choices of leaders of all departments really leaves me scatching my head. But I do know why he chose them was the same old liberal mantra we need to save the world at the expense of the rest of the world. Unfortunately there are some real dangers we face and he seems oblivious to them.

  • In reply to waterbill:

    And the worst appointment was Arne Duncan - destroyed CPS and continues the trend with "regional accredited colleges" that rip off students with bogus loans.

  • In reply to gwill:

    Can we finally let bush of the hook ? I really don't see what he has to do with any of this. He 's gone already.

  • In reply to waterbill:

    It would be nice to, but Bush does share some of the blame in what he left. It is easy to forget that a presidents influence is felt long after he is gone. Two wars and allowing the financial sector to run amok falls on both Clinton and Bush - we can't relieve them of burden that easily.

    Obama, though also takes responsibility on how he allowed Pelosi, Frank, Reid and Durbin to plummet us further into debt (which is a job they started during Bush's last 2 years in office) - he was afraid to assert his authority.

  • In reply to maciric:

    I'll comment here on the above two threads.

    I agree with the one on Duncan. Apparently Arne's only qualification was that he was tall enough to play basketball. The only thing I recall about him in the Chicago schools is that he merged failing schools with not so failing schools, resulting in gang warfare.

    I agree with the immediately above post, too, but not with regard to the deficit. Instead, by not showing some influence over Reid and Pelosi, he encouraged the type of political factionalism discussed several times before. Maybe his Illinois General Assenbly experience allowed him to go along with the "let's cut the Republicans out" strategy, until Scott Brown showed up, and letting the Dems do such things as the "Nebraska compromise," and then try to clean it up using legislative tricks. At least the voters had the chance to put Pelosi in the minority.

    I also agree on not letting Bush or Clinton off the hook. If Clinton had adequate foreign intelligence, we probably would not have had 9-11, unless one can argue that highjacked airplanes being used in that manner was totally unforeseeable. Similarly, if Bush had not let the financial system get totally out of control (of course there was Frank's help), not started TARP, and not made the initial advances, Obama would not have had to do what he did with the new government subsidiaries GM, Chrysler, AIG, Citibank, etc. Of course, with the huge deflation of the money supply and job market in 2008, while Bush was still President, I shudder to think what would have happened if the government had let the "too big to fail" fail. Since the federal government can print money, I'll start to worry when hyperinflation occurs, which won't so long as the Chinese are willing enough to invest in U.S. Treasuries that the effective interest rate is still zero.

  • In reply to jack:

    Well reasoned Jack. One thing though. Clinton had intelligence but he chose not to use it on a number of occasions. i don't know if he actually had some moral conviction in regard to war or if he just reasoned that paying off the enemy was smarter. Whichever the case, much of what has occurred leading up to , and including 9-1-1 are squarely on him. I served under many presidents and he was, by far, the worst when it came to defense. Bush I at least understood the concept of Sun Su and keeping your enemy close but your friends closer?

  • In reply to maciric:

    Except, then, you don't know if Mubarak is your friend or enemy. Too many of that type of situation in the world.

    At least on Friday, Obama had a principle, probably again based on being a Lecturer on Constitutional Law, that we believe in the 1st Amendment for all countries. However, there isn't anything to back it up.

  • In reply to jack:

    Oh so true. But Mubarak, I think was better than Mushariff in Pakistan. Given that, if you put Mushariff at the top tier, Mubarak is mid-tier the real question is where the Saudi's really stand. Remember, their form of Islam is quite extreme. A true wolf in sheeps clothing. I believe Obama is a principled person too, but in way over his head when it comes to practical experience. He is far more about theory than application.

  • In reply to maciric:

    "Bush was no prize" except for Iran and Osama Bin laden for whom he was a wet dream beyond all their hopes and desires. in fairness, I should add opponents of the American empire, which he fatally weakened with trillion dollar wars and the economic meltdown, itself the result of Republican and Democratic fantasies about the mythical "free market." Obama's problem is that he is Bush without the conviction, deluded ignorant and disastrous as that conviction was.

  • In reply to Celt:

    Well Celt I am not sure if you are advocating the Communist Manifesto or not but I don't think it is completely the fault of a free market as much as how the free market is left unchecked via government deals. When you leave the wolf to guard the chicken coop, what do you think will happen. But don't kid yourself, for as fucked-up as things are, America's system still has merit.

    Unfortunately, the myth you speak of lies in a two-party system that breeds greed. As I said, lobbyists and special interests run America. Politicians and presidents are in too deep with those interests, as are members of other nations. Remember Iceland's role in the economic meltdown? This is what the New World Order is and don't you kid yourself for a second. There is more going on than most people realize.

    I will agree with you on the conviction analogy. That is the inexperience of Obama that I speak of. Bush on the other hand was the other extreme "you are either with me or not" That is something that angered many an ally too.

  • In reply to maciric:

    I don't want to let bush or clinton off the hook. Just put the collar of current blame where it belongs. Internationally, we must make friends with some very unsavory characters at different times. Stalin for instance. But our policies are what lead up into some really bad decisions. Lets tap what we have before we support more of these very bad leaders. As I watch this disaster in Japan I bet we will see a huge slowdown on any talk of nuclear facilities in the U S. Will global warming get the blame?

  • In reply to waterbill:

    True we must make friends with unsavory people; unfortunately that is the way of the world politically. Bad policies and bad actors, though seem a tad harder to eliminate.

Leave a comment