28 December 2010 By Ramzy Baroud He may still possess the poise of a confident
leader and an eloquent intellectual, but the
presidency of Barack Obama is now suffering its most
difficult phase to date. Certainly, Obama cannot solely be blamed for all
the factors that have stifled his country's chances of
recovery from the failures of the Bush era. But the
man who promised the moon has now extended the
abhorrent and morally unjustifiable tax cuts for
America's wealthiest class. The "sweeping" $858
billion tax bill was signed into law on December 17.
It includes an $801 billion package of tax cuts,
extending Bush's tax break for the rich for two more
years – at a time when the majority of Americans are
reeling under the weight of a failing economy and
persistently high unemployment. Still, the tax bill was presented by the
self-assured president as "real money that's going to
make a real difference in people's lives." The cuts
will help stimulate an ailing economy, he claims,
despite it being the rich who gambled with American
wealth to increase their own, stimulating a market
crash that led to millions losing their small
investments and savings. All we know for sure is that
the cuts will add a gigantic chunk to an already
impossible deficit of $1.3 trillion, another Obama
battle that is likely to be lost to the Republicans
early next year. But this concession, and its presentation as a
victory for America's middle classes says more about
Obama's style than the weakening of the Democrats
since the midterm elections. Even in his foreign
policy management, Obama's approach seems to teeter
between giving face-lifts to ugly realities and
postponing urgently needed action. The agent of change
has become the quintessential American politician, who
is more consumed with his chances of reelection than
with bringing about the kind of long-term change that
can really benefit his country, and the world at
large. Obama's handling of the shortly-lived peace talks
between the Palestinian Authority and Israel's
rightwing government is another example of a striking
failure followed by whitewash. Although he adamantly
demanded a halt to Israel's construction of illegal
settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, Obama
soon began capitulating before an obstinate Benjamin
Netanyahu. The Israeli leader, supported by much of
the US Congress and backed by a strong Israel lobby in
Washington, finally forced Obama into a humiliating
retreat. Even a generous bribe to win a limited
Israeli moratorium on settlement construction failed.
Obama administration officials finally declared that
the US would abandon its efforts to halt Israeli
settlement expansion, effectively signaling an
American exit from the ‘peace process.' Instead of laying the blame squarely on Israel, the
Obama administration delved into the same
long-discredited rhetoric that only Palestinians and
Israelis are capable of accomplishing peace without
any outside intervention. That was the core message of
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who argued that it
was up to Israel and the Palestinian leadership to
"settle their conflict". It signaled a complete shift
in US foreign policy, which Israel has naturally
welcomed, for the US-financed military occupier
prefers to be left to its own devices in this very
unbalanced conflict. Afghanistan is another example. The eagerly
anticipated strategy assessment of the war in
Afghanistan was released on December 16, with illusory
talk of "gains" and warnings of al-Qaeda threats. It
suggests that the US will continue to fight a
pointless war for years to come, with no clear goals
or end in sight. "The unclassified version of the secret review said
U.S. military operations have disrupted the
Pakistan-based al-Qaida terrorist network over the
last year and halted the momentum of the Taliban
insurgency in southern Afghanistan," reported the
Kansas City Star. What the review and much of the media fail to
report is that the war on Afghanistan hardly concerns
al-Qaeda, which is more widespread and mobile than
ever. Its future operation does not hinge on the
ongoing battles in Afghanistan either. One must also
remain skeptical of the "gains" reportedly made in the
south. Taliban is known for avoiding open warfare, a
style they have mastered after nine years of practice.
The recoil – if that is even the case - of the Taliban
is probably temporary, and a spring resurgence is
assured by past experiences. But what is most
important to note is that the action of NATO and US
soldiers, government corruption and the brutality of
local militias have allowed the Taliban to extend its
presence to northern provinces, including Kunduz and
Takhar, which were, until recently, uncharted
territories for the strong and resourceful Pashtun
fighters. According to an editorial in the Lebanese Daily
Star, "Obama's long-awaited Afghanistan strategy
review amounts to little more than a whitewash of the
seemingly intractable problems that have trapped the
mighty American military in a quagmire." Worse, this
crisis is likely to be compounded. "The failures of
General Stanley McChrystal, who resigned in June, and
Richard Holbrooke, who died suddenly this week, are
symbolic of the crumbling of the twin pillars, both
military and civilian, of Barack Obama's
counterinsurgency strategy. The US has now…entered a
violent stalemate," wrote James Denselow in the
British Guardian. Obama's response was yet another attempt to
distance himself from the looming, if not ongoing
failure. US priority, he said, is "not to defeat every
last threat to the security of Afghanistan, because,
ultimately, it is Afghans who must secure their
country. And it's not nation-building, because it is
Afghans who must build their nation." One would agree with the president were it not for
the fact that the US invasion was what has impeded the
security of Afghanistan, destroyed any chance of
nation-building and installed a corrupt government.
But Obama will not accept responsibility. His cautious
assessments are emblematic of his overall political
style: avoiding or perpetuating the problem, and
distancing himself from it once failure is assured.
This is as true of his domestic policy as of his
foreign policy. It is easy to see why Obama's popularity has
plummeted among those who once believed in his ability
to bring change to a scarred and traumatized country.
And his irresolute leadership has also empowered his
political opponents, who will not cease to demand more
from a feeble and ever-willing president. - Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net)
is an internationally-syndicated columnist and the
editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His latest book is
My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza's Untold
Story (Pluto Press, London), now
available on Amazon.com. Comments 💬 التعليقات |