Wow! You bet. You could just see Obama's canine teeth becoming ever more fang-like as he shook hands with one time judo champ, Putin. Gonna put that Rooshan in his place fer sure.
The fabricators of public perceptions must be hard up considering that the big news of the mini-summit was the announcement of plans to replace the current Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty set to expire this year with one which provides for further reductions in both nuclear munitions and delivery systems. This development is both welcome and overdue. It certainly is not a mark of "toughness," however that word might be defined.
On the margins of the main topic, the related one of the proposed missile defense system was discussed. The Obama administration is not enamored of the current plans set in place by the Bush-Cheney administration.
The President belabored the obvious by averring fearlessly (and presumably with a tough glint in his eyes) that there would be no need for an ABM system if Iran was somehow to forgo its ambitions. Adding to his tough stance, Mr Obama added that no defense system could possibly impair or impede the "mighty" Russian offensive capability.
That must have made Putin, to say nothing of Medvedev (who never shot a bear in Siberia or won a judo match or been seen in the public press sans shirt), just standing in awe of Mr Obama's toughness. Further afield there can be no doubt that after this display of hardnose, hard line, refractory verbiage, the mullahocracy in Iran, the Dear Leader in the Hermit Kingdom of the North, and the Men of the Forbidden City instantly decided not to try their luck against the hard boiled President from the streets Al Capone made famous.
Presumably, the prestidigators of spin as well as those who direct their services have been perceiving a need to portray Mr Obama as not falling in the less-backbone-than-a-banana category. Perchance there is a hint of fear in the corridors surrounding the Oval that Obama may be falling into Category W (as in wimp) in the foreign affairs department.
Oh! Say it ain't so!
What could possibly be leading to the interpretation of the Presidential Posture as being closer to over cooked pasta than Krupstahl?
Could it have something to do with asymmetrical pressuring in the Mideast? Pushing on Israel to make concessions (not that the notion of a few timely giveaways is a poor idea) while giving the Arab states a walk on reciprocity?
Or, perhaps, might it have something to do with the Obama rejection of real enforcement of real sanctions against Iran even though some of the usually highly reluctant to do anything beyond natter European Union states are ready to go that way as the last, best chance to avoid the blandly termed "military option?" Is it the patented Obama method of "engagement" with a regime which is not simply repressive but using an effective combination of deeply rooted Iranian nationalism with religious zeal with the goals of regional hegemony and global influence?
Or, to add a third factor, is it acting as the running buddy of "progressive" regimes such as those headed by Hugo Chavez, Ewo Morales, Daniel Ortega, and Rafael Correa to cozen or coerce the Honduran government into reversing itself and re-installing the "progressive" Zelaya, who was removed from office according to the lawful decisions of the country's Congress and Supreme Court?
Perhaps, there was a surfeit of "likable" and a paucity of "tough" in the craven rewriting and companion distorting of history in the Cairo Address so as to fit the needs of the self-esteem challenged Muslims of the world.
Then there is the small matter of President Obama, his White House flacks, and his State department bending over and spreading their collective cheeks to offer assurances that the US had not given a "green light" for an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuclear complex just because Joe (Flapping Lips) Biden had been factually correct by saying that Israel is a sovereign state with the sole right to determine how to respond to threats it perceived as "existential." A spectacle? Yes. Edifying? No.
The list could go on. But, the Geek bores of the exercise.
Being liked is nice. Most all politicians want to be liked, even loved. However, in a famous primer for rulers, a philosopher of rulership, an Italian fellow, one Machiavelli by name, stated a brutal truism: It is better to be feared than loved.
"Feared" may be too stark a word for our sensitive and enlightened age. The word "respected" may be profitably substituted. A country, a government, a president is respected when it (or he) takes a consistent, reality based view of the world. When it (or he) sets and executes policy in a candid, straight forward manner. When it (or he) takes the world as it is without any need to pander, to genuflect, to pitter-pat around the facts, the truth, the national and strategic interests.
When and if Mr Obama and his administration can show that he and it sees the world as it is, understands what American national and strategic interests might be, comprehends what states, entities, and personalities seek to limit, constrain, or defeat our attempts to implement policies in our national interest, then the president and his administration are on the road to respect. If in addition he and it can eschew post-modernist confections suitable for the English department but not government such as espousing, at least implicitly, cultural, political, and ethical relativism, then he and it will be moving well toward the goal of respect.
And, what does respect get a country?
It gets one a fair chance at achieving a better state of peace without the horrid necessity of having to go to war first. It means being liked less, but not having to produce "tough" acts to support the earlier "tough" words.
So, Mr Obama, some free advice from the History Geek. Don't worry about being liked. Don't fret over being tough enough. Just go for a little of that R*E*S*P*E*C*T.
No comments:
Post a Comment