Obama has used up his ‘three envelopes’
WASHINGTON — Old Soviet joke:
Moscow, 1953. Stalin calls in Khrushchev.
“Niki, I’m dying. Don’t have much to leave you. Just three envelopes. Open them, one at a time, when you get into big trouble.”
A few years later, first crisis. Khrushchev opens envelope 1: “Blame everything on me. Uncle Joe.”
A few years later, a really big crisis. Opens envelope 2: “Blame everything on me. Again. Good luck, Uncle Joe.”
Third crisis. Opens envelope 3: “Prepare three envelopes.”
In the Barack Obama version, there are 50 or so such blame-Bush free passes before the gig is up. By my calculation, Obama has already burned through a good 49. Is there anything he hasn’t blamed George W. Bush for? The economy, global warming, the credit crisis, Middle East stalemate, the deficit, anti-Americanism abroad—everything but swine flu.
It’s as if Obama’s presidency hasn’t really started. He’s still taking inventory of the Bush years. Just this Monday, he referred to “long years of drift” in Afghanistan in order to, I suppose, explain away his own, well, yearlong drift on Afghanistan.
This compulsion to attack his predecessor is as stale as it is unseemly. Obama was elected a year ago. He became commander in chief two months later. He then solemnly announced his own “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan seven months ago. And it was not an off-the-cuff decision.
“My administration has heard from our military commanders, as well as our diplomats,” the president assured us. “We’ve consulted with the Afghan and Pakistani governments, with our partners and our NATO allies, and with other donors and international organizations” and “with members of Congress.”
Obama is obviously unhappy with the path he himself chose in March. Fine. He has every right—indeed duty—to reconsider. But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy.
There is nothing new here. The history of both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is a considered readjustment of policies that have failed. In each war, quick initial low-casualty campaigns toppled enemy governments. In the subsequent occupation stage, two policy choices presented themselves: the light or heavy “footprint.” In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we initially chose the light footprint. For obvious reasons: less risk and fewer losses for our troops, while reducing the intrusiveness of the occupation and thus the chances of creating an anti-foreigner backlash that would fan an insurgency.
This was the considered judgment of our commanders at the time, most especially Centcom commander (2003-2007) Gen. John Abizaid. And Abizaid was no stranger to the territory. He speaks Arabic and is a scholar of the region. The overriding idea was that the light footprint would minimize local opposition.
It was a perfectly reasonable assumption, but it proved wrong. The strategy failed. Not just because the enemy proved highly resilient but because the allegiance of the population turned out to hinge far less on resentment of foreign intrusiveness (in fact the locals came to hate the insurgents—al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan—far more than us) than on physical insecurity, which made them side with the insurgents out of sheer fear.
What they needed, argued Gen. David Petraeus against much Pentagon brass opposition, was population protection, i.e., a heavy footprint.
In Iraq, the heavy footprint—also known as the surge—dramatically reversed the fortunes of war. In Afghanistan, where it took longer for the Taliban to regroup, the failure of the light footprint did not become evident until more recently when an uneasy stalemate began to deteriorate into steady Taliban advances.
That’s where we are now in Afghanistan. The logic of a true counterinsurgency strategy there is that whatever resentment a troop surge might occasion pales in comparison with the continued demoralization of any potential anti-Taliban elements unless they receive serious and immediate protection from U.S.-NATO forces.
In other words, Obama is facing the same decision on Afghanistan that Bush faced in late 2006 in deciding to surge in Iraq.
In both places, the deterioration of the military situation was not the result of “drift,” but of considered policies that seemed reasonable, cautious and culturally sensitive at the time, but ultimately turned out to be wrong.
Which is evidently what Obama now thinks of the policy choice he made March 27.
He is to be commended for reconsidering. But it is time he acted like a president and decided. Afghanistan is his. He’s used up his envelopes.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post. His e-mail address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
Nov 2, 2009 at 5:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
WORST BILL EVER.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...
Nov 2, 2009 at 4:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fox news had gotten more done then obama can even wish for, and looks who's scared of fox new ... they have obama running.
Nov 2, 2009 at 8:28 a.m.
Suggest removal
All Bush's and Fox's fault.
Nov 1, 2009 at 10:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Great, the Gazette reposts a Washington Post story against Obama that starts out with a Soviet Russian joke... and it all goes down hill from there.
.
I think its fair to identify yourself and how you'll be doing things differently that the previous administration.
.
Be that as it might, you'll all still bash Obama. But maybe do some fact checking and read a little on the good things that are going on - it may make you think twice before submitting yet another Fox new story quote.
Nov 1, 2009 at 10:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Maybe Bush is finally getting a lot of the blame because he was never man enough to admit his own mistakes in the first place. Is this article real?
°
Look at how Clinton handed over the country to Bush, then look at how Bush handed the country over to Obama. There were eight years between the two events, and HUGE differences. Some things, yes, just happen. But not all of that. Bush screwed up this country pretty badly. He didn't want to be President of the United States, he just wanted to make Poppy proud. Our country suffered for that, too.
°
Hey, it took Bush eight years to cause all of the destruction he did cause. Tear-down always goes more quickly than re-building. Obama hasn't even been our president for a year yet. Give him some time to get the ball rolling.
°
Do you want to know the real reason Bush is catching a lot of blame? Because he ran this country like a little kid, and now Daddy Obama is shaking his finger at him for all the wrong he's done. You can cry all you want about how it seems like your football captain is just getting blamed for everything, but you know what, he's never had the cojones to man up to his own mistakes, so someone else has to pin it on him. This is no one's fault but Bush's. Face it, he was a terrible president! Our country didn't get better under Bush, it just got worse!
Nov 1, 2009 at 8 p.m.
Suggest removal
There are 2 entities that can spend money in our economy: The public sector (the government), and the private (the people). When times are good, the people are spending then it is the role of the government to fill its coffers for a rainy day. This is what happened in the Clinton years. There is no argument about that. We were running a surplus. Then along come the Bush years. People are spending but the government does not do its part. Now when the government needs to spend money because times are bad, it has to run tremendous deficits because the prior administration failed to do its job. Yes, it is the fault of the last administration. If they would have saved when times were fat, then the current administration could do its function much more easily. Obama has read his history. During the Great Depression, 2 Republican presidents Coolidge and Harding, believed that government should play a small role in the economy. This caused the depression to go on longer than was necessary. Now the Republicans are asking us to make the same errors. Tsk, Tsk. Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice, shame on me!
Nov 1, 2009 at 7:26 p.m.
Suggest removal
RAF, you know the answer, the one that can pass.
Nov 1, 2009 at 6:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
"No plan on health care, then what will they be debating this week?"
-
Another plan. What happened to the first plans? They were also his, nancy's, and harry's...is this one the real one now? Which one is the one Obama wants?
Nov 1, 2009 at 6:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
The Liberal agenda is falling apart. I can't wait to start celebrating in the streets. What a sore winner I will become.
Nov 1, 2009 at 6:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
pharm: You sound like one that will knock another just to make yourself look better as obama is doing with bush, oneday you'll wakeup and see obama is a failure.Sorry you have to find out about it here.Oh and obama has no health care plan, he has nearly 2000 pages that no one can figure out what it means, even his own Dem party, you keep dreaming tho ... you have a good night.
Nov 1, 2009 at 6:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
No plan on health care, then what will they be debating this week? History will blame Bush more than I ever can, he was an abject failure. You blindly dismiss what Obama has done by saying he has done nothing. If he has done nothing, why are the Republicans so upset with him? The last Administration grew government, did you protest then? The last Administration doubled the deficit, where were you? We are in a deep hole that we cannot climb out of in a few months, you better realize that.
Nov 1, 2009 at 6 p.m.
Suggest removal
pharm: Government is bigger and getting bigger as we speak, government is deeper into our pockets and trying to get a bit too much into our person life and now trying to buy up everything, racking up a giant bill also. obama doesn't check out the people he has come into the white house to help him run it. He says he'll close Guantanamo but he's still working on how he'll do it with no idea how yet, "HE" has no plan on helth care nor do the dems but he's trying to push it on us so he can say he's done ONE thing. He has no idea on how to run a country, you keep doing the blame bush game pharm but it won't work for you either.It's not all in the fact that he just hasn't done anything yet but also after this long he still doesn't have a clue on how he's going to do any of those things yet ... he's ALL talk, talk is cheap but keeping a promise .... well.
Nov 1, 2009 at 5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Exactly what "change' do you want? He`s closing Guantanamo, setting up an exit in Iraq(we can`t just leave), working on Afghanistan , after the last administration let it fizzle,a consensus of economists say the stimulus is working, and health care reform is in the works. No more torture, more open government, it all doesn`t get done in a few months. I don`t have blinders on, I`m not happy with everything that is/is not happening, but it`s early .
Nov 1, 2009 at 5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
I guess I chopped up obama's name pretty good there :-) ... wasn't meant to, my bad.
Nov 1, 2009 at 4:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
pharm: I never had blinders on, did I ever say one thing about the last 8 years? Looks like your the one with the blinders on, altho I don't blame it all on Bush either. Now when it comes to omama ... he talked a good talk last year but hasn't done ONE thing yet but make things worse then they were before, so I guess that's makes me an obmam basher. I myself was hoping to see change as promised but guess what? yeah you guessed right, we have none.
Nov 1, 2009 at 1:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Yes, I am a Bush basher, as you say, because of the mess he put us in. If you can`t see it, take off the blinders! We have yet to see what the country will look like after the Obama years, way too early to judge. I didn`t like the Bush tax cuts(CBO said $1.5 trillion on the deficit), rebates that put us deeper into deficits BEFORE 9-11, and especially the Iraq , unnecessary,war.($1 to 3 trillion before it`s done)
Nov 1, 2009 at 11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
pharm: look back at what obama said he'd do once he became president, that was ridiculous too but he put himself in that spot and you can't blame that on Bush, oh and I see your one of those Bush bashers too when obama finds himself in trouble with the people. He's a sweet talker and that's it, he hasn't done ONE thing yet, good job obama whereever you are.
Nov 1, 2009 at 11:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
If we would have called Bush a failure after 9 months and stopped listening to him,maybe we would not be in the situation we are now. Americans want quick results, but these problems took years to develop, to ask for solutions in months is ridiculous.
Oct 31, 2009 at 2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
piper: ahh another bush basher, I don't care about you bashing bush but once obama can't do his job don't blame it on him but blame it on bush. obama knew what he was getting into from the start and he said he'd "change" it all once in office, well where's the "change" he was talking about? You think maybe we should wait till his 3rd year in office? maybe his 4th? He is a failure with a sweet talking mouth and you fell for it, we got change alright but nothing obama was talking about when on the road a year ago.
Oct 31, 2009 at 2:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Most of the comments are as expected, highly slanted towards party affiliation. But just think for a moment. 8 years of war, (Iraq never should have happened,) on two fronts, and pork barrel spending for 6 of those years, by the republican controlled congress. Not to mention the corruption, and pay-offs to and from Wall Street. Was anyone watching? Bank bailouts, Wall Street bailouts, bungled funds for hurricane Katrina relief aid, Halburton and Blackwater no-bid contracts that cost billions of tax payer dollars, and somehow Obama's first year is an abject failure? Who ARE you people? How can you justify all the bad judgment blatantly displayed by the Bush administration?
Oct 30, 2009 at 7:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
I am still waiting for transparency.....LOL.
Oct 30, 2009 at 7:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Wait ... are you people trying to say we have a president? I haven't seen one in the last 9 months or so, where is he hiding?
Oct 30, 2009 at 4:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Chuckles is on the verge of blaming the Bush years on Obama. Easier to forget them that way, I suppose.
Oct 30, 2009 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Of that $1.4 trillion deficit, only $200 billion is going on Obama`s record, the rest is Bush`s last budget. Next year is projected about the same, that will be Obama`s. As for jeopardy for our troops in Afghanistan, you might want to listen to the General that McChrystal replaced, McKiernan. According to him, when he asked for more troops, or anything else, the requests went to the back of the line behind anything from Iraq. If we had never gone to Iraq what would the situation in Afghanistan look like today? Unfortunately, we will never know because it has been ignored for eight years, or "dithered", as some might say.
Oct 30, 2009 at 3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
Billnewbie, I would also like to add that we had a $460 billion dollar deficit at the end of Bush's presidency and were complaining about that yet in 9 months that has risen to $1.4 trillion and rising under Obama and the Bush hater's are silent and don't say a word. It does not take a rocket scientist to put together all the pieces of the puzzle to figure out what is going on and where we are headed. Just too bad that some cannot think or look outside the box.
Oct 30, 2009 at 2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
I don't know NV......aside from the dramatized references, the article paints a realistic picture of what happened when those approaches were taken. I completely agree that the time has come to stop blaming Bush........it's to the point where it comes off as totally pathetic......
Oct 30, 2009 at 11:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
finally someone who sees the real "change"
Oct 30, 2009 at 10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
So let's see, Obama passed his "stimulus" bill which he says has "created or saved" 3 million or so jobs. Since that package was passed into law, jobs have been steadily lost at a rate of hundreds of thousands per month (263,000 for September, 7 months after the stimulus package passed congress). He reset Afghanistan and Iraq strategy months ago also and now he's trying to implement his first installment towards a European style single payer health care system which he can't quite muster enough support for. Yet still he blames W for everything. How long does he get to do blame W? Until after his re-election? Is it W's fault that the stimulus package doesn't work, unless you are willing to believe that all those who are still employed had their jobs "saved" by the stimulus? Is it W's fault that Obama want's to put off a probably unpopular decision about Afghanistan until his first step towards socialized health care is implemented? He can't afford to alienate anyone until he gets the "keystone" of his administration passed. If that means more jeopardy for our troops in Afghanistan, apparently that's OK with Obama since he can always blame it on W!
Oct 30, 2009 at 10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
After seeing 14 of his last 20 posts saying "It's all Obama's fault", I thought NVgrf has finally come to his senses. Unfortunately that must have been a temporary excursion towards sanity. Sadly, his course has been diverted back towards Looney Bay, his original destination.
Oct 30, 2009 at 9:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
"But what Obama is reacting to is the failure of his own strategy." This idiot can't really believe this....can he? Krauthammer crossed the line from columnist to comedian years ago.
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.