What next for Obama?

In May, I posted a blog about President Obama and his impossible presidency, pointing out the many difficulties that faced the President, both internally and externally. I suggested he had achieved a lot in the face of stiff opposition, arguing that his measured and conservative style suited the times and that America was lucky to have him.

However, in the past two weeks, Mr Obama has launched a series of eye-catching initiatives which are politically based. The November mid-terms loom. First, he went to West Point, the headquarters of future army generals, to announce a new foreign policy initiative, the so-called Obama doctrine! He sought to carve out a third way, a middle ground between George W. Bush’s naked military aggression and the isolationist policy demanded by the war weary public over which he presides. His message was soft power over military prowess. Talk about Daniel in the lion’s den. What a place to choose to proclaim a diplomatic military offensive. The Wall Street Journal compared the Obama agenda to Tom Hanks trying to survive in Cast Away: “whatever’s left of the wreckage will do.”

Second, having failed in 2010 to get a climate change bill through Congress, his administration, through the Environmental Protection Agency, unveiled new environmental rules, imposing cuts on carbon pollution emissions from power plants from 30% to 20%. Democrat hopefuls in pollution-heavy states cannot be happy, not to mention the business lobby, the energy lobby and the Republicans. It is difficult to envisage any success getting this policy into law.

Third, the exchange of Bowe Bergdahl for five Guantanamo Bay detainees has received criticism from the media and both sides of the aisle in Congress. Susan Rice, Obama’s national security adviser, did not help when she claimed that Bergdahl had served “with honour and distinction.”

Fourth, the President has continued to use executive orders to get his agenda through. This week, in another attempt to stem the economic threat of high student debt and win support for his party before November, he signed an order to limit federal student loan payments for five million people. However, Mr. Obama’s administration has not addressed the rocketing price of tuition, which has grown by more than 250% over the past thirty years at public colleges. Also, those students who did not qualify for federal student loans and hold private student loans from banks are left out in the cold.

What I deduce from these presidential moves is a man seeking to go it alone. He seems to want votes first and policy second. How will this square with the events of the past few days in Iraq? Islamist extremists are hell-bent on taking over the country. Not only the Iraq government but the rest of the world has been taken by surprise. In no time, I expect the free world’s media will demand that action be taken by the international community as another human refugee disaster beckons in the Middle East, alongside that of Syria.

What can the President do? If only he had followed the example of Bush senior and created an international coalition, there would have been available a ready-made response. Now we will probably watch as the United Nations achieves nothing effective. Why was the free world caught by surprise? I’d like to hear the exchanges between the President and the CIA director as the latter explains why no warning was given.

When a totalitarian government collapses, there is a vacuum to be filled. Marshal Tito ruled Yugoslavia with an iron fist but he kept the warring factions quiescent. After Tito died, the Balkans descended into anarchy. So, for that matter, did the nations ruled by men like Stalin and Saddam Hussein.

I’m not advocating dictatorships in any way. I merely suggest that history predicts what is likely to happen when a dictatorship ends. Assuming there is an abhorrence of militant extremists taking over swathes of a country, free world leaders should recognize the dangers and prepare so that when cities like Mosul become killing zones, an international coalition can take speedy action. If the public of free world countries is told in advance of protective initiatives, designed to support fledgling democracies under military attack, it is likely that such initiatives will receive strong support.

So, Mr. President, may I suggest you get on the phone to your G7 friends and Mr. Putin and start building alliances, rather than going it alone just to make headlines for the mid-terms.