Buying Time

Stratfor:

I find your article (Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time, Nov. 2) incisive and interesting, although I disagree with your interpretation of the rationale for President Obama’s actions. You appear to believe that his delay in making decisions vis-a-vis Afghanistan and Iran is the result of considered judgment. I suspect you also believe that the decision on the Polish missile defense site and not meeting the Dalai Lama were an attempt to obtain quid pro quos from the Russians and Chinese, respectively, on Iran.

An alternative interpretation, however, is that rather than playing a calculated waiting game, Obama is incapable of making hard decisions, much like former President Carter. Similarly, his naivete leads him to believe, unlike former President Reagan, that the Chinese and Russians respect gestures, whereas, in fact they view them as a sign of weakness. For all his vaunted respect for democracy and fairness, Obama has abandoned the Poles and the Tibetans, not to mention arguably the Hondurans.

One can criticize former President George W Bush, especially for indulging the neo-conservatives’ misguided attempts to impose democracy in the Middle East while blithely ignoring many of the underlying causes of the discord there, such as lack of education and corruption. His administration did, however, keep the US mainland safe. A more incisive criticism of recent US administrations is that they failed to engage the Russians; a strategic alliance with Russia, for better or worse, would benefit both countries as they face the two most significant threats over the next 20 years — the continued rise of Islamic terrorism and of China. Indeed, given such an entente cordiale, the brouhaha over missile defense would have been completely different.

-Brian Haughey
Staatsburg, New York
United States



Stratfor:

All that State Department type of thinking is nice, but does nothing for me. The reason? We have more than 60,000 sons and daughters fighting in Afghanistan. They are dying and being maimed for life. They are doing so because they thought their mission was to destroy “Islamic Enemies” of the United States and protect the Afghan people. They have been desperately in need of reinforcement for many years, both in terms of manpower and equipment. Each time their generals have asked for more, they are ignored or given a few carrots. This is immoral and wrong. I don’t care about all this grand strategy stuff. We have combat forces over there, they must be reinforced, either to stay and destroy the enemy and protect the people, or to cover their withdrawal. President Obama is no commander in chief. He is at best a chief executive playing games with our sons and daughters, who, despite what they teach at Harvard, are not pawns. The United States has overwhelming power even setting nuclear weapons aside. These weapons need to be brought to bear, our troops must be reinforced to survive and have any chance of executing their mission as described by the chief executive in March 2009. All this jibber-jabber about playing for time by a man who feels uncomfortable with “victory” just makes my blood boil. This is no game. This is war, and Americans fight war to win whether that makes the chief executive comfortable or not.

-Edward Marek
Wausau, Wisconsin
United States



Stratfor:

Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time is another brilliant piece. The example of Rome and Great Britain as empire builders may also include the Athenian Empire, which grew in exactly the same way, with the same results. Originally, its objective was security against the Persian Empire, but once it grew powerful enough, it threatened Spartan interests and resulted in the Peloponnesian War.

One factor that currently makes the process so challenging is the pace of developments. Where, in times past, months or even years occurred while events were digested by power centers, the pace today has been shortened to hours by the immediacy of communications and travel. It may be easier to see trends developing, even without the foresight of a Napoleon, but the pace also makes it more precarious.

-Paul Sansoucy
Liverpool, New York
United States



Stratfor:

Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time is a clear and brilliant assessment of the current dilemma. However, the piece fails to mention the major villain — radical Islam. A jihad mounted by this widely dispersed group has only one goal and that is the elimination or subjugation of all who are not of the Islamic faith. Ultimately, this latter strategy is being reinforced by the demographic trends, a reality discussed elsewhere by Mr. Friedman and others, and a conundrum for all.

-Martin Fenton
Solan Beach, California
United States



Stratfor:

Obama and the U.S. Strategy of Buying Time is provocative analysis; as a long-time student of US and foreign affairs, I found it to be mind-opening. However, I think it somewhat overlooked the personal characteristics of two participants: former President Bush and current President Obama.

Bush seemed unafraid of risking consequences, including to his own reputation, whereas the egomania and narcissism of Obama (not my own original opinion!) can obstruct him from following even good, practical advice (whatever that might be) if it would result in a momentary — or lasting — blot on his self-perceived image. It seems to me that Obama is power-mad, does not really care about the United States or its people, and has a “Hitlerian” (sorry about that) obsession with self-image.

-Yehoshua Ploni
Brooklyn, New York
United States



Stratfor:

The question seems to be not if, but when to begin drawing down forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan. From a military standpoint disengagement is a very tricky proposition in the best of circumstances. Politically, President Obama will continue to pay a heavy price with both the opposition and his own party members the longer he delays. It seems unlikely that much could happen in either country that would allow a continued U.S. presence despite the rhetoric of the hawks in both houses of Congress. It will be interesting to see how much time passes before we declare victory and come home.

-Thomas Birch
Glasgow, Missouri
United States



Stratfor:

You are right on point. Good work.

-John Finnegan
The Villages, Florida
United States



Stratfor:

How can you write about the strategic options of the United States without once mentioning Islamic terrorism? The course of U. S. foreign military policy must first take into account the difficulty of dealing with the hatred of the United States on the part of Muslims around the world. While only some actually blow themselves up to kill, they all are exposed to the view that infidels, especially America, must be done away with. The campaign against Islamic terrorism must be our foremost policy.

-Ed Keats
Baltimore, Maryland
United States