Obama’s Inept Gamesmanship in a Dangerous World
March 24, 2014
In the months following the October 1, 2013 unveiling of Obamacare, Americans across the political spectrum have been appalled at how the whole operation was thoroughly bungled from beginning to end. Admittedly, few on the political right ever anticipated anything else, since the historical track record of socialism has always been disastrous. In contrast, those on the left waited in rapt anticipation of the utopia that was to ensue, only to be sorely disappointed at the pathetic reality of non-functioning websites, curtailed medical care, and exorbitantly higher premiums. Five months into the program, a wide-ranging consensus has been reached that the American people will never collect on any of the rosy promises on which the Obamacare mirage was built.
Sadly, the Obamacare debacle has proven to be only one facet of a much more extensive problem. Any honest assessment of the past five years reveals an unbroken pattern of abject failure by the Obama Administration on every front, from the economy to the management of government, to assurances of “transparency” by which Barack Obama sanctimoniously declared that his regime would rise far above any before him. Most ominous of all, in recent weeks, it has again been affirmed that the general ineptitude of this administration also includes its arrogant and ham-fisted approach to foreign affairs.
Americans were willing to stand with Obama in the days immediately following the May 2, 2011 elimination of Osama bin Laden. However, it was not long before Obama and his minions were again flaunting their self-absorption in a thoroughly ugly manner. Commentators soon began to parody the number of times per speech that Obama “casually” mentioned that he had gotten rid of the al Qaeda terrorist. Unfortunately, a dangerous undercurrent heralded eventual catastrophe as Obama went into full campaign mode, and in the process essentially declared that with bin Laden gone, the “War on Terror” had been won.
It was that storyline which prompted Obama and his equally ineffectual and egotistical Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to ignore the growing threats facing U.S. Embassy staff in Benghazi Libya, refusing to provide increased security as requested by Ambassador Chris Stevens. Even after the expected attack ensued on September 11, 2012, the focus of the Obama Administration was solely directed at how to play down the event and spin any fallout in such a manner that it did not pose a political liability to the presidential election which was only weeks away. Rather than rush available military assets and personnel to the scene to save Stevens and his staff, the cold-blooded decision was made to leave them to their fate while concocting a bogus cover-story to deflect criticism.
Though the transparent ruse was quickly recognized, in the short term it proved quite successful at ensuring that the Benghazi disaster remained a non-issue through Obama’s reelection. Nevertheless, the nation has paid an enormous price for both the treachery and short-sightedness of this administration as well as its ongoing liberal myopia and the arrogance that ensures the liberal governing philosophy will remain entrenched, despite enormous evidence proving its inevitable failure.
The recent debacle involving the piecemeal Russian takeover of Ukraine, and the comically impotent (were the consequences not so dire) response of the Obama White House represents ample proof that a foreign policy based on the inanities of liberalism can not only be expected to fail, but will do so on a dangerous scale. Our nation is indeed entering into a perilous time, in which all of the gains and triumphs won by America’s successful prosecution of the “Cold War” against the nightmare of Soviet imperialism could conceivably be forfeited in a matter of months.
Stretching from the end of World War II in 1945 until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1988, America capably thwarted a political movement that Ronald Reagan properly characterized as the “Evil Empire” by recognizing its long-term goals, and steadfastly refusing to allow it to achieve them by any means, including the use of force when necessary. During the more than four decades of this simmering conflict, America enjoyed great successes such as the technological triumph of its moon program and the quick 1983 ouster of Hudson Austin, the communist and pro-Soviet leader in Grenada. However, it also suffered profound failures in Cuba and the protracted war in Vietnam.
Throughout those years and varied fortunes, a seemingly simplistic strategy emerged. The Soviets would wait patiently or even back down in the face of a superior opposing force, and then rapidly seize on any occasion of weakness as an opportunity to advance. And the consistency with which their actions were dictated by these factors can be interpreted as a grim harbinger of what Americans can expect, given the current status of the U.S. relationship to Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
Few Americans responded with appropriate alarm and horror to Barack Obama’s March 2012 message to Vladimir Putin (via Russian president Dmitri Medvedev), in which he beseeched Putin to hold off on dealing with any potentially contentious issues since “After my election I will have more flexibility.” What Putin clearly assessed from this plea was both an ideological alliance with Russia, as well as an intent to eventually betray the American people the moment Obama felt he was out of reach of any accountability for his treachery.
Unfortunately, in the 2012 election, the majority of Americans were more concerned with Obama’s empty promises of unending government “benefits,” than the dire repercussions of reelecting someone with such profoundly divided loyalties.
Consequently, at a time when a strong and resolved America is needed to avert the latest threat of an ascendant Russian bear, the U.S. military is on the verge of being gutted, while its ranks are daily undercut and demoralized by the poison of “political correctness.” Official U.S. response to an increasingly emboldened Russians is pathetic and embarrassing, with Obama’s dissembling, the meandering whining of Secretary of State John Kerry and the predictably buffoonish pronouncements from Vice-president Joe Biden hardly any match for the strident nationalism and threatened militarism of Putin.
“We the People” are indeed showing signs of awakening to the dangers of the all-powerful “nanny state,” hopefully in time to express these sentiments during this fall’s congressional mid-term elections. Nevertheless, the prospects for America’s future are at least as contingent upon its standing on the international stage as they are on a healthy domestic policy. If America is to play any role in world affairs other than acquiescing to those who would exert raw power, it must be able to match them, both in the strength of its armed forces and in its determination to stand against their aggression. The world is, and will always be, far too dangerous a place for any nation to survive if it fails to recognize the critical importance of these principles.
Christopher G. Adamo is a resident of southeastern Wyoming and has been involved in state and local politics for many years. He writes for several prominent conservative websites, and has written for regional and national magazines. He is currently the Chief Editorial Writer for The Proud Americans, an advocacy group for America’s seniors, and for all Americans. His contact information and article archives can be found at www.chrisadamo.com, and he can be followed on Twitter @CGAdamo.