From the golf courses of Martha’s Vineyard to the shores of
Tripoli, President Obama’s re-election strategy is running out of
steam. As our economy remains stalled and unemployment remains
high, it’s tougher and tougher for even Obama’s closest allies to
swallow his “it’s all the Republicans’ fault” line.
If he can’t shift the blame, he can’t win. But the Teflon
has worn off. Unless the media can save him — or the Republicans
nominate another John McCain — Obama will be “one and
done.”
Obama’s blame-shifting strategy isn’t working well among
the sentient (and even some liberals) because it’s clearer each day
that the nation’s economic ills are mostly of Obama’s making, and
that his proposals to spend more will only accelerate our economic
decline. (The outright lie he keeps telling about the three trade
agreements Congress can act on immediately is very instructive. All
three are still sitting on his desk, and haven’t yet been submitted
for congressional action. Only the likes of MSNBC and the New
York Times will cover for him on so big a lie.)
And to the extent people are even thinking about the war
in Iraq and Afghanistan and the coming Palestinian intifada against
Israel, it’s equally clear that these problems are also of Obama’s
making.
The media will break their picks helping Obama shift the
blame on economic issues because that’s their focus. But the
Obama-media partnership can only seek to conceal by not covering
the explosions we’ll see abroad. If the problems in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Israel become as big and bloody as they may well
be next year, even the media won’t be able to protect Obama, and
the blame will be his and his alone.
As I’ve written here before, Obama is desperate to prevent
Iraq and Afghanistan from falling apart before Election Day 2012.
In Iraq, the situation is — already — nearly desperate. Terrorist
bombings have taken dozens of lives in just the past two weeks,
there is a resurgent al-Qaeda presence there, and it’s all too
obvious that Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is too closely tied to Iran
to do anything to prevent Iraq’s neighbor from planning and
implementing its strategy to gain hegemony over Iraq once we
leave.
To pull the covers over this, Obama — and now his newly
installed Defense Secretary Leon Panetta — have been trying to get
the Iraqi government to modify the agreement reached by the Bush
administration which mandates that all U.S. forces be removed from
Iraq by year’s end. Panetta’s diplomatic skills are not yet
evident. After eleven days in office, Panetta was widely reported
as telling the Iraqi government, “But damnit, make a decision” on
whether U.S. troops would stay.
Late last week, a Politico report
said that Panetta had declared an agreement with the Iraqis so that
U.S. troops would stay there at least through 2012. That was
quickly repudiated by the Maliki government and “clarified” by
Panetta’s people who pointed out that Panetta didn’t quite say
that. (Politico’s reading of the transcript was fair.
Panetta strongly implied that there was an agreement.)
Obama’s Iraq muddle is of his own making. His doublespeak
says that we need to get out by the deadline, but we should stay if
the Iraqis want us, and — please, please, Mr. Maliki — say that
you need us. Obama’s plan to blame Republicans for the inevitable
fall of Iraq may or may not succeed, depending on how quickly the
Iraqis toss us out and how soon Iran asserts control of its
neighbor.
Obama is playing the same game with Afghanistan, though
our “ally” there — Hamid Karzai — is one of the few allies we
have who is less coherent and loyal than Maliki. According to a
report in the Friday U.K. Daily Telegraph, the
Afghanis have apparently agreed that U.S. forces will stay there
ten years past Obama’s 2014 deadline until 2024. If that agreement
is actually signed, the media will take Afghanistan off the screen
altogether. Unless the Republican candidate can argue convincingly
that Obama’s Afghanistan war is failing — as nation-building
always does — Obama will probably be able to dodge the issue
throughout the campaign year.
He may be able to slide by on Libya, and Syria, and
even Iran. But not on Israel.
Obama may yet be able to claim some sort of victory in
Libya if Gaddafi is swept from office. But to what avail? As the
apparently-untouchable Bashar al-Assad continues to slaughter the
Syrian rebels, the contrast between Obama’s actions will be stark
if anyone can be brought to care. Libya was supposed to be so easy
that the French were eager for war. Syria is a hard target: Obama
lacks the judgment to conclude that decisive action is essential
against a state sponsor of terrorism and the courage to pursue such
action.
But it’s almost impossible to see how Iran or Libya — or
Syria — will figure significantly in the 2012 campaign. Few
Americans will care about these hotspots if there is no open war
involving U.S. troops there. Few voters will choose to vote for
Obama or whomever his opponent may be based on Obama’s dangerous
policies toward those nations.
Last week, President Obama demanded that — on the basis
of the uncontained anti-regime riots in which Bashar Assad had
ordered the continued massacre of the rebels — that Assad must
step down. But, as Frederick the Great said, diplomacy without arms
is like music without instruments. Not even Obama’s cabinet took
him seriously.
Last Tuesday Mizz Clinton derided the president’s demand
before he made it, saying “Okay. Fine. What’s next? If
Turkey says it, if King Abdullah says it, if other people say it,
there is no way the Assad regime can ignore it.” But, as Clinton
says, it’s safe for Assad to ignore Obama.
Iran also knows it’s safe to ignore Obama. Three American
hikers who apparently wandered into Iran were sentenced to eight
years in prison last week on charges ranging from stupidity to
espionage. The sentences were handed down after a multiplicity of
pleas from the men’s relatives and the White House. They will be
kept as bargaining chips to play against some other
Iranian-manufactured crisis. But, again, no one is likely to
care.
What should — and likely will — hurt Obama next year is
the Palestinians’ new “intifada” against Israel which kicked off
last week with attacks on military and civilians riding buses,
causing a number of casualties. The terrorists were apparently
Hamas operatives from the Gaza Strip who were allowed to cross into
southern Israel by the new Muslim Brotherhood-friendly Egyptian
government. When Israeli air forces struck back and killed
several terrorists as well as some Egyptian “policemen,” everyone
from al-Jazeera to the Arab League blamed Israel for the “crime” of
striking back.
And, as this is written, there have been several more
attacks from the Gaza Strip, Hamas missiles raining down on
southern Israel, killing at least one civilian and wounding many
others including children. Israeli air strikes continued through
Sunday. There are reports that an al-Qaeda group is claiming
responsibility for some of the attacks. But we should receive those
reports skeptically, as terrorists rename themselves as quickly as
they switch from one disposable cellphone to another. Regardless of
what they call themselves, their sponsors are in Syria and
Iran.
Obama’s anti-Israeli stance has emboldened the
Palestinians. They — with the help of the Syrians and probably the
Iranians — are baiting the Israelis with escalating attacks,
trying to cause the Israelis to launch a large ground-based
invasion of the Gaza Strip or big air attacks. The terrorist
nations want to preface the Palestinian statehood vote in the UN
next month with another media campaign showing large numbers of
dead Palestinians, made so by Israeli arms.
Going into a presidential year, it’s better to speak of
responsibility than blame. Obama has been in office for almost
three years. It was his responsibility to mend our economy, win our
wars and protect our allies. In those responsibilities he has
failed comprehensively.
If his blame-shifting strategy succeeds, it will be the
result of Republican ineptitude. The facts are what they are, and
Obama should be stuck with them.
