Do you think the U.S. should respond militarily in Syria due to the use of chemical weapons on civilians?
11% - Yes, but only for humanitarian reasons.
5% - Yes, only because it’s in our national security interests.
39% - No, because it’s time to stop fighting wars in the Middle East.
45% - No, because President Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing.
President Obama is having a tough couple of months with regard to foreign policy. Let’s review: 1) He can’t get our allies to go along with him in making Syria’s Assad pay for using chemical weapons on his own people; 2) nor can he get the U.N. to join him; 3) and in what is unprecedented in history, a U.S. president can’t get his own Congress to back his military play, even with the Senate controlled by his party; 4) the president of Syria thumbs his nose at Obama. But it gets worse.
Without going into all the background, Russia’s Putin was handed a diplomatic gift by Obama. By seeming to author an option that in one fell-swoop allows Obama to escape from his feckless “red line” bravado, while stopping Assad from using more chemical weapons, Putin now goes from being seen as the most prominent leader who refuses to stop the gassing of little children, to a global statesman. And then, as if all of this weren’t bad enough, in an op-ed published in the New York Times, Putin lectures Obama about morality and American exceptionalism. This from the man whose hero, Joseph Stalin, murdered 20 million of his own people from the 1930s to the 1950s.
So now we come to our recent online poll: “Do you think the U.S. should respond militarily in Syria due to the use of chemical weapons on civilians?” Barely one-sixth of our respondents said “Yes,” for either humanitarian or national security reasons. Almost four-in-ten said “No, because it’s time to stop fighting wars in the Middle East.” But the largest group, 45%, said “No, because President Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing.”
But again, it gets worse. It’s increasingly clear that President Obama is no more adept at business than he is at foreign policy.
He’s presiding over the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression, now more than four years after the end of the last recession. His proudest accomplishment, Obamacare, is unraveling even as the specter of it represses economic growth. I’ve asked more than one noted economist if the U.S. could be heading for a lost decade, akin to what has happened in Japan — all have answered in the affirmative.
President Obama’s world view is what has caused his failures. With regard to foreign policy, he would rather avoid any hint of what he might call nation-building or colonialism, than to use our strength and influence for good. On the economic front, he thinks successful Americans are more fortunate than those who have less, not that they worked hard and took risks. And he’s making it his job to rectify this perceived imbalance. Both positions, which inform his decision-making, are invalid, incorrect and impractical. And sometimes, they’re dangerous.
Barack Obama is our national leader for the next 3.5 years. It’s not in anyone’s best interest, regardless of political persuasion, for him to fail. We should all want him to succeed. But his failures are hurting our country, and it’s time we all tell it like it is: As the president of the most powerful and well-intentioned country in the world and as the commander-in-chief of its military, Mr. Obama is incompetent.
President Obama is plenty smart and has many qualities and capabilities. But management experience, executive acumen and leadership are not on that list. There are many highly qualified Democrats who would be successful as president. Unfortunately for America, and perhaps the world, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Barack Obama is not one of them.