Was Barack Obama a Weak President?

The answer’s not as obvious as a typical Obama antagonist might think.  Of course, the violated Syrian “red line”, the Crimea annexation and the Ukrainian incursion by Russia were invitations for American counteractions which did not come.

Why not?  Timidity and weakness are usually the by-products of fear.  Was Obama simply afraid to respond with other than words such as “unacceptable” (which sustained inactivity showed it was actually acceptable)?

Not likely.

To the contrary, Obama’s personality and manner portrayed high self-confidence, even arrogance.  That suggests he acted, or didn’t, out of an unswerving conviction that his conduct was right.  And although Osama Bin Laden or the Taliban didn’t pose the challenge of Vladimir Putin, the President didn’t hesitate to authorize lethal force against them.

 

To understand Obama’s conduct in the foreign arena, it’s important to remember his notorious apology tour in the Middle East shortly after he assumed the presidency in 2009.  In effect, he promised the outside world to make amends – atone – for what Obama considered to be America’s misconduct before he became president.  A prominent illustration of the new administration’s attitude was the “reset” button given to Russia’s Foreign Minister by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama’s political heritage was distinctly left-wing.  He was a Chicago “community organizer” whose model was revolutionary leftist Saul Alinsky.  His church for decades was that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright whose sermons often had an anti-American slant.  Amazingly, he announced his run for president from the home of former Weatherman Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.

In short, it’s appropriate to assume that Barack Obama’s background influenced him to be distrustful of America’s role in the world.  The country’s prior conduct, he believed, did not justify the general sentiment of fellow citizens that the U.S. was usually a force for good on the world stage.  In his likely view, our nation was more sinning than sinned against and certainly to be considered exceptional only in the way that every citizenry considers its own country to be such (as, in fact, he told a French audience).

Thus, the question of weakness seems misplaced.  It is doubtful that Obama’s failure to act was a case of faltering will or a character deficiency.  Actually, judging from the accounts of former Obama insiders, he displayed significant courage in disregarding, on occasions, the united opinions of key advisors.  At the very least, he shared supreme self-confidence in his decisions, not fear of consequences.

In fact, it was his ideological perspective – not weakness – that was his undoing and the cause of his foreign policy failures.  A person not wedded to an ideology can learn from experience and reshape his views as the much maligned president Jimmy Carter did in Afghanistan.

 

A weak person, interestingly, who recognizes his own shortcomings, will be susceptible to the lessons of events and advice of others because of that.

 

Isn’t weakness more forgivable than blind ideological arrogance?  Further, as President Obama demonstrated, the latter can be more dangerous for the country.