The Man of 2009
The first year of President Barack Obama’s administration is almost finished and many, both inside and outside the U.S., are expressing frustration and disappointment with his performance, when compared with their high expectations and hope for change. In light of the wide gap between the promises he made in rhetorical speeches and the political reality of his administration’s power, perhaps they are somewhat justified.
However, why don't these frustrated people see that the opposite could also be true and that they could be frustrating him and hindering his efforts toward change? Didn't he come to the presidency with an open heart and mind? Didn't he help both enemies and friends? Didn't he help negotiate with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Burma, as well as Russia, China and other countries, using all possible methods of persuasion? He did that. But reactions to his efforts were always frustrating and his efforts clashed with inactive, opposing or unenthusiastic forces.
Let's take the example of the Palestinian cause. Weren't the wars among land owners and their power conflicts the main motives behind Obama’s frustration and the premature decline in his enthusiasm over resolving the situation? Perhaps they gave him the impression that they lack the required seriousness to find a lasting solution. Nonetheless, he is still searching for new ideas to try but these efforts will need help from both sides or he will have to deal with Israel alone.
Then, what about Iran? Didn't he give Iran chances throughout the year, offering diverse solutions and possible inducements to stop their nuclear program and to stop supporting extremists? Instead, the Iranian government became more obstinate and haughty and misunderstood Obama’s peaceful approach. He may therefore have to resort to an internationally-supported, punitive approach in the end.
In fact, Obama may appear to some as weak, naïve and incapable of achieving his initiatives because he uses a polite, virtuous and patient diplomacy that totally contradicts the aggressive methods used by Bush. But he is also a stubborn fighter who does not give in to failure — even if his efforts are delayed due to a need to scale back his plans. Indeed, he continues his battles until he realizes an accomplishment even if it is partial, temporary or merely a first step; this is part of his genuine and practical personality, which was evident at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Furthermore, he has used the same methods in domestic battles regarding health care and the financial crisis. Moreover, we must not forget that he succeeded in soothing the intensity of international tensions and the hostile climate toward the U.S.
It is worth mentioning that he has done all of the above despite the fact that his administration is still new. He has at least three years remaining to rectify any pending situations — the most important one being leaving Pakistan.
Therefore, give him a full chance. Do not frustrate him and do not let him frustrate you. In fact, he is satisfied with his performance and gave himself a score of 16 out of 20. He also has the right to be “The Man of 2009.”
However, why don't these frustrated people see that the opposite could also be true and that they could be frustrating him and hindering his efforts toward change? Didn't he come to the presidency with an open heart and mind? Didn't he help both enemies and friends? Didn't he help negotiate with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Burma, as well as Russia, China and other countries, using all possible methods of persuasion? He did that. But reactions to his efforts were always frustrating and his efforts clashed with inactive, opposing or unenthusiastic forces.
Let's take the example of the Palestinian cause. Weren't the wars among land owners and their power conflicts the main motives behind Obama’s frustration and the premature decline in his enthusiasm over resolving the situation? Perhaps they gave him the impression that they lack the required seriousness to find a lasting solution. Nonetheless, he is still searching for new ideas to try but these efforts will need help from both sides or he will have to deal with Israel alone.
Then, what about Iran? Didn't he give Iran chances throughout the year, offering diverse solutions and possible inducements to stop their nuclear program and to stop supporting extremists? Instead, the Iranian government became more obstinate and haughty and misunderstood Obama’s peaceful approach. He may therefore have to resort to an internationally-supported, punitive approach in the end.
In fact, Obama may appear to some as weak, naïve and incapable of achieving his initiatives because he uses a polite, virtuous and patient diplomacy that totally contradicts the aggressive methods used by Bush. But he is also a stubborn fighter who does not give in to failure — even if his efforts are delayed due to a need to scale back his plans. Indeed, he continues his battles until he realizes an accomplishment even if it is partial, temporary or merely a first step; this is part of his genuine and practical personality, which was evident at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference. Furthermore, he has used the same methods in domestic battles regarding health care and the financial crisis. Moreover, we must not forget that he succeeded in soothing the intensity of international tensions and the hostile climate toward the U.S.
It is worth mentioning that he has done all of the above despite the fact that his administration is still new. He has at least three years remaining to rectify any pending situations — the most important one being leaving Pakistan.
Therefore, give him a full chance. Do not frustrate him and do not let him frustrate you. In fact, he is satisfied with his performance and gave himself a score of 16 out of 20. He also has the right to be “The Man of 2009.”