"Obama Can Walk and Chew Gum at the Same Time"

President Barack Obama returned from his trip to Latin America with his hands practically empty, without any concrete results, because he did not bring anything to the table either. However, his mind is full of problems and focused not on problems on this side of the world, but rather on the bombings in Libya, the nuclear crisis in Japan and the threat in Washington that, with the budget crisis, the federal government could cease to function.

In other words, his tour of Brazil, Chile and El Salvador was totally eclipsed by events far away from the nations he visited, and the president spent the majority of his time following these events from a distance, which leads many here to believe that he should have canceled or postponed his tour.

But there was no need to do this, as White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said: “The American people understand … their president can walk and chew gum at the same time.”

Hopefully, this is the case, and this ability will serve him well, because right now no one is happy with the president. For weeks, Republicans and conservatives have heavily criticized him for not intervening in Libya and not stopping Moammar Gadhafi’s attacks against his own people, and now that he has done it, he is accused of starting a new war in which the role of the United States is not clear, nor are its goals.

The president, his critics argue, used an audio message recorded in Brazil on a Saturday to announce the Pentagon’s involvement in the civil war of another country, without taking into account or requesting the authorization of Congress, much less that of the public. In this sense, his opponents say, he is worse than George W. Bush, who at least asked permission before using force.

For others, the problem with the fact that Obama has ordered the bombing is the lack of definition and objectives, and that while on one hand, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has insisted that Washington does not lead the coalition against Gadhafi, Director of the Joint Staff Bill Gortney said the United States is leading the operation.

At the same time, Obama himself has said, “It’s time for Gadhafi to go,” but the White House has clearly stated that killing him is not the goal, nor are U.S. forces there to help rebel groups.

In short, no one in Washington understands exactly what U.S. involvement entails, but what is clear is that Obama was faced with the dilemma of whether to intervene in another Muslim nation — something which experts say the president refused — or to give the impression that he ignored the indiscriminate attack of Gadhafi’s troops against innocent civilians.

The order to bomb Libya has not only infuriated Republicans, because he did not ask for permission — although they are the ones who criticized him for not ordering it — but Obama has also angered his followers, especially those who voted for him, because they were convinced by his promise to end the war in Iraq.

But there are still nearly 60,000 troops in Iraq, all while the fighting in Afghanistan continues. Obama has intensified it and is now starting a new war. And no one knows when or how it will end or what the consequences will be.

The president is also facing criticism for the cost of this new battle. On one side is the human aspect, as it is feared that many civilians could be targeted by mistake or error, awakening new feelings against the United States precisely at a time when Washington is trying to curry favor with Muslims and the Arab world in general.

On the other side is the financial issue. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates made it clear that the Pentagon did not have the sufficient capacity, the means or the personnel to engage in a third conflict. Yet, the order was given, and the operation was launched at a time when the invasion of Afghanistan is costing an average of a million dollars a year per soldier and when, in the United States, the government is cutting basic services and jobs for lack of money.

Gum or no gum, the president returned hours ahead of schedule, but not to analyze his voyage — rather, to deal with the question to which a response is demanded here and in the rest of the world: Why intervene in Libya but remain indifferent, with arms crossed, before the slaughter happening in Yemen and the violence in Bahrain?