Obama’s Legacy in the Light of Gates’ Memoirs

Dmitry Drobnitsky, a Russian writer, talks about how negative assessment of the 44th president of the U.S. might threaten world peace.

While Russians were celebrating Christmas* and preparing to go back to work after the holidays, leading U.S. newspapers were announcing two major stories: unusually cold weather and the publication of a memoir by the former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.

The book has not been released yet, but a preview was sent to many media sources. The next day, mass media exploded.

There has not been a single newspaper, magazine, analytical talk show or political Internet resource that did not talk about this book. And not so much the book, but rather how it questioned the leadership qualities of the 44th president of the U.S.

Clearly, most of those who hold discussions are in the shoes of Philip Vasiltsev,** a Russian excavator driver who “has not read Pasternak, but criticizes,” and they have approximately the same reasons as comrade Vasiltzev had: the Party required them to say something.*** However, there is more than one parliamentary party in the U.S., and differences between them are common, but currently they are all in the same situation.

One may even feel a little sorry for the man who was quite a successful politician, intelligence officer, historian and the head of the Pentagon. Now, at least for a while, nobody is going to read his book, “Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War,” which is most likely a good military-political memoir. At least nobody will read the whole book.

Its quotes about congressmen, Vice President Biden, Hillary Clinton and, of course, about Barack Obama will be analyzed for the next two years.

And the analysis will fall along party lines! Obama will either be considered a weak president who lost everything (we are especially reminded of his loss to Putin), or he will be considered an educated and clever leader (unlike those straightforward Republicans).

That said, nobody will be interested in Gates’ point of view (even if he expresses it during primetime on all leading TV channels). The same way that nobody was interested in an excavator driver’s opinion on “Doctor Zhivago” in Russia. If such an excavator driver even existed …

Miraculously, this “party” split exists among Russian experts as well. And the debates here are also serious. I am a sinner, I took part in them. I am not abandoning my opinion: Obama has really lacked consistency in his endeavors. He managed to turn any and all Republicans in Congress against him and even, thanks to health care reform that is clearly losing its popularity, some Democrats, especially the ones who are facing re-elections this year.

He was too emotional when he needed to smile and agree and too apathetic when he needed to firmly defend his position. Some of his declarations were even hard to explain logically. For example, the support of same-sex marriage, which was clearly a party move.

But what about his constant, almost fanatical determination about the development of “solar and wind energy” in light of the unfolding shale revolution? What about his lies about the health care reform? What about the delay of the health insurance enrollment for small businesses and, as if it would have been said in Russia, for a number of different categories of citizens for a year and a half after the dispute of its introduction on Jan. 1, 2014 led to the government shut down?**** How to explain his completely indecent behavior after the escape of the former National Security Agency agent Snowden, and declarations a few weeks later that he wanted to do the same, only more smoothly and reasonably?

Finally, let’s be reminded of Syria. From the point of view of the majority of Americans (mostly those who did not support military intervention), the behavior of their president was, to put it mildly, strange. First, harsh rhetoric, then confusion (when the House of Commons of the United Kingdom blocked participation of the key U.S. ally in military action), and then the transfer of all of the speaker’s functions to the Secretary of State John Kerry, whose slip of the tongue (Or was it?) was used by the Russian government, and …

This moment requires necessary details. As soon as the question of a military strike against the Assad regime was removed from the agenda, it immediately opened the backstage contacts with Iran and was extended to the so-called Pacific “rebalancing,” which could not even be stopped by mutual military walkouts in protest by both the U.S and China.

Right away, a “completely accidental” handshake happened with Raul Castro. No one believed in this accidental handshake, of course. American mass media immediately printed a number of publications on Cuban reforms, both economic and ideological, which clearly shows that this step was expected by some people in the U.S.

Here appeared the same Barack Obama that his opponents “used to see.” Faithful John Kerry was sent to Congress again to take the heat for the handshake with “the leader of a murderous regime.” Right after the handshake, Obama, Cameron and Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, threw a “happy party” with a requisite “selfie” on an iPhone in the stands where people gathered for Nelson Mandela’s memorial service.

I personally have the impression that the Iranian, Asia-Pacific and Caribbean plans have been lying in the safe of the White House for a long time. As soon as Russia made a suggestion on how to untie the Syrian knot, all the plans were brought out into the light. The administration of the 44th president began the action, and the president himself, having made sure that the plans were out and running, allowed himself his “usual behavior.”

So, what is it: a failure or triumph? Random luck, or was it all calculated in advance? Is it weakness or flexibility?

You know, from Russian point of view, it is … both.

On the one hand, the world has changed. By a millimeter, or two, it shifted toward the multipolar world with multiple political balances and intricacies, about which until 2008 it was only possible to speculate beautifully in Moscow and Beijing. To speculate, but nothing more. Even among Obama’s enemies in the Republican Party there are people with a mood that is, if not isolationist, then close to it. Recall that this is the country whose carrier forces practically occupy the entire world’s oceans.

On the other hand, Obama’s ratings are so low that it heightens the probability of introducing such a powerful anti-Obama politician in 2016, against whom John McCain himself would seem like a dove! And what will the world become then?

So, “I have not read” Robert Gates, but I would fully support Obama’s initiatives on foreign policy. There are two more years to fight for the legacy of Barack Obama.

* Translator’s Note: Many Russians celebrate Christmas on Jan. 7, according to the Gregorian calendar.

** Translator’s Note: Philip Vasiltsev, a Russian excavator whose article “A Frog in a Swamp” criticizing “Doctor Zhivago” by Pasternak was published in a literary newspaper. It said, “Newspapers are talking about some Pasternak, who is supposedly a writer. I have never heard about him before, and I have never read his books. He is not a writer… he is an anti-communist… I have not read Pasternak… But I know that the literature is better off without frogs.”

*** Translator’s Note: The phrase “I have not read, but criticize” declared by Philip Vasiltzev is used to show that constructive criticism is not possible, because the opponent is not familiar with the subject of discussion.

**** Editor’s Note: The U.S. government shutdown, while related to the health care debate, occurred in October 2013.