It’s Called Priority Management

With Europe, Barack Obama remains true to himself in the sense that he continues to act involuntarily, or only when needed. Not always, but way too often, his main principle is to relinquish any principles. To be more precise, he digresses from the general objectives and priorities.

Getting involved in European affairs was by no means one of his primary presidential goals, especially not with Europe being under military influence, even though indirectly; nor the strengthening of NATO in Europe; nor threatening Russia by shaking his finger from the podium, placed in front of an American fleet fighter at an air base, located in immediate proximity to the borders of Ukraine, torn by the civil war; nor, even more so, spending $1 billion on military goals overseas.

If you have carefully listened to Obama's speeches and his closest companions in the past five years, then you know that America's task was to involve as many players in the maintenance of a so-called world order as possible. A bad peace is always better than a good quarrel, and more preferable than chaos, which incidentally, most often occurs when menacing speeches are given with military equipment in the background.

During the debate in 2012, Vice- President Biden ultimately made it clear to his opponent Paul Ryan and the entire audience with ears to hear that when dealing with such difficult issues like Iran, participation and partial agreement with the United States from other countries like Russia and China is very important. We need to give diplomacy a chance, and then, let’s say, Tehran will not have an argument of a “unilateral dictatorship of the United States.”

Then, Iran (or North Korea) will be under pressure from the whole world. Indeed, in the case of Iran, diplomacy worked much better than threats and sanctions, and the so-called Iranian détente is good proof of that. Diplomacy was unexpectedly undermined when Syria crossed notorious “red lines” by using chemical weapons.

It is interesting that ever since the phrase “red lines” was uttered back in 2011, the White House called Bashar al-Assad a “reliable negotiator” and a “reformer.” The obstacle [in the face of Syria] was very unpleasant and annoying. To invade Syria meant to bury the “Iranian project” and not to invade Syria meant to receive insulting accusations of weakness. Obama postponed making a decision in every way possible, becoming more and more annoyed, angry and frustrated.

The same way a scientist gets angry and frustrated when he is ready to make a breakthrough in curing a terrible disease, but gets distracted by being asked to fill in the logbook for laboratory visits (Otherwise, it is unsafe).**

The same way a talented financial manager gets angry when he has built a nearly ideal system of cash flow, and the production technologist directs him toward the need to pay for the wagon of screws out-of-schedule (otherwise, production will stall).*

The same way a president — intellectual, a graduate of Harvard — gets angry when his goal is to just change the world a little for the best, but such things are happening ...

What to do in this case?

People who are true leaders build a hierarchy of goals and ways to reach them. In the theory of business management, it is called prioritization, or priority management.

The top priority is to cure the disease, improve finances, and improve the world. But should you throw in the face of the chief of security the log book for laboratory visits with the words “Go away, monster!,” or is it much better to have short negotiations to achieve mutual understanding, for it is the scientist who knows best what could happen if the laboratory were open to anyone who feels like going in there.

Should you not purchase the screws and doom the company to a situation where there will no longer be anything to take into account anymore, or can you make an exception, and in the future, include production technologists in financial planning?* Should you get angry and practically depressed when your “great ideas” are not understood, or realize yourself that those who do not share your ideology should be treated almost as carefully as those who share your beliefs for the simple reason that the world is too fragile to allow yourself to be offended or plan revenge?

The theory and practice of priority management suggests that while holding the main goal, you should not, under any circumstance, use all your power to try to crush the annoying opponent. Once you give in to righteous anger, you will inevitably deviate from the general goal. With priority management, Barack Hussein Obama is clearly in trouble, to put it mildly.

In domestic policy, we have seen this very clearly. The immediate goals of the current administration were medical and immigration reforms. Of course, there was opposition. Republicans wanted to leave the market for medical insurance free, and regarding immigrants, Republicans did not want to make provisions to allow more potential voters for the Democratic Party.

All is clear: Negotiations and mutual concessions are needed. But no! Because the president did not like “these petty Republicans,” he decided (jeopardizing his master plan!) to “throw a magazine” at them and take away the Second Amendment (civilian possession of weapons) and announce support for gay marriage. Thus, he set the people who were willing to talk to him against himself.

As it turned out, same-sex marriages are legalized almost everywhere, weapons are even more available, immigration reform is so messed up that only a Republican Congress can fix it, and the introduction of "Obamacare" has become a global joke.

But let's return to international affairs. In the case of Syria, help came “unexpectedly” from Vladimir Putin, and for a moment, it seemed that the world order was as close as ever to being set. Obama only had to not be angry at those who (at duty's call) denounced Obama’s weakness and tried to set the Russian and U.S. presidents against each other. Obama could not handle what was an unfair burden in his opinion. Followed by rapid and dramatic developments, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate is ready to spend a billion dollars on military opposition to Russia in Europe, making a speech with a military “bird” in the background and demanding for Poroshenko “to resolve everything in the East as soon as possible.”

And you know what? Provocation does not justify such a powerful person. The same way the annoying guard does not justify a scientist, who never invented the drug to cure the world from pandemic.**

Priority management, Mr. President!

*Translator's note: I think what the writer is trying to say here is that when a talented financial manager builds a nearly ideal system of cash flow, he is very happy with himself, and wants everyone to be happy with him. He wants everyone to see how talented he is that he was able to build a nearly ideal system of cash flow, but unexpectedly, he now needs to buy a whole wagon of screws: That is what the production technologist tells him. So now, this ideal system of cash flow is not ideal anymore because of the new large purchase he did not consider. So the writer suggests that the financial manager should include the production technologist in future financial planning, so that there are no unexpected large surprises (purchases that need to be included in building system of cash flow). So what should the financial manager do? Not buy a whole wagon of screws and keep his ideal system of cash flow? Or buy the screws, but then there is no ideal cash flow anymore? If he does not buy those screws, the company can be ruined ..."

He compares Obama to that financial manager. He was able to build peace with Iran (ideal system of cash flow), but now Syria crossed "the red line" (wagon of screws), and Obama needed to make a decision. Ignore and not invade Syria ( not to buy screws)? Or Invade Syria and destroy ideal system of the cash flow (peace) he built?

**Translator's note: The writer means that even though Obama was provoked (forced by those who tried to set the Russian and U.S. presidents against each other), this does not excuse his actions just because he is a powerful person. Then, the writer again compares Obama to a scientist, who never invented the drug to cure the world from a pandemic (top priority goal- world peace) because he kept getting angry with the annoying guard who kept asking him to feel the log book (who was provoking him).