Is Obama too talented to be a ‘crisis president’?

Alan Philps

• Last Updated: April 09. 2009 8:12PM UAE / April 9. 2009 4:12PM GMT

Mohamed Heikal, the Egyptian newspaper editor and confidant of President Nasser in the 1960s, captured the excitement felt in the Middle East when a new US president takes office. Whatever the shortcomings of the American political system, he said, it at least provides variety and the regular promise of change. “Each new face in the White House means a whole new team of decision-makers recruited from the best brains available in the business world, the universities, the law and anywhere talent is to be found.”

That moment described by Heikal, even though he was writing 30 years ago, is what the world has experienced with President Obama’s first foreign tour, taking him round Europe, to Turkey and Iraq. He looked less like commander-in-chief of the world’s most powerful country than someone on a rebranding exercise. The world would be different, he promised. Instead of conflict there would be conciliation; instead of war, there would be treaties rigorously applied; instead of conflict with the Islamic world, Islamic values would be embraced.

All this was received with rapture by the crowds in Europe. His conciliatory approach was the exact opposite of that of George W Bush, who divided the world. He seemed almost too courteous: he talked with the prime minister of Spain about their daughters; he told a Turkish audience that he hoped to be finished in time for prayers.

In effect he brought two messages, which a less fine mind than Mr Obama’s might see as contradictory. While holding himself up as a personal example of the way America is changing – born of an African father, and schooled in a Muslim country – he stressed that relations between states would be based on real interests, not the hokum of personal magnetism by which his predecessor set such so much store.

Mr Bush’s claimed ability to see into the soul of Vladimir Putin, the former Russian president and now prime minister, led to deep misunderstanding: and later, when relations soured, a sense of betrayal. Speaking after the US-Russian summit in London, the Russian foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, saw a chance of a more honest relationship with Washington, not one based on “the illusion of good relations because they develop well on a personal level”.

The message of change, of cool rationality, has been received and understood. But already the question is being asked in Europe if Mr Obama is too nice to cope with the daunting array of problems he faces. He let off America’s European allies with only a puny contribution to the war effort in Afghanistan. While the US is sending an extra 21,000 troops, the Europeans came up with 5,000, most of whom will stay only for the Afghan election in August.

Winning the war in Afghanistan is Mr Obama’s foreign policy priority. If he cannot, at the height of his prestige, wring a few more bodies out of his Nato allies, it does not bode well for the future. Afghanistan will become a US conflict, like Iraq, rather than a struggle by a broad coalition of countries who see an interest in Afghan stability. In addition to fighting the Taliban he has to deal with a serious US economic crisis, the threat of global recession, disengaging from Iraq, defusing the stand-off with Iran over its nuclear technology, tackling global warming and making good on his promise to create a Palestinian state at a time when the Palestinians are hopelessly divided and the political forces in Israel are fiercely ranged against that outcome.

Such an agenda requires tough choices. Americans are asking if he is too introspective to be a “crisis president”. His autobiography, Dreams From My Father, shows literary talent worthy of a novelist – perhaps too much talent for a man who must decide, not write. Does that mean his intellect will paralyse his will? In his defence, the towering figure of Winston Churchill should be adduced: he put his prodigious literary and speaking talents to work to win political battles.

History suggests that nice politicians are not the best at getting things done. Lyndon Johnson, who took office after the assassination of the charismatic John F Kennedy, was the opposite in character to Obama: a domineering bully of a man, he twisted arms in Washington to get enough votes to pass the Civil Rights Act, which outlawed most forms of racial segregation. The methods used were not pretty, but the result removed a great stain from American society and paved the way for Mr Obama’s political career. No one knows if JFK could have pulled off the same triumph.

President Johnson’s downfall came in Vietnam, where he poured troops into an unwinnable war. Comparisons between Afghanistan and Vietnam are far-fetched, not least because the casualty rates will never reach those of the South East Asia conflict at the height of the Cold War. But the Johnson experience shows how foreign wars can destroy a presidency.

While in Iraq Mr Obama pleaded, amid an upsurge in car bombings, for Iraqi politicians to unite and take up the responsibilities of running their own country. In the rosy glow of a new administration it is easy to forget that until a couple of years ago the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al Maliki, was seen in Washington as both divisive and ineffectual. Now, thanks to recent security improvements, he has become the great hope of Iraq. Likewise, Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, is much criticised for tolerating pervasive corruption.

More than anyone would like to acknowledge, Mr Obama’s fate is not his own: he is hostage to the unpredictable storms of the economy and the politics of Iraq and Afghanistan. The world likes what it has heard from him, but is still not sure how this new face in the White House can turn words into action.

aphilps@thenational.ae