NYT News Analysis: Obama Seeks a Course of Pragmatism in the Middle East

New York Times ^ | March 10, 2011 | MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON — In the Middle East crisis, as on other issues, there are two Barack Obamas: the transformative historical figure and the pragmatic American president. Three months after a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself aflame and ignited a political firestorm across the Arab world, the president is trumping the trailblazer.

With the spread of antigovernment protests from North Africa to the strategic, oil-rich Persian Gulf, President Obama has adopted a policy of restraint. He has concluded that his administration must shape its response country by country, aides say, recognizing a stark reality that American national security interests weigh as heavily as idealistic impulses. That explains why Mr. Obama has dialed down the vocal support he gave demonstrators in Cairo to a more modulated call for peaceful protest and respect for universal rights elsewhere.

This emphasis on pragmatism over idealism has left Mr. Obama vulnerable to criticism that he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the Arab street protesters. Some say he is failing to bind the United States to the historic change under way in the Middle East the way that Ronald Reagan forever cemented himself in history books to the end of the cold war with his famous call to tear down the Berlin Wall.

[Ben Ficklin]

Let me try to add something to your analysis.

When they say Obama is a pragmatist or pragmatic they are saying he belongs to a foreign policy school, or group, or doctrine. Foreign policy Pragmatists are better known as foreign policy Realists. As opposed to being idealists.

There are 3 foreign policy groups in the democratic party: Realists/Pragmatists, Liberal Interventionists(idealists), and anti-war pacifists(idealists). A democratic president's foreign policy team is always composed of Realists/Pragmatists and Liberal Interventionists and when the prez fills his top three foreign policy positions he will usually have a Liberal Interventionist serving as Sec of State while the the NSA and SecDef job will go to a Realist/Pragmatist.

Like wise, there are 3 foreign policy groups in the Republican party: Realists/Pragmatists, NeoCons(Idealists), and Isolationists(Idealists). A Republican president's foreign policy team is always composed of Realists/Pragmatists and NeoCons and when the prez fills his top three foreign policy jobs he will usually have a Realist/Pragmatist serving as Sec of State and NSA while the SecDef job goes to a NeoCon.

So while both the Republican prez and the democratic prez have a coalition foreign policy team, one will dominate the other.

For Obama it is the Realist/Pragmatists. For GW Bush it was the NeoCons. For Clinton it was the Liberal Interventionists, For GHW Bush it was the Realists/Pragmatists, In Reagan's second term it was the Realists/Pragmatists. In Reagan's first term it was the NeoCons. For Carter it was the Realists/Pragmatists. For Nixon it was the Realists/Pragmatists.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I think Obama is inept. He waits until the ball drops into the red or black slot and then places his bet. He’s a user with no moral compass. He’s feels so inferior he is incapable of sticking his neck out to do what is needed for anyone else.

Has anyone ever seen him do anything other than what benefits him? He has no redeeming qualities. No one should hold out hope that he will do anything because it is the right thing to do. He’s a grifter. His base is stupid. His enablers are working to destroy a strong America.

[SunkenCiv]

Thanks Cincinatus’ Wife.

He’s just an ineffective liar.