So, as his country’s football team qualify for the next round of the World Cup in South Africa, President Obama’s actions continue to be in the top news stories. His latest actions to grab the headlines come after much criticism following the BP oil disaster.
In previous blogs I have suggested that although much of the responsibility of the disaster does lie with BP, the United States are far from squeaky clean in all of this. Perhaps scathing attacks by Obama were part of his strategy to sideline this issue and place the blame, in the eyes of the public, solely with BP. Obama and his administration have stated that BP cut corners and knew something like this was going to happen.
I have two issues with this. Firstly, if the United States are so concerned about what has happened, why were they not monitoring and regulating the industry far better? Surely you should be well-informed and knowledgeable about the actions of those working in your back yard?
Secondly, Obama hardly promotes a climate for speaking up when things go wrong following his remarks about how he would have dealt with the BP head man. And this brings me onto the current headlines regarding Obama’s actions. I admit it was not the best forum or manner to criticise the US President and his policies. However, if someone in a high position who clearly understand his field of work extremely well has concerns about policy and military strategy and voices those concerns surely he should not get fired? Why would anyone ever suggest something is wrong if these were the consequences – as Obama is clearly implying they are?
Despite the promotion of Gen David Petraeus to oversee the US military strategy in Afghanistan receiving positive responses and backing that the correct replacement has been chosen, it is clear that there are many that are concerned about sudden change in leadership within the region. This is perhaps why NATO feel the need to emphasise all is still well. So perhaps Obama is not quite as in control as he wants everyone to think! There are those that fear progress will be severely hampered in Afghanistan.
So why has Obama acted in such a way over the past month or so? Is he trying to regain control he felt he was losing?This too leads to questions as to if he really knows what he is doing with the BP disaster. Does he really understand the complexities of the situation and the far-reaching consequences? The court blocking of the drilling ban imposed by his administration demonstrates that his ‘solutions’ are not so straight forward. Yet he still proceeds to try to have another ban issued.
I lead you to this column which suggests “When a US president talks directly to the nation it is often a sign of events spinning out of control”.
Okay, so I have been extremely critical of the president. However, perhaps he should consider how his actions would be received and how he would react if he was high up in BP or leading his countries troops in a foreign field.
What do you think? How might some of these issues have been better dealt with? Is Obama acting how the US public want him to react? Have I completely misunderstood the complexities of US politics?
Let me know your thoughts and if you think I am too far wide of the mark.
PlaneSimple
PlaneSimple Thoughts 