Obama’s very effectiveness as a president is widely viewed as being in serious question. He is unable to convince people that the stimulus program is working. His health care reform program is under attack from a variety of interests. On the Afghanistan war, he seems indecisive.

Combined with his lack of executive experience, his seeming inability to resolve political problems affect his ability to govern. Obama’s quick trip to Copenhagen to lobby for Chicago’s bid on the Olympic Games-and then to be rejected-seemed to indicate poor staff work and a trivialization of priorities. Allowing General Stanley McChrystal to lobby the public to affect the president’s decision on Afghanistan weakened Obama’s authority. A confident president would have fired the general as Truman did with MacArthur and Bush did with Shinseki. The situation blended into comic relief when Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while fighting two wars and planning on a third.

Around the world, supporters of Obama worry about his failure to change Bush policies and to solve pressing problems. They see demonstrations in front of the White House by Obama supporters disappointed that he hasn’t changed the “don’t ask, don’t tell” military policy as he promised in the campaign. And those who want an end to the Afghan war or least an exit strategy are acting out in Congress and around the country. […]

Click here to the read of this post at Relentless Liberal.

In 1991, at the height of the Cold War, Ronald Reagan was inaugurated president of the United States. He immediately heightened tensions using belligerent rhetoric attacking the Soviet Union as “The Evil Empire” while authorizing an enormous military buildup against “the focus of evil in the modern world.”

A significant number of Americans were worried about the harsh negatives of the Reagan initiatives. One manifestation was the Nuclear Freeze Movement that sought to decrease tensions as well as the nuclear buildup by limiting all nuclear arsenals at current levels as a first step toward their eventual elimination.

Reagan showed his annoyance criticizing “the placard carriers”, giving little credence to the groundswell of support for the freeze campaign that swept America in 1981 – 82. This grass-roots uprising was a major factor behind Reagan’s March 1983 speech that initiated the missile defense program (SDI) that continues to waste billions of dollars in the military budget.

Among the protesters supporting the Freeze was Columbia University senior Barack Obama, who in 1983 published a plea in a campus news magazine for “a nuclear free world” opposing SDI and military industrial interests “with their billion-dollar erector sets.”

Reagan’s attachment to the concept of missile defense started a very expensive research program that has produced meager results while leading to continued wrangling with non-communist Russia over their installation in Eastern Europe. Reagan’s SDI simply will not defend against a sophisticated missile equipped with decoys.

Obama recently announced that he was canceling the missile defense shield installations in Poland and Czech Republic. He has been severely and incorrectly criticized by military hawks for this “unilateral” concession, but it wasn’t unilateral and it was a deal, not a concession. The SDI system was always a bargaining chip and Obama was the first president who knew how to use it.

He eliminated the ineffective shield in Eastern Europe in exchange for much more valuable Russian concessions and cooperation on a variety of issues. Here are some of the particulars:

1. Russia allows U.S. military flights over its territory, planes carrying soldiers and equipment to Afghanistan.

2. Russia allows Kyrgyzstan to give the U.S. an important military base on the Russian border.

3. Russia acquiesces to the U.S. training local troops in the state of Georgia, with which Russia is at odds.

4. Russia promises that it will not help Iran develop an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) capable of reaching the U.S.

5. Russia agrees to support the U.S. position on North Korea.

6. Russia acquiesces in the expansion of U.S. influence in the Ukraine.

These are the Russian concessions we know about. There may be more. The media has failed to make the connection and to evaluate their importance in the continuing U. S. wars in Southeast Asia. At the same time, this change in U.S. policy gives a significant political victory to Russian leaders Putin and Medvedev, strengthening their positions at home and around the world.

When will Obama take political advantage of his coup? Probably during his 2012 reelection campaign when his record will be before the electorate and he will boast of his accomplishments on health-care and obtaining Russian cooperation. At the same time, Obama has fulfilled the promise he made at Columbia in 1983 to change policy on missile defense and to work for a world without nuclear weapons. Obama has proven that he knows how to play political hardball-at least with the Russians.

This post originally appeared on The Relentless Liberal on October 9, 2009.

Recognizing the importance of reducing the danger of nuclear weapons, the Nobel Committee today awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to President Barack Obama.

Obama has “created a new international climate,” the Committee said. “Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position…The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations.”

In awarding President Obama this great honor, the Committee has recognized the importance of the President’s efforts to restore American leadership on critical issues of our time, particularly in regard to nuclear weapons.

In his historic April 2009 speech in Prague, the President vowed to pursue a world without nuclear weapons. Words are important, but words without action mean little. Thankfully, President Obama has already taken a number of concrete steps toward that goal by:

*  Starting bilateral negotiations with Russia for a successor to the START arms reduction agreement

*  Giving a jump-start to diplomacy by restarting talks with Iran that have already proven constructive

*  Sending Secretary of State Clinton to an international conference for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)

*  Pledging to ratify the CTBT, secure loose nuclear material around the world, and host a global nuclear security summit in Washington next year

*  Securing international endorsement of his campaign for a world without nuclear weapons when he over a special session of the UN Security Council, continuing the momentum toward nuclear security and arms control.

This progress is just beginning, and we will need sustained focus to achieve these goals over the coming years. But it is important to step back and recognize the importance of this moment and appreciate how far we’ve come in the past nine months.

The international community has recognized President Obama’s crucial leadership on nuclear issues, and now members of Congress, who have largely been silent on the issue, need to as well.

You can visit our Cut the Nuclear Threat Campaign site and urge your representatives to take advantage of this moment for real progress on reducing the danger of nuclear weapons.

President Obama has not decided whether he will support General McChrystal’s request for a major troop build-up in Afghanistan. Part of the President’s hesitancy shows the influence of informed and politically influential voices who urge caution. It re…

National Republicans have introduced a genuine challenge to Delaware’s Democratic leaning by putting in play the person who may be the single viable GOP candidate for VP Joe Biden’s unexpired Senate seat. Today, Congressman Mike Castle (R) responded positively to National Republican Senatorial Committee recruiting efforts and announced his decision to run for the seat.

Attorney General Beau Biden, the vice president’s son, is expected to be the Democratic contender in next fall’s election. In spite of Beau Biden’s high-profile name, political analyses are predicting an extremely competitive race. According to Politico, “[Castle’s] decision is poised to set up a marquee matchup between two of the biggest names in Delaware politics,” while RedState claims, “Castle’s expected entrance into the race instantly makes the race for one of the Democrats’ safest seats competitive.”

Some analyses even give the early advantage in the race to Castle, a former governor who has been elected statewide for over 25 years. Rothenberg Political Report cites polls as it “[moves] the Delaware Senate seat from Currently Safe for Democrats to Lean Takeover for the GOP.”

It is too early to give a meaningful advantage to either candidate. In fact, it still remains to be seen if Biden will hold onto the bid. Recently returned from a year-long deployment in Iraq, Biden is still in the process of determining his political trajectory. Nonetheless, we can reasonably expect that he will run. And we can now expect an extremely tight race.