Thursday, January 20, 2011 - 1:00 PM

We are two years into the Obama administration and judging by the president's progress to date, assessments being made on this the second anniversary of his time in office are likely to be viewed not as midterm grades but as his first quarter report card. With an increasingly confident, experienced president at the helm of a country that seems to be gradually creeping toward economic recovery and with a divided opposition in search of a leader, Obama's re-election prospects are looking better and better.
Still, the reality is that any assessment of the president's progress to date must be taken with several large pillars of salt. First, as I have noted before, the first two years of any presidency are learning curve years and seldom contain either the highlights of a presidency or even a very clear signal as to its ultimate character. Second, almost inevitably political and policy types overstate the influence of the president on the great issues of the day or even on those factors that weigh in his or her re-election. As is the case with most presidents, Obama's future will most likely be dictated by exogenous developments over which he has only fairly limited influence -- global economic trends, unanticipated actions of third parties at home and abroad, public moods that impact how presidential actions are interpreted and credit and blame allocated, etc.
Nonetheless, given that today is the second anniversary of the president's inauguration, it is a natural time to take stock and offer some quick evaluations of how he and his team are doing on foreign policy issues.
Naturally, it's impossible to have covered every issue. One could easily have also taken a look at cross cutting issues like climate (Grade: B-. .. not much progress despite much improved rhetoric), trade (Grade: B- ... a little move on the Korea deal, nothing much before or after), currency policy (slight improvements with the Chinese, eurozone on the critical list, dollar weakening a potential problem as inflationary concerns rise ... Grade: B-), development (QDDR a step forward, work in places like Haiti and Pakistan post-disaster admirable but hampered by serious problems... Grade: B-), arms control (the Russian deal, the Iranian effort, progress on missile defense all offset by continuing worries about loose nukes in Pakistan, uncertainty about Iran, the North Korean program ... Grade: B), and military affairs (you can't give credit to the military for doing a great job on the ground in Iraq and AfPak without also making them shoulder the blame for advocating policies that don't or won't work ... Grade: B-/C+).
But across the board the conclusions are similar: This is a hard-working, earnest, talented administration doing a pretty solid job in very challenging times. Overall Grade: B
From the early beginning of his campaign it was pretty obvious that most of Obama's introduced policies have essentially to be seen as long term projects.
It was also clear that Obama would not have been able to fulfil the role he has got from the media.
An image of a heroic liberator who would change everything to the better in a short period of time was created.
Therefore, it appears logical that he was and still is so controversially critized by the public who doesn't allow him the required freedom of action and is used to devalue his global achievement.
As a consequence the crucial question arouses whether he will get the chance to complete the intended programs in a second campaign or will be punished for his thrilling rhetoric in the presidential election to come.
The famous query "Can Obama deliver the change he promised?" can it definitely be answered at the moment?
I largely agree with this assessment (even though I did not vote for Obama... or McCain) and I will admit watching Obama closely has swayed me to nominally support his administration's international dealings. I do, however disagree with the grades given his handling of China and Afghanistan.
Firstly, Obama has been too timid with China given their recent saber-rattling and positioning the last two years. I'm not saying we need to posture ourselves hyper-aggressively or follow a Bush-era "You're either with us or against us" foreign policy model. But we needn't be naive to China's long-term ambitions either. If we do intend to remain economically and militarily powerful, we must act as such in a cohesive manner, while not souring or antagonize unduly. China's failure to condemn North Korea is unacceptable, especially for a country which wants to move from regional to global power. Their sudden hegemony over the Yellow Sea and South China Sea foreshadows long-term imperialistic goals. These actions mustn't be ignored. The building of aircraft carriers and a robust investment into a blue-water navy and other measures of power projection mustn't be ignored either. We need to earnestly foster mutual goodwill, cooperation, and friendship with China, but not be unwilling to apply heavy pressure or blind ourselves to the fact that China might only value relations with the US only as long as it is expedient to their ultimate ambitions.
I think a B is a bit high. Something around a C-/C is more accurate
Secondly, Obama has allowed America's partisan, perpetual campaigning politics to manipulate his handling of Afghanistan. He is trying to please too many people. I do agree with his expanded use of drones, but not the increased pumping of money into Pakistan. I agree with the expanded use of covert and special operations, especially when taking the fight to extremists in other countries, but not his softness towards the Karzai regime. Too many of his actions contradict others. The fight in Afghanistan is manifest in our larger actions and policy regarding that part of the globe. The lack of cohesiveness erodes the good decisions. The failure to fully grasp the historical magnitude of the situation in which we are dealing is an epic failure. This is not a regional flash-in-the-pan or passing conflict like Panama or Grenada. The implications are far and wide. Meaning, the correct course must be endeavored regardless of short-term partisan politics.
Even a D is too generous.
A "B-" on trade? Is that a joke?
His half-hearted move on South Korea is the only thing saving him from an F in my book. You completely glossed over his pandering to domestic labor interests. Does the Teamsters Union ring a bell? Violating NAFTA by curbing (literally) long-haul Mexican truckers, with no valid rationale other than patronage deserves knocking off a fraction of a letter-grade. His administration has shown blatant bias against EADS in its tanker dispute with Boeing because Boeing's jobs are in Democratic states, while EADS's proposed plants are in Republican Sun Belt states. He has done nothing to advance the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. He has made no serious effort to revive the Doha round. Perhaps most egregiously, as a country we have a number of legitimate gripes with China. They steal our technologies and they violate our patent protections and other intellectual properties with complete disregard for international standards (as you mentioned in your China subhead) Yet Obama's big move against China was tire tariffs? We had very little legitimate gripe with them over this issue, and it was clearly a protectionist move designed to reward another Democratic constituency. On trade issues alone, this administration has been an embarrassment. The solid "D" I give it may even be generous.
In grad school an "A" was above average. A "B" was average and a "C" was below average and would get you kicked out.
Solid C-
I think he deserves an A on the Israel-Palestine issue, what is he the first president since Carter to be tough on both sides in resolving the issue? Also I wouldn't put your eggs in one basket with the " remaining (six) Obama years." You never know, the republicans new push for austerity might designate with a lot of people.
Obama deserves an F. His spinelessness on all foreign policy, catering to Neo Cons and imperialists on every facet has driven America further down the road of amoral global empire worthy of scorn and rebellion.
He issued the largest DOD budget in history.
He increased American intrusion into Pakistan, expanding American JSOC base in Karachi which is very likely engaging in destabilizing tactics in Pakistan for nefarious reasons.
Obama has NOT reigned in the American empire, he expanded it.
He failed to rein in military contractors.
He failed to close Gitmo.
He failed to end extrajudicial assasinations- he increased them with his drone wars.
He failed to stand up to Israel on anything. Israel outmaneveured Obama before he was even inaugurated. Since then, Israel has increased settlements and destruction and confiscation of Palestinian property.
Obama shows himself a coward when dealing with the Neo Con global empire which Bush expanded. He cowered to it, rather than dismantled it.
America deserves Sarah Palin as president. She would usher in the true face of American empire and the permanently settle America as the global empire to be unseated in this era, much like its forefather and idol, the Roman empire.
But i am a better one:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/morbid-curiosity-leading-many-voters-to-support-pa,18865/
Man, where were you when I was in college? Talk about grade inflation, this is it at it's worst. Obama deserves a D or F on 3 areas you gave him Bs.
Management: Rahm & Gibbs. Need I say more?
Domestic: Please, over 50% of the Nation do not agree with Obama's signature piece of legislation: ObamaCare. He could not get a single Republican to vote with him. Not one. Then lets add TSA, & governing by regulation fiat. Sorry, Mr. Obama needs to take a page from Mrs. Madisions play book.
Lastly, China. KowTowing gets you a B? Talking about rewarding brown nosing.
Sadly, Mr. Obama may well be re-elected because the House save's him from his own excesses.
Grade F not B, because of the VERY dangerous deficit spending
David Rothkopf's comments are obviously sympathetic to Mr. Obama. I noted, however, no mention of this Administration's unprecedented and reckless deficit spending. Even if all the good points mention by Mr. Rothkopf are accepted as valid, they are negated by the clear and present danger which the Administration's fiscal policy represents. When combined with the Fed's deliberate monetary policy to de base the dollar, it becomes obvious there is no way a happy outcome for the nation is possible. It is as if, we're on the bridge of the Starship Enterprise talking about how good a job the captain is doing. Meanwhile, the Autodestruct Sequence is counting down its final seconds! Here's another analogy: Giving Mr. Obama a grade of "B" therefore is much like saying the cowboy did a fine job except for getting out of the way of the bullet to his heart during the final shootout. We can only hope that there is time to change course, and that he will change course, before the "bullet" strikes. I'm very concerned and I see much suffering coming to the nation. (And by the way, I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I'm a strictly non-partisan individual.)
Your otherwise excellent review of Obama's performance omitted his promises to finance expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowing and adding to the federal debt. His record and Pay-Go initiatives in Illinois helped him get elected, as many independents and fiscally conservative, socially moderate Republicans voted for him.
David Rothkopf is the CEO and Editor-at-Large of Foreign Policy. His new book, "Power, Inc.: The Epic Rivalry Between Big Business and Government and the Reckoning that Lies Ahead" is due out from Farrar, Straus & Giroux on March 1.
Read More
(11)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE