The President’s grown-up approach to terrorism

I think that Steve hits the nail on the head with this post:

It’s probably too soon to say whether Republicans’ truly ridiculous attacks against President Obama on counter-terrorism are going to have an effect. The daily tracking polls haven’t shown much of a shift as of yet, and much of the public is enjoying the holiday season and may not be fully engaged in the GOP talking points of the day.

Ideally, Americans would see through the baseless condemnations of the White House, and recognize them for what they are: petty, stupid, and easily debunked. But if public attitudes start to shift, and wrong-but-loud criticism undermines confidence in the administration’s national security policies, there is an alternative strategy available.

Up until now, the president has chosen a mature, sensible approach to counter-terrorism. After learning of the failed Abdulmutallab plot, the White House reacted quickly with new security measures behind the scenes, with the president overseeing a carefully-crafted response. But publicly, the White House decided not to elevate the actions of a two-bit thug. President Obama signaled to the country that there was no reason to panic, and no need to give a new round of sought-after attention to a bunch of lunatics.

Republicans didn’t care for that approach, and preferred a collective display of pants-wetting. GOP voices and the media decided the strategy to deny terrorists a symbolic public relations victory wasn’t good enough — this was a time for partisan grandstanding, not mature leadership.

Again, maybe Americans will find the president’s approach compelling. They should; it’s how leaders are supposed to operate. But at this point, it seems pretty obvious that the president acting like an adult is going over the political world’s head.

There’s apparently an expectation that the president can — and probably should — exploit incidents for as much political gain as possible. The Obama administration’s track record on counter-terrorism is extremely impressive, but because officials don’t dance in the end-zone after every successful operation, most Americans haven’t heard about the success stories, and most political journalists still internalize the absurd notion that national security is a Republican “strength.”

If the White House wanted to try a new approach, grandstanding opportunities are not uncommon. For example, when U.S. forces, acting on the president’s orders, successfullytook out Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, the ringleader of a Qaeda cell in Kenya and one of the most wanted Islamic militants in Africa, the president could have appeared before the cameras to explain, “Hey, look at me! I took out one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists!”

When U.S. forces, acting on the president’s orders, killed Baitullah Mehsud, the terrorist leader of the Taliban movement Pakistan, Obama could have assembled reporters to declare, “Booyah! Bush and Cheney only wish they had a record like mine!”

When the Obama administration took suspected terrorists Najibullah Zazi, Talib Islam, and Hosam Maher Husein Smadi into custody before they could launch their planned attacks, each of the success stories could have been accompanied by its own press conference, at which the president could proclaim, “Republicans’ talk is cheap; I’m the one keeping Americans safe.”

Of course, the administration preferred a more low-key approach in each instance. Obama has scored the kind of counter-terrorism victories that, if they’d come a couple of years ago, would have led the White House to release photos of Dick Cheney and Bill Kristol chest-bumping each other on the South Lawn, but this White House prefers to simply get the job done, not make a show of it.

The result, however, is that the media and the public don’t necessarily know the counter-terrorism victories have even happened.

The president, by all appearances, finds shameless politicization of counter-terrorism offensive. And it is. But Republicans are running an aggressive misinformation scheme, and if it’s effective, the White House may need to reconsider whether the public rewards or punishes leaders who act like grown-ups.

  • ecthompson
    No doubt. Being President is hard.

    thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    No doubt. Being President is hard. 

    thanks for your comments.
  • Dean
    Democratscriticize Bush just as much as Republicans critizice Obama. The job of President is hard. No one will make all the right decisions, but tend to make the best decisions when informed. I am not really upset at the time frameBush took to address the situation, nor upset at Obama for his time frame. I do wish both Presidents hadaddressed the nation about the failed attacks the very same day. Taking a break from their respective vacations to address each situation would have meant a lot to this great nation. I am proud to be an American where we are free to criticize our leaders, but must also realize the tremendous pressure they feel everyday.
    Dean...
  • Dean
    Democrats criticize Bush just as much as Republicans critizice Obama.  The job of President is hard.  No one will make all the right decisions, but tend to make the best decisions when informed.  I am not really upset at the time frame Bush took to address the situation, nor upset at Obama for his time frame.  I do wish both Presidents had addressed the nation about the failed attacks the very same day.   Taking a break from their respective vacations to address each situation would have meant a lot to this great nation.  I am proud to be an American where we are free to criticize our leaders, but must also realize the tremendous pressure they feel everyday. 
    Dean...
  • ecthompson
    Bud -

    After the shoe bomber decided to light himself, Bush took 9 days before talking to the American people. Over a week!!! Did you call Bush weak on terror? Did you say that Bush didn't take the problem seriously? What did you do? Nothing. You sat there like a quiet school boy.

    Have you read on that time period before you took your marching ordered from the Republican publicity machine? Our good friend Scott McClellan had some great quotes from that time period."The White House has been monitoring the situation since early on today," McClellan said, according to aWashington Postarticle published on December 23. The lead statement came from Swift, who lauded the "heroic acts" of "the flight attendants and passengers who helped subdue the suspect." Now, the best way to look at Bush's response was to remember that we were just hit with worse terrorist attack in our nation's history. Osama, himself, releases a tape during Bush's silence. What does Bush do? What does he say to the American people - nothing. When Bush finally spoke to the American people about the shoe bomber what did he say? He held a press conference and during an answer to a question, Bush thanked the stewardess for her vigilance. That was it. He didn't say that he was doing anything to stop future shoe bombers. He didn't talk about anything of substance. Tell me what did Bush do?

    While you are makingsarcastic comments about the word terrorist, our President is doing something. He is working on fixing a problem that Bush promised us was fixed and it wasn't.

    Thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    Bud - if you have nothing to say then say nothing. If you have some constructive to say, I'm happy to debate you.

    Thanks,
  • ecthompson
    Bud - 

    After the shoe bomber decided to light himself, Bush took 9 days before talking to the American people. Over a week!!! Did you call Bush weak on terror? Did you say that Bush didn't take the problem seriously? What did you do? Nothing. You sat there like a quiet school boy. 

    Have you read on that time period before you took your marching ordered from the Republican publicity machine? Our good friend Scott McClellan had some great quotes from that time period. "The White House has been monitoring the situation since early on today," McClellan said, according to a Washington Post article published on December 23. The lead statement came from Swift, who lauded the "heroic acts" of "the flight attendants and passengers who helped subdue the suspect." Now, the best way to look at Bush's response was to remember that we were just hit with worse terrorist attack in our nation's history. Osama, himself, releases a tape during Bush's silence. What does Bush do? What does he say to the American people - nothing. When Bush finally spoke to the American people about the shoe bomber what did he say? He held a press conference and during an answer to a question, Bush thanked the stewardess for her vigilance. That was it. He didn't say that he was doing anything to stop future shoe bombers. He didn't talk about anything of substance. Tell me what did Bush do?

    While you are making sarcastic comments about the word terrorist, our President is doing something. He is working on fixing a problem that Bush promised us was fixed and it wasn't. 

    Thanks for your comments.
  • ecthompson
    Bud - if you have nothing to say then say nothing. If you have some constructive to say, I'm happy to debate you. 

    Thanks,
  • Bud Brooks
    And speaking of Obama: he's so special, so smart, so cerebral, so thoughtful, so COOL. He's a "God" (Evan Thomas, "Newsweek"). He's got this all figured out, and he is so much more engaged and considerate and intelligent than that mean old, idiot, war-mongering, cowboy, playboy, daddy's boyBush. Obama is so "dreamy!" Where in the world would we be without Obama???
  • Bud Brooks
    "Two-bit thug?" That's all you need to know about the lackadaisical approach to "terrorists." There's that word again, "terrorists." Sorry, I hope I didn't offend anyone. I am sorry: the "man-caused disaster causers" are their own victims, are misunderstood, and the products of broken homes -- because their dads were suicide bombers.
  • Bud Brooks
    And speaking of Obama: he's so special, so smart, so cerebral, so thoughtful, so COOL.  He's a "God" (Evan Thomas, "Newsweek").  He's got this all figured out, and he is so much more engaged and considerate and intelligent than that mean old, idiot, war-mongering, cowboy, playboy, daddy's boy Bush.  Obama is so "dreamy!"  Where in the world would we be without Obama???
  • Bud Brooks
    "Two-bit thug?" That's all you need to know about the lackadaisical approach to "terrorists."  There's that word again, "terrorists."  Sorry, I hope I didn't offend anyone.  I am sorry: the "man-caused disaster causers" are their own victims, are misunderstood, and the products of broken homes -- because their dads were suicide bombers.
blog comments powered by Disqus