No Disorder with Obama but with the Observer

There is a difference between politics and diplomacy. Politics is what you practice at home where the interest of the nation is one and the same, shared by all individuals and all the parties. Diplomacy, on the other hand, is what you practice abroad where the interests are varied and often competing against one another.

At home, the head of government speaks clearly to his people, presents his plan to the opposition and the nation in a clear fashion, and leads a national debate that aims to explain to the last detail every aspect of his project. What he does on the international stage, however, is something akin to playing poker because everyone else is playing that same game.

When implementing his domestic agenda, the head of government does not keep the cards close to his vest, and does not bluff because he wants the entire population and the loyal opposition to work with him for the common good. As to the international agenda, he keeps the cards close to his vest because if he doesn't, the other heads will eat him alive, and take advantage of his country. He will also bluff his way during negotiations if he must, and if he can ascertain he'll get away with it.

During the first half of the twentieth century, the heads of European governments were renowned for their savvy at implementing the domestic and international agendas in that manner. They were the professionals that no one has equaled or surpassed to this day. But what happened as the second half of the century was approaching is that lesser men began to put down the groundwork for the destruction of Europe. When this came to pass, no generation was able to produce comparable leaders after that.

America which participated in that war and the one in the Pacific turned out to be the big winner at the end of it all. It did not need savvy leaders to run its domestic or international agendas and produced none. But America had leaders that were propelled into doing magnificent acts, which they did (not because they had it within them to be great but) because they presided over the wealthiest and most powerful nation at the time. Despite their shortcomings, Eisenhower, Johnson, Carter and Nixon come to mind as having done magnificent acts. And perhaps Obama too will someday be judged worthy to join this pantheon.

This brings us to the editorial in the Washington Post which came under the title: “President Obama needs to focus on how the United States can meet global challenges,” published on August 29, 2014. Like the title suggests, the editors are interested in the international agenda and yet, they treat it from start to finish as if it were a domestic agenda. They complain about “his [Obama's] perplexing meeting with reporters” at which time he contradicted earlier reports in saying that America had no strategy with regard to Syria.

The editors say they are alarmed because the President seems to be arguing with his own administration. In simple English, it means that the administration is thinking aloud the pros and cons of the issues for the world to hear. Well, this is how the savvy professionals used to play the game of diplomatic poker in the old days. But now, the editors of the Washington Post see it as incompetence because they say: “one can only imagine the whiplash that foreign leaders must be suffering.” What did these editors expect? That he tells the enemy what he plans, and tells potential allies they don't have to do a thing because Uncle Sam will carry the entire burden?

This is not domestic politics where Obama has the obligation to tell the public and the opposition what he has planned, and how he intends to proceed with the implementation. By contrast, when it comes to doing something abroad – especially in someone else's backyard – the President must begin with a minimalist position to squeeze the maximum that he can from the others before committing the United States to doing what else is necessary to succeed. If America's leader fails to play it this way, the foreign leaders will play America.

But what is it that makes the editors of a major American publication miss the boat when it comes to mastering the simple rules of international diplomacy? It is that they had bad teachers. Theirs were the Jews whose real homeland is Israel whereas America is their playground. They developed a host of ambiguities to drive Israel's foreign policy; and developed a set of attacks to aim at the American administration. This causes the administration to release information which the Jews take to the world and tell those who need something from America that they own the joint. If they want something from Washington, the way there passes through occupied Jerusalem where they must pay their dues. Their game is politics not diplomacy on the world stage.