

Barack Obama

How will history see me?

If Barack Obama wants to be remembered as a great president, he should focus on three long-term problems

See article

Readers' comments



How will history see me?
It depends on who will writhe history.


Obama is faced with one massive challenge which quite frankly overshadows all the others put together - the gargantuan debt that has already started to erode America's power and will eventually finish it, not unlike what happened to Britain a little over 50 years ago.

Unfortunately, he has shown little sign of a political will to address this issue. The Congressional Republicans are obstructive and annoyingly stupid but surely one can't blame them entirely when the Democrats are honestly not willing to cut any expenses that really matter.

Its a very very tough job - but that's what defined great presidents, doesn't it? The cliche of obstacles being opportunities doesn't hold more true than in the Oval Office. All presidents that are faced with enormous obstacles are not remembered as being great but to attain greatness each and every president must face and surmount enormous difficulties. It is no coincidence that the greatest presidents are often preceded by some of the worst ones - Lincoln by Buchanan, Roosevelt by Hoover, Reagan by Carter.

Obama has this chance to reverse this horrible financial course that America is galloping down full speed ahead. This isn't something like 9/11 or Pearl Harbor that could not be reasonably foreseen. This is completely predictable and very much avoidable. There won't be excuses after she's had a sneak preview from Europe of the fate that awaits nations that live beyond their means. Obama is a thoroughly decent man and a very intelligent one, one with his heart in the right place.

Question is - will he be remembered in the mould of an Abraham Lincoln for having saved the nation from financial catastrophe or as a James Buchanan who simply kicked the can down the road?

Its interesting that some Obama supporters here simply state that he is already great (some of them do it in caps as if that proves it beyond all doubt). Do you stop to think that the most condescending thing to tell a president of color is that he is already great merely because he is the first president of color? How contemptuous! Its like telling a handicapped man "Wow, you managed to get out of bed! Three cheers! Bravo!" Give him some credit. I pray and hope that he achieves much much more - so much so that the fact that he was the first president of color ranks as a mere footnote when placed next to his real tangible achievements.

The Blind in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

Why was Carter such a bad president again? It seems to me he created the departments of Energy and Education, initiated the Camp David accords, gave back the Panama Canal, was highly involved in negotiations with Brezhnev regarding the nuclear arms reduction treaty.

SoCalCMH in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

his heart is not in the right place CnK. stop projecting character traits onto a man he does not deserve and has not demonstrated. you're right about one thing though, unless and until he (future presidents when/if he fails and future presidents still should they fail) gets serious about addressing federal spending and reforming entitlements nothing else will matter. guns, immigration, etc. all take a back seat to getting our fiscal house in order. but as i mentioned above, anybody who understands what "social justice" is and what's its devotees believe (and barack obama is a perfect disciple) balance sheets and fiscal responsibility aren't what matter, cutting a great power down to size and ensuring that it can never rise again are. it's why people like barack obama get out of bed in the morning. and it's long past time the lot of us realize it.

AussieLouis in reply to CnKQ7pSia6

This talk of color just doesn't make sense! Obama, if we are not ignorant, is a white man in a black skin. He was brought up by a white mother and grandparents whose values are that of a 'white' man. He doesn't even get to understand what it means to be a black man (judging by what he wrote in his books) until he had a smell of his genuinely black wife.

And what we know of the american white guy is that if he cannot solve his own problem he would bring his gun and find someone somewhere to shoot. And this is what our nice Mr. Obama is doing with his drones. Name me a terrorist somewhere and I authorize you to shoot: "if women and children dies, well, it's too bad; it's collateral damage and this teaches you not to associate with terrorists."

No matter what Obama may do to bring glory to the USA it can only be hollow glory! How can a man who authorize the indiscriminate killing of women and children with weapons driven by unseen cowards who play their video game of death have any glory?

Anyone who thinks so is surely 'sick in the head'!

WT Economist

Obama can be a great President by doing one of two things:

1) Somehow stop the long term trend of each generation being worse off than the last, with the losses gradually working their way up the economic ladder, or, more likely:

2) Force those now 55 and over to admit this has happened, so at least they'll stop grasping for more, and help those coming after to face up the reality.

If you are talking about history, he'll need to speak to and for younger generations, and tell some hard truths. They'll have to give more and expect less in return than those who came before, because of what they inherited.

And even if their parents didn't put them first, individually or at least collectively, they'll need to put their own children first to get out of what we are in. Don't do as they did.

Rob B.

I wonder why President Obama doesn't get more credit for the things that have NOT happened. (Not to jinx his second term before it starts) Let's review some of the high points of our latest batch of presidents: Bay of Pigs, Pentagon Papers, Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Tora Bora, Missing WMDs, Mission Accompmplished, oh and the greatest economic scandal since the Great Depression. His personality is aloof. So what. He has been the greatest positive and ethical force in presidential politics in a long time.


A lot of the unfinished business referred to relates a whole host of foreign problems. Hillary Clinton appears to have "worked" herself to a standstill.
But what has she actually been doing?

In the long run

Except for killing bin Laden, his first term was quite ummemorable, but his overall legacy is still too early to tell.
I sincerely hope with this new gun control proposal, Obama emerges as a new leader, especially if he shows conviction and sees to it that the proposal gets passed in congress and put into law.
This could be the turning point in his career.


GET REAL! DREAM ON YOU IDIOTS AT THE ECONOMIST!. This guy is already worse than that idiot, Jimmy Crater! He is the most divisive President ever who, along with his great pal, George Soros has only one objective: DESTROY THE AMERICAN ECONOMY and thus its influence in the world!

Damn Dirty Ape in reply to Freaux

Just to take it on its face, why would George Soros want to destroy the american economy? Seems like he would lose a lot of money without gaining anything. Maybe rollacansada should go back to using Saul Alinsky.

Mon Ami Gabi

Dear Sir,

President George W. Bush will be remembered as the president at the time of the 9/11 attack and as the president that started the war in Iraq (and Afghanistan as the longest american war). Many will remember the 2000 election, the absence of WMDs, policies leading to systematic torture, and 8 years of general mismanagement and gaffes ending with a second great depression. He will NOT be remembered for increasing aid to Africa. More people will remember that the book was held upside down...

But people are currently busy trying to forget him (so we should stop bringing him up!).

President Barrack Obama and his cabinet faced with crisis upon crisis will have an almost unequaled impact on the future of the US.

Michael Dunne in reply to dunnhaupt

None of the above.
Matthew Ridgeway and Ike probably are the only ones coming out looking alright, in the 1950s (by refusing to intervene on behalf of the French and keeping the US Military Advisory Group small).


Obama is already a GREAT president. Obama will not be defined by what Arabs and Israelis decide to do in their relationships. If the Palestinians and Israelis were inclined to peace, peace would have been achieved a long time ago! Israel would have stopped building houses on occupied lands; and the Palestinians would have stopped seeking to define their state through UN proclamations! Neither Obama nor any US president can force peace terms on the West Asia neighbors (by the way, the so-called Middle East, is in fact West Asia).

Regarding Iran, the West must relinquish its outdated paternalistic view of other peoples. To think that the West is more responsible than other nations is hogwash! Any nation that wishes to have nuclear weapons cannot be stopped. The notion that Britain should have nuclear weapons while Iran should not is simply nonsensical. Britain acquired colonies in Africa and elsewhere because Britons claimed whatever happened they had ‘the maxim gun’ and others did not! Imagine if Asante Kingdom (in present day Ghana) had the maxim gun. The West is what it is because it acquired superior weapons of mass destruction!

Obama is already a great president. Had Mubarak accepted Obama’s warning that the march of democracy cannot be stopped, he would still be in the presidential palace rather than being caged!

China will crumble when the people rise up against the Communist domination!!

Gary C in reply to Kofi-E

"Obama will not be defined by what Arabs and Israelis decide to do in their relationships. If the Palestinians and Israelis were inclined to peace..."

Obama can add pressure. With a huge deficit the US can let Israel and the Palestinians know that the US can no longer afford to give them foreign aid if they don't at least try to make progress, stop building settlements, etc.

-v in reply to Kofi-E

The word "GREAT" is quite a subjective word. To put President Obama with the likes of great presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and even FDR is extremely premature. It's impossible for Obama's leadership (or lack thereof) in the past four years and more so for the next four years to be judged accurately. Future historians will have a better gauge of this divisive president. Heck, we can't know how the current policies in Afghanistan will affect the U.S. five or ten years from now. The Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, took sausage making to a whole other level. A consequential legislation that passed without bipartisan support. The success or possible heavy financial burden placed on present and future Americans for yet another entitlement will also be better judged well after the 44th president has left 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.


let's not confuse good man with Great President. Is he a good man, that's without question but a great president how, by what measure?
1. the ACA - passed 100% on party lines, has not been even implemented yet and according to the CBO will cost trillions more that he estimated all the while stealing 700 billioon from medicare.
2. Well not only are we in Afghanistan but he tippled down on the number of troops with any measurable results for the people of Afghanistan. If we weren't there to free the people and enhance their lives than why?
3. Arguably the most polarizing figure in American politics next to George Bush
4. the debt and deficit is the largest in American history under his administration and there was no gimmic from the Cash for Clunkers to multiple stimulus's that he didnt get passed to turn the economy around and it hasn't happened.
5. the most anti-Israel administration in decades

Here are his successes:
1. perception of America around the world is better because of him
2. he's been a huge success in deportation of illegals. I think the most of any president.
3. drone attacks on terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan have been a huge success at disrupting organize terrorist organizations
4. the killing of Osama bin Ladin

WT Economist in reply to hohan

"Arguably the most polarizing figure in American politics next to George Bush."

Bush wasn't as bad as demonizing Democrats wanted to believe, and Obama isn't bad at all despite what demonizing Republicans say.

These men were not the polarizers. It's the sleazebags the swarm around Washington and national politics like flies who deserve the blame.

tac5canada in reply to hohan

I think one thing that is truly lacking in a discussion about Obama is what he could truly be expected to achieve.
With regard to the ACA, many including myself felt that it did not go far enough (single payer / public option). Obama worked with what he could through Congress to TRY to get America to be like every other western nation. I don't like a lot of provisions in there, but I give him credit for implementing a vision over partisan politics.
2) With regard to Afghanistan, any reasonable rationale for being there disappeared years ago, but due to promises made to Afghans and "supporting the troops", what was he supposed to do?
3) I disagree. He has substantial support from all walks of American life (except for retired, white, rural voters) and substantial international support. I think he's a "uniter" not a "divider".
4) Fiscally, what do you expect him to do when there is an absolute refusal to look at revenues as part of a solution? He tried compromise, it failed. He tried moving first to cut costs -no reciprocation. Now, he's playing hardball - what else is left? Sure, rhetorically he proposes cuts in entitlements, but Congress holds veto power and holds an absolute position.
5) This wouldn't be hard, but I think Obama's policies towards Israel actually represent the American people - settlement building and the disrespect shown the US President given the steadfast support was a slap at American taxpayers. Israel says we're a great ally - who are you to question? But when Bibi gets a standing ovation in Congress, what's Obama to do?

As to the Economist's suggestions, I suggest that they examine the realm of the possible as well - Balancing the Books and approach to the Middle East. If they have a better solution, let's hear it, but you negotiate with hostage takers, either in the Congress or the Knesset.

I am dissapointed in Obama, and had an option been presented to the voters of someone prepared to tell the truth to Americans about their spending ways (especially on the Republican side), I would have voted for them. Obama was the least worst option, and being married to the obstructive congress means I have sympathy for a very difficult set of circumstances.

Over the next 3 months, we'll face a couple of showdowns and the results of that will make it a lot easier to see what the realm of the possible holds - today it isn't much.

hohan in reply to tac5canada

1. honestly - the ACA was passed on party lines if Obama couldnt get a single-payer system (which I agree he wanted) thru his own party dont blame the republicans
2. he owns Afghanistan - troops levels during Bush 25K - Obama as high as 90K. He simply took the troops from Iraq and place them in Afghanistan. He's committed to leaving this country worse off - it has no stable government to administer and is totally incapable of self governance. His administration sold the Afghans on "we got their back," we dont clearly.
3. If it's "substantial support" then why did only get 51% of the vote - there's not enough white males that make up 49% (and that's of the 60 million that voted)?
4. Is there anything he has done that you disagree with? I at least listed things I think he did a good job with. His administration is in charge of the Treasury, you do realize this right? Remember his famous words "we'll save billions in waste,fraud, and abuse," where have we realized any of this, it been going on 4+ years. You mean the same congress where his party controls the Senate and is unable to pass anything not even a budget? (which is consistent, since the Dems haven't passed a budget in now 8 years - side note Obama was in the Senate for part of those 8 years)
5. If you think relations with Israel are good, live in that delusion.

Well the issue on the Republican side was no one's voting for a white billionaire claiming to be "one of the people," That's just how dumb they are as a party. I challenge you to go back and read Bush's speeches and see how many times he blames others for his mistakes, Obama can't get thru one speech without assigning blame. When does he lead?

tac5canada in reply to hohan

Thank you for the reply, my friend. Though I suspect that you and I will differ on the interpretation of the facts, I value the discussion.
1) He did get the ACA through his own party over the outright lies of the Republicans (death panels), and even though the concepts for it were based on a Heritage Foundation set of ideas and implemented by a MA Republican Governor, so yes, Republicans deserve some blame. Obama made a mistake by outsourcing to Pelosi, and thus missing ideas such as tort reform, but let's not engage in revisionist history.
2) Come on. This is your weakest point. Afghanistan has been a loser for 6-8 years and the only question was when we get out. If we stayed for another 20 years there wouldn't be a stable government - do you disagree? So, it was all about how to save face on the exit and the "surge" was it. To my point in the original post, it was about creating the conditions to call it "a win" and try to keep some semblance of a promise to the Afghan's who supported the invasion.
3) Obama led in every group other than white males and was given a Nobel Prize (just for not being Bush). That was inappropriate, but I think the comment about him dividing the country is a massive over-reach. On what grounds is he "divisive"? I think that right wing media has more to do with divisiveness than anything Obama did.
4) I'm not sure I have much more to say on the fiscal issues that I didn't state above - I will answer your first question below. I believe (as you do probably about me) that you are leaving out the most important factors. Obama made cuts and froze salaries in the civil service and got nothing from the Republicans - now that the shoes are reversed, everyone is bitching and moaning that he's not playing fair.
5) I think relations with Israel are good, but here's the delusion I am not willing to live with. I have a young son who I do not want sent to war started by Israel because we provide unquestioned support. Maybe you have kids - maybe even kids that served. I don't want my kids or yours in this situation because no one would be honest with Israel. Just because there is not unquestioned support does not make it anti-Israel.

All this noise about not blaming Bush is a canard...and I think the right knows it. The Economist clearly acknowledges how Obama saved the economy from the brink (that would be Bush's economy). He cut taxes, funded wars on a credit card...blah, blah, blah ... all the liberal criticisms, but I would love to hear what you or anyone thinks could have been done differently. I don't see it.

At the end of the day, there is no other version of leadership offered. On all of your points above, the offering from the Republicans was words (replace ACA - with what?; agree with Obama on Afghanistan; Romney's campaign was clearly more divisive on any metric than Obamas; no specific details at all on any sort of financial reform, including any progress on the deficit or debt; lockstep support for Israel and a willingness (eagerness?) to engage Iran.

You asked which things that Obama did that I don't agree with. I'll spare you the increased blood pressure over my criticisms from the left, and note some that I think would resonate with the right:
i) Public Sector Unions (but maybe not all unions) are a cancer that need to be addressed
ii) Tort reform needs to be part of any health care cost reduction calculation
iii) All corporate welfare needs to end, including support for "sexy" industries like green energy. I would be in favor of a carbon tax to spur innovation, but not to give to special interests
iv) I am disappointed that the lobbying / politician revolving door continues
v) I am disappointed that there has not been comprehensive campaign finance reform/
vi) My friends here in Atlanta have convinced me of the merits of a flat tax with no exemptions.

I appreciate the conversation


hohan in reply to tac5canada

The ACA by all accounts will cost us more than Medicare and Medicaid and as far as death panels. Maybe you are and maybe you're not noticing that there are fewer and fewer kids becoming doctors. Because of this initiative we'll see the ratio of patients to doctors sore. Healthcare cost went up as soon as this bill was signed, why was that? The lie was you can keep your doctor, no you can't.

Replace ACA with what? The answer has always been clean up the programs you have and not introduce some which not only doesnt meet all the needs but doesnt reduce costs. There never was a need for the ACA if Medicare and Medicaid were administered effectively. On that note - why would you think the ACA would be run more efficiently?

Afghanistan - Bush set it up correctly 25-30K troops to ensure stability in the region. Obama on the other hand has now destabilized the region. We have worse relations with both Afghanistan and Pakistan then under the previous administration.

I agree with you on your assessment of the Republicans. They are a dying party full of archaic doctrine and elitist snobs.


I sort of agree with Senjata as the left in this country will go great lengths to cast his 8 years in office in a good light but the fact is he has been decisive and he has been decisive on purpose. George “W’ Bush was a moderate who was cast as decisive because of the way he won the first election and because he did not act like a liberal elite. He went to great lengths to build bridges. Obama has made no attempt to listen to the concerns of the opposition and has made no attempt to find common ground on anything. Of course we hear from the media that it is the House Republicans who are the problem but this is “bunk”. The problem the Left has with them is because they will not “roll-over” and go way. The Health-Care bill was the first piece of major legislation in this country to NOT get support from both Parties…. The Democrats passed it themselves across party lines and would not even consider any market based amendments included in the final bill. EVEN NOW the Democrats refuse to cut any spending. Those of us that know something about economics and how to balance a budget cannot understand how they think we can ever pay this money back without a complete reorganization of our society. AHHHHH but that is the whole point isn’t it… Destroy it country and rebuild it in their flawed image. Since they are in power they will not be affected and they may end up with more power when it is all over.

Oldwhiteguy in reply to guest-inwjooi

Whoa. There are lot of things to take issue with here. Your statement about Obama making no attempt to listen has been contradicted by numerous sources, one of which is The Economist. Polls show the American public clearly recognizes the Republican majority in the House as being at fault for the least productive Congress in our nation's history. So don't (yet again) blame it on "the media." It is a fact that Republicans have signed a promise not to raise taxes - a promise made to an outside lobbyist. Those of us that know something about economics and how to balance a budget (ah, I see that includes you!) cannot understand how one can propose to do so on spending cuts alone. And as for your final salute to paranoia, well the power still belongs to the people and the people soundly rejected your myopic point of view in the last election.

JonestheReprobate in reply to Oldwhiteguy

But as the leader pointed out, it's pretty clear that The President didn't listen to his own (bipartisan) fiscal commission. Moreover, it seems he's quite adamant about not listening to any discussion about either tax reform or some reduction in federal government expenditures.

I might turn your point around and say I cannot understand how one can propose to balance a budget on tax increases alone.

On the subject of history, I think it will judge him poorly for his complete neglect of his own commission on budget reform and other bipartisan attempts such as Domenici-Rivlin.

Wat Tyler

Sir: Could you please explain how a country which borrows in it's own currency (especially the world's reserve currency) could ever "eventually go broke".


chinachip in reply to MBerg

MBerg: A most excellent answer! Will you please write a children's book such as "The Grench who stole our wealth"...
Please? I teach in China, and can get it published here. the local six year olds would love it. The 3-5s too. No need to make it anti american, just sorta "Our foolish uncle Bubba"-ish.


guest-iwwjonw in reply to MBerg

Wealth is an illusion. However, the USA has proven fossil fuel reserves greater than Saudi Arabia, possesses a military superior to all others combined, continues to be the most innovative, welcoming, and prosperous democracy civilization has ever known.

L6QjhvJGVk in reply to Wat Tyler

You are right, partially. It does not go broke. However, when "outsiders" become the biggest lenders to the USA, then it reduces the ability of the USA to take a hard position against them. To a certain extent, a slight loss of independence is manageable. However, try and explain this to the right-wing who feel that America can reshape world politics through military interventions, etc. Obama can make a great contribution if he can explain to Americans that there are limits to imperial power and that "imperial overreach" is bad for the country.

sybarite in reply to Wat Tyler

Excellent point-besides no one ever pays for the deficit or debt (neither will my children) After ww2 our debt to gdp was much higher than now and with a combination of growth and inflation it was mostly erased by the 70s.
I don't understand the obsession with debt- the bond markets are allowing the US to borrow very cheaply. Perhaps the markets are signaling us to borrow more to fix infrastructure and education etc.


No matter the facts, Obama's placement in the patheon of great presidents is assurred. Schools, roads & public institutions will be named after him. Tomes will be written about him. He will be idolized. The first president of color will not go down as a failure, even if he is.

Curate's Egg in reply to Senjata

To the posterity, yes.

But for the present, Obama's skin colour is a major impediment to getting the other half of the government (Congress) to even listen to him. Don't deny it, you know it's true. Obama wouldn't face half the opposition he does if he were Clinton, and had a typical American upbringing.

john4law in reply to Curate&#039;s Egg

More VICTIMIZATION and racial demagoguery that America doesn't deserve and is trashed by. The LEFT is the NEW KKK of the political scene?? It appears so. A CLEAR sign of cynical emptiness and amoral desperation at a FAILED agenda of European socialist absurdities that are falling apart much faster HERE than in Europe. Redistribution doesn't WORK anywhere.


I don't think history will judge Obama too poorly on the debt unless the Republicans relent and agree to start governing in the interests of the American people instead of cowering from fear of being primaried and blocking all action by the US gov't. His best chance will be if Americans in safe Republican Cong. districts vote the bums out and replace them with people willing to compromise and work for the good of the nation, regardless of party.

And, unless Israel elects rational leadership -OR- Obama is willing/able to tie Israel aid to dismantling settlements (or both), there will be no peace. Cutting off all aid to Isreal (if Congress doesn't get in the way) is his best bet to get them on board the peace train. Seriously, if the US wanted to garner the undying gratitude of Arab Muslims, he would send troops to the occupied territories and physically remove all Israeli settlers if Israel won't do it. Israel cannot stop us (or the entire world, who would be in support of such an action), so why not? It would also save Isreal from becomming what they ran from in the 1930's and 1940's - an oppressive ethnic cleanser.

supamark in reply to Clastics

Thankfully, a lot of people have realized how dumb it was to elect people like Allen West to Congress. If the districts weren't so gerrymandered I think the House would've been a lot more "blue".


Great presidents have always been defined by extraordinary events, such as civil war, world wars, or nuclear crisis. The only chance of something of this scale happening is that the potential conflict of Japan and China over Diaoyu island brings US into a confrontation with China. All other things are just child's play. Domestically, if he can somehow push through the immigration reform that offers amnesty in some manner, he might change America fundamentally, for better or worse.

jouris - old account in reply to TarH33l

A huge economic crisis can also serve as an extraordinary event. And Obama has one of those already. If he manages to get the country out of it before he leaves office, he will be regarded (by history) as one of the great presidents. Even if he accomplishes nothing else.

Especially as he will have done so in the face of a Republican party which said that they had no higher priority (including, presumably, restoring the nation's economy) than preventing his reelection. And now seems to feel that the same level of (non) cooperation is what they will stick with.


i agree with everything said here. However I would like to point out that there is no reference to Latin America whatsoever in the article.

As a brazilian myself, I understand that there are pressing issues elseqhere on the world. But some time ago I read on The Economist and elsewhere despair that Latin America don't care so much about the Us anymore.

Well, when we are so low in your list of priorities... don't come complaining 10 years from now that we just do business with China, Africa and India.

Rob Roberts

"We should all wish him well."

That sentiment is in short supply to a sizable group of Americans. Any future conversation regarding Obama would have to include a GOP putting priority on a personal vendetta against a man they don't even think is an American over trying to solve the nations problems.

Would submit that the overriding priority before anything mentioned in this article is redoubling his efforts to create a respectful, working relationship with Congress. It may well not be reciprocated, but not continuing to try would be the biggest failure of all.

Connect The Dots

The first Presidential Term is focused on being re-elected and not being consigned to be a one-termer.
As Obama told Mevedev, "I will have more flexibility after the election."

The Second Term frees the incumbent for BIG LEGACY PROJECTS which are launched on the first State of the Union Speech. Obama's big projects seem to be restoring fiscal stability, Immigration Reform and Infrastructure.

The Second half of the second term is a lame duck. They concentrate on Foreign Affairs and World Standing and travel the world.


I enjoy the commentary but I don't understand why we still look at the world in such a way that we place such a huge responsibility on the President. Obama/Bush is responsible for a two state solution (seriously)? I think this newspaper and others do far too little to call on other Western powers like the UK, Germany, Spain, France, to take more responsibility for what goes on in the world.
The same thing holds true for the deby we continue to have this myopic view that the president is responsible for the debt and a solution, then what the heck in Congress for, and when will the American public have an honest dialogue about what we are willing to pay for.


History is an interesting way to approach this article. The US by far spends more money on its military than any other country in the world. We have involved ourselves in countless conflicts and wars in the Middle East over the past 30 years with very little investment from other partners around the world (like the EU and China). There is a simple question in all of this. What has all this blood and treasure bought us? Perhaps a weak argument for cheaper oil?? The hatred for the US has only grown over this period of time.

No you do not keep following failed policies with the hopes that one day it will pay off. Its time to be honest and say that it will not. I hate to sound callous and cold but the Middle East will never and I repeat never be remembered in history as America's shining moment. The sooner we realize this the better.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Writing worth reading: Dark matter
Babbage March 15th, 14:43
Bits and mortar: Babbage visits Ada's
Babbage March 15th, 10:22
Deportations: A kinder expulsion
Democracy in America March 14th, 21:38
Blasphemy laws: Wrong on so many levels
Erasmus March 14th, 17:20


Products & events