THE US AND RUSSIA (THE BIGGER PICTURE)

For months I've been torturing myself with the same question: what is it that this president lacks?; it may sound like a stupid question since we all lack so many things, but there's always one distinct feature that you have or don't have and makes your image. After seeing the latest Russian proposal on Syria I finally came up with what I think our commander in chief is dramatically low on: humility. For all his biographical "procedures" and the legend of his stemming from humble origins to become one more proof of American uniqueness the sad truth is that he is not able to make friends unless with those who share his views; let alone that he has not been able to build a relationship with the GOP members of Congress; he has not been able to build a relationship with many of the democrats. That and no other is the real reason behind the stagnation in Washington. True, the republicans are in a dangerous process of implosion themselves, but a friendlier president would and could have made more of the last few years. As it this weren't tragic enough, his lack of empathy (empathy does not mean weakness) transcends the US borders and is highly critical in two specific cases: B.B. Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin, the former is an ally and there's always time to put things in order; however, the latter is a narcissistic bully in constant emulation of his idol Joseph Stalin and happens to be sitting on a nuclear arsenal and ruling the largest nation on earth.

I agree with those who saw Bush's approach too chummy vis-a-vis the Russian president, but that was much better than the reciprocal disgust these two key players show when they are together. As Bob Woodward put it the other day, "when you're at the bargaining table the guy in front of you is your best friend, because he's the only one that can give you what you need". America needs to prove it is the most powerful nation on earth not by indulging in a testosterone spilling contest, but by luring our foes and leading our friends to the right path; the right path meaning what is good for us with no regard for hypocritical and demagogic considerations. There were two empires for several decades so we could go back to that status; being the only power has proved expensive and dangerous; we need to go back to the time when there were two spheres of influence and the two big guys only talked to one another. The current situation pushes America to a dialogue with lesser entities, thus debasing its stature and undermining its effectiveness.

Our first citizen needs to have one of those long talks Gorbachev and Reagan had back in the day; a walk in the woods, no translators, their bodyguards out of earshot; casually dressed and then our guy has to butter Vladimir up with the prospect of being the man who put mother Russia back in the spotlight. One of the sore points is the protection of former satellites like Poland, Hungary, the Czheck Republic, and other small nations that don't feel comfortable, and rightly so, being close to the big bear with no strategic defense; well Castro had the same drama and at the peak of the cold war and the Soviets were able to guarantee his safety for good without alienating the US; Castro and his family still benefit from that 51 year old quasi secret deal. Is Barrack less capable than Khrushchev or Castro for that matter?. If he is let his legacy show it in no equivocal terms; but if he's not, and I think our president is pretty smart, it's time he quits hanging out with celebrities and focuses on what he hired him to do in the first place, and while he's at it he should tell those republican good for nothing hawks to get in their asses and give him a hand. I would have never voted for you Mr. President, but if you undertake this vital task I'm with you all the way.

BEING CRYSTAL CLEAR AND A C.E.O.'s MISSION

My latest tirades against any US involvement in Syria may be taken by some as a shift in my position and I want to set the record straight and avoid confusion. While I detest the carnage and waste of human lives that inevitably come with any war I live under no illusions about how our great nation was shaped and how it became the most powerful country on earth. America has never hesitated to use force when its key interests have been at stake and that is one of the reasons why I chose this country instead of any other.

I'm one of those who believes in the American way of life. This and not a pacifist inclination is what compels me to adamantly oppose a strike in Syria. I firmly believe when we elect a president, a congress(man/woman), or a senator we are not hiring them to be our spiritual leader or one of our parents, but to head this great corporation called America and find ways and means to fare in all kinds of weathers; we the people are the shareholders and they work for us (not the other way around although more often than not we seem to be their slaves); therefore, in a case like this, the C.E.O. or commander in chief whichever way we want to call him, has not put forth a comprehensive plan that guarantees a successful operation against the Syrian dictator; moreover, if he and Congress had had our vital interests in mind, we wouldn't be in this mess. They would have worked with Putin behind the scene in order to keep Assad in power in exchange for assurances that his chemical arsenal were in no way, shape, or form to fall in the hands of Al Qaeda or any of the extremists that have allegedly infiltrated the opposition. If our C.E.O and his executives (on both sides of the aisle) have been so erratic vis-a-vis the Middle East in general and have been overwhelmed by the swiftness of events in that region, why should we believe they have got it right this time?; how can we trust we won't be dragged into a larger conflict of which exiting can prove not only difficult but costly and, as usual of late, humiliating? 

I would unequivocally support the president in a war against Iran or any of our enemies, no matter how formidable, if I thought it could solve our problems and ease tensions in the world; but meddling in a civil war with no clear objective and a slim chance of success is not the American way although it has happened several times in the last 50 years. In all fairness one should say this is not the first president who takes us to a useless war; but we can't change the past; what we can do is make sure it doesn't happen again