“No snap decisions on Afghanistan”.
The article I have read is headlined “No snap decisions on Afghanistan”, which was written by Michael Bouman on 20 September.
The article deals with the president Obama’s commitment about withdrawing of American troops from Afghanistan. The author starts by saying that Mr. Obama does not have a deadline for withdrawal, he explains it saying that he doesn‘t believe in indefinite occupations of other countries.
Further on the author gives the USA president’s view point on American troop’s activities in Afghanistan. Then the article touches on the point that earlier Mr. Obama increased the presence of the troops in Afghanistan and ...view middle of the document...
Thus the author says that the president of the States “dugs his own political grave on this one”.
From my point of view, Mr. Obama’s wavering is quite understandable. On the one hand, he wants to protect American citizens from terrorists’ attacks, but on the other hand, the government and the policy do not want the war, because there are many inner problems in the country, which are more important than the war in Afghanistan. That is why Mr. Obama changed his earlier decisions.
Not so long ago, when the Monica Lewinsky scandal first broke in the global media, an involuntary and therefore unusually revealing gasp of concern could be heard in the capitals of many of the world's most prominent nations. Ever so briefly, prime ministers and pundits watched to see if the drivewheel of the international economic, security, and political systems was about to misalign or lose its power, with all that this breakdown would imply for the rest of the world. Would the Middle East peace process stall? Would Asia's financial crisis spiral out of control? Would the Korean peninsula become unsettled? Would pressing issues of European security go unresolved? "In all the world's trouble spots," the Times of London noted, leaders were "calculating what will happen when Washington's gaze is distracted." Temporarily interrupting their steady grumbling about American arrogance and hegemonic pretensions, Asian, European, and Middle Eastern editorial pages paused to contemplate the consequences of a crippled American presidency. The liberal German newspaper Frankfurter Rundschau, which a few months earlier had been accusing Americans of arrogant zealotry and a "camouflaged neocolonialism," suddenly fretted that the "problems in the Middle East, in the Balkans or in Asia" will not be solved "without U.S. assistance and a president who enjoys respect" and demanded that, in the interests of the entire world, the president's accusers quickly produce the goods or shut up. In Hong Kong, the South China Morning Post warned that the "humbling" of an American president had "implications of great gravity" for international affairs; in Saudi Arabia, the Arab News declared that this was "not the time that America or the world needs an inward-looking or wounded president. It needs one unencumbered by private concerns who can make tough decisions." The irony of these pleas for vigorous American leadership did not escape notice, even in Paris, the intellectual and spiritual capital of antihegemony and "multipolarity." As one pundit (Jacques Amalric) noted wickedly in the left-leaning Liberation, "Those who accused the United States of being overbearing are today praying for a quick end to the storm." Indeed, they were and with good reason. As Aldo Rizzo observed, part in lament and part in tribute, in Italy's...