SabrinaDeep
Official Checked Star Member
A few days ago, President Barack Obama was host of the show "60 Minutes", one of the most famous and enduring journalistic format in the history of American television.
Not only for his graying hair, the leader appeared tired, sad (sometimes rabid), imprisoned in a melancholy that surrounds the end of his term.
The man convinced and convincing that caught the imagination of America and the world, which has ignited the enthusiasm of the masses and the intellectuals to the continuous tracking of lost dreams, now looked like a man off.
America is getting ready to turn the page on a leadership that has failed not only to its responsibility, as to the weight that the whole world has shouldered; a weight of unrealistic expectations out of the necessary realism that should animate the head of the largest democracy in the world.
Obama has remained a prisoner of his own dreams and of what others have dreamed through him.
Steve Kroft, the interviewer, a dean of US journalism who in another interview from 2013 had been accused of being too compliant with the President (then at the height of his consent), this time (when Obama is at the lowest point of his popularity) appeared to be merciless; especially when they talked about Syria and the failure of American strategy.
Kroft has pressed Obama on the famous question of the training program of the anti-Assad rebels which cost over half a billion dollars a year and which was to produce 5,000 fighters trained and armed and which has produced only 40 of which 35 are already out of action; a program which represents the greatest failure in the history of American military.
Obama said he was "skeptical" of creating this kind of "army by proxy" inside Syria.
Kroft's reply was merciless: "But if you were skeptical about the program, why did you approve it?"
Obama's response was surprising: "Well, because of what we have to do in Syria is trying different things"; and still "in a volatile situation and with so many players as in Syria, there are no silver bullets" (an expression to define unique and final solutions).
Long gone are the times when a fierce Obama denounced the "Dumb Wars" of Bush only to throw the West onto the dumbest war in recent decades: the one against Gaddafi's Libya.
And Obama forgets that even in 2013, had it not been for the opposition of Russia in the UN and the resounding vote of the British Parliament where Cameron denied permission to follow America into war against Assad, today we would have Syria turned into a new Libya but in the hands of the Isis.
Obama also admitted that the US were aware of a possible Russian intervention in Syria but it is not true: "America has remained totally puzzled by the speed and efficiency of Moscow's intervention", declared weeks ago Admiral Brett Heimbigner (head of the intelligence services of Norad) at the Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington.
But what especially angered Obama have been questions about a leadership contest with Putin; it is clear that what embarrasses the United States are the results that the Russian President is getting on the field (with the retreat, in a few weeks, by Isis) and in terms of international image, as the only leader determined to combat Islam and defend his Arab allies. The latter is not secondary in the the Middle East scenario, as remarked a while ago by the Wall Street Journal: Obama's America is the one that has abandoned to their fate historical and faithful allies of the United States (as Mubarak) and sacrificed the safety of Israel after the agreement with Iran. Putin's Russia appears instead as a fair country that does not hesitate to take the field to defend its allies (as it is doing with Assad's Syria).
America must ask why this decline. Idealist fanaticism that fuels the neocon hawks in Washington and is manifested in the impudence with which Hillary Clinton, a few days ago, proudly claimed the war in Libya , sets America far away from its history and its leading political role: that of healthy realism able to learn from mistakes and to read the complexity of history and its mutation of forces in the field.
Not only for his graying hair, the leader appeared tired, sad (sometimes rabid), imprisoned in a melancholy that surrounds the end of his term.
The man convinced and convincing that caught the imagination of America and the world, which has ignited the enthusiasm of the masses and the intellectuals to the continuous tracking of lost dreams, now looked like a man off.
America is getting ready to turn the page on a leadership that has failed not only to its responsibility, as to the weight that the whole world has shouldered; a weight of unrealistic expectations out of the necessary realism that should animate the head of the largest democracy in the world.
Obama has remained a prisoner of his own dreams and of what others have dreamed through him.
Steve Kroft, the interviewer, a dean of US journalism who in another interview from 2013 had been accused of being too compliant with the President (then at the height of his consent), this time (when Obama is at the lowest point of his popularity) appeared to be merciless; especially when they talked about Syria and the failure of American strategy.
Kroft has pressed Obama on the famous question of the training program of the anti-Assad rebels which cost over half a billion dollars a year and which was to produce 5,000 fighters trained and armed and which has produced only 40 of which 35 are already out of action; a program which represents the greatest failure in the history of American military.
Obama said he was "skeptical" of creating this kind of "army by proxy" inside Syria.
Kroft's reply was merciless: "But if you were skeptical about the program, why did you approve it?"
Obama's response was surprising: "Well, because of what we have to do in Syria is trying different things"; and still "in a volatile situation and with so many players as in Syria, there are no silver bullets" (an expression to define unique and final solutions).
Long gone are the times when a fierce Obama denounced the "Dumb Wars" of Bush only to throw the West onto the dumbest war in recent decades: the one against Gaddafi's Libya.
And Obama forgets that even in 2013, had it not been for the opposition of Russia in the UN and the resounding vote of the British Parliament where Cameron denied permission to follow America into war against Assad, today we would have Syria turned into a new Libya but in the hands of the Isis.
Obama also admitted that the US were aware of a possible Russian intervention in Syria but it is not true: "America has remained totally puzzled by the speed and efficiency of Moscow's intervention", declared weeks ago Admiral Brett Heimbigner (head of the intelligence services of Norad) at the Intelligence and National Security Summit in Washington.
But what especially angered Obama have been questions about a leadership contest with Putin; it is clear that what embarrasses the United States are the results that the Russian President is getting on the field (with the retreat, in a few weeks, by Isis) and in terms of international image, as the only leader determined to combat Islam and defend his Arab allies. The latter is not secondary in the the Middle East scenario, as remarked a while ago by the Wall Street Journal: Obama's America is the one that has abandoned to their fate historical and faithful allies of the United States (as Mubarak) and sacrificed the safety of Israel after the agreement with Iran. Putin's Russia appears instead as a fair country that does not hesitate to take the field to defend its allies (as it is doing with Assad's Syria).
America must ask why this decline. Idealist fanaticism that fuels the neocon hawks in Washington and is manifested in the impudence with which Hillary Clinton, a few days ago, proudly claimed the war in Libya , sets America far away from its history and its leading political role: that of healthy realism able to learn from mistakes and to read the complexity of history and its mutation of forces in the field.
