How Brainy Is Obama?
Most of the other hypotheses don’t seem to make much sense, so I’m starting to approach the tentative conclusion that Barack Obama is just not that smart. It should hardly come as a surprise. He undoubtedly has an IQ slightly higher than normal or he wouldn’t have made it through college and law school (though it might be interesting to see his transcripts, which to my knowledge he hasn’t released yet). But in retrospect what he seems to have displayed throughout his career is cunning rather than anything resembling real learning.
This would hardly be unique among American presidents, and in fact there are some who argue that high intellect and/or book-learnin’ are not only seldom to be seen in the presidency but perhaps not especially desirable. President Clinton was obviously an engaged policy wonk with what one suspects is a pretty high IQ and a degree of intellectual curiosity. George W. Bush was not quite the dunce some made him out to be, but one would be hard pressed to find evidence of intellectual curiosity, a philosophy of governance formed by much deep thinking, a willingness to dig into policy details, or a capacity to learn much from either study or experience.
Barack Obama has obviously been extremely ambitious for a long time; perhaps he has had the presidency in mind since early college days. So he has been alert to the main chance, aware of the kinds of alliances he ought to make, aware that a sensitive autobiography would make him look special in the eyes of the easily duped intellectuals of our fading empire, aware of how to present himself as a multicultural black man. But his reputation for being really smart is belied by so many of his actions.
What has me going this time is not health care, though there’s plenty of evidence there, but Afghanistan. His recent visit there cemented this war as “his” war. But the war makes so little sense that you would think almost any reasonably intelligent person – I suspect he didn’t take any international relations classes in college, and he certainly has not shown any special interest in that field heretofore, so maybe that’s a mitigating factor – would have been able to figure it out.
The official line about keeping al-Qaeda out of Afghanistan is obviously absurd; al-Qaeda hasn’t been there since 2002. He has to know – doesn’t he? – that the Taliban is an indigenous Afghan outfit without international ambitions, so while a takeover would be sad for many Afghans, it would have few if any international repercussions. He is obviously aware enough that Karzai is a corrupt tool, and uncooperative to boot, that it annoys him. So why does he insist on maintaining a U.S. presence in the Graveyard of Empires?
What are the possibilities? Does he really want to preside over the fall of the American Empire? Is he so deluded as to think we can bring a semblance of democracy, stability, or semi-decent governance in the next 15 months or so? Is he just cunning enough to realize that historians tend to rank American presidents who have presided over wars as “greater” than those who presided over peaceful periods?
I’m coming to think that maybe he’s just not that smart.
So he returned from a whirlwind trip to Afghanistan, where he sought to encourage U.S. troops and reportedly delivered yet another lecture to Afghan President Hamid Karzai on the importance of reducing corruption in an endemically corruption-riddled regime and being able actually to deliver services to the people after U.S. troops clear and hold certain areas of the country.
We now know just how seriously Mr. Karzai took the lecture. On Wednesday he delivered a televised speech in which he claimed that the fraud in last August’s election was perpetrated by "the West" and the UN, presumably to deprive him of the satisfaction of a clean and unambiguous victory. We know Karzai has ignored previous admonitions – and it is just possible that what the U.S. asks of him is inconsistent with his remaining in power.
That election last August was so marked by fraud as to lead many observers to believe he stole it. It may be likely that the widespread fraud was unnecessary, that he would have won fair and square without it. But he has been fairly unbearable ever since. His actions toward strengthening the election complaint commission were so unsatisfactory that the White House postponed a scheduled Karzai visit to Washington. So Karzai went ahead and invited Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – yes, that Ahmadinejad – to Kabul, where he delivered a fiery anti-American speech in the presidential palace with Mr. Karzai standing by, smiling. Mr. Karzai then visited Ahmadinejad last weekend in Tehran.
A New York Times story earlier in the week tells of a luncheon where Hamid Karzai regaled his guests with his “complete theory of American power,” revolving around the U.S. desire to dominate the region and ending with the notion that he is the only one who can stand up to them.
So this is the thinking of an Afghan leader whose continuance in power rests almost entirely on American military prowess and good will? This is the leader whose government we are spilling American blood to prop up?
These major complications are mere sidelights compared with the shaky strategic basis of continuing American involvement in Afghanistan. The stated reason is to keep al-Qaeda, which still has international terrorist ambitions, out of Afghanistan. But most intelligence authorities agree that al-Qaeda is not in Afghanistan just now, and it is far from certain that even if the Taliban, an indigenous Afghan outfit, were to return to power that it would welcome back al-Qaeda. They remember how that turned out the last time.
U.S. military forces are performing with bravery and skill in Afghanistan, but the basis for their presence is deeply flawed. It is high time for the Obama administration to reconsider its decision to escalate the Afghan war and begin preparing for a withdrawal that would eliminate the American crutch and leave Afghanistan to the Afghans.
Is the president smart enough?
Read more by Alan Bock
- Time to Move Past Camp David Envy – March 21st, 2010
- Down the Rabbit Hole in Afghanistan – March 14th, 2010
- Independence, Empire Don’t Mesh – July 5th, 2009
- The Timid Emperor – June 28th, 2009
- Chest-Thumping Interventionists – June 21st, 2009
uberVU - social comments
April 8th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Antiwarcom: Antiwar.com How Brainy Is Obama?: His Afghan policy raises questions, says Alan Bock http://bit.ly/dy3quw…
Claus Eric Hamle
April 9th, 2010 at 7:41 am
If Obama were smart , he wouldn´t say that all evidence say that Iran is developing nuclear weapons as 16 US Intelligence Agencies say that there´s no evidence that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. It´s schizofrenia or what ?
epppie
April 9th, 2010 at 6:01 am
One of the many things I don't understand about ObamaMania is this idea that Obama is terribly smart.
But then again, most Libs aren't necessarily as smart as they think they are, so how can they evaluate how smart Obama is?
donna
April 9th, 2010 at 1:39 pm
Never thought Obama was smart–just gave good speeches. But, after GW, anyone who could walk and chew gum would have been perceived as genius material. As for your comment that the "U.S. military forces are performing with bravery and skill in Afghanistan"–what planet are you on? Can you say "war crimes" and "killing civilians by the dozens"?
Williamsburg Strength and Conditioning - CrossFit 1776 - Athlete Training Williamsburg VA » Camus, Cleans, Clever Women, OPT’s Big Dawg Mantra and more
April 9th, 2010 at 7:11 am
[…] How Brainy Is Obama? – His Afghan policy raises questions, says Alan Bock […]
stu piddy
April 9th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
Your analysis of Obama is as "dumb" as Obama.
You think Americans are "spilling blood" out of "good will" to prop up Karzai, and Karzai is corrupt.
America is involved in a meaningless war that is self destructive based on various illusion that it imagines will yeild a profit. Either a personal profit to individuals politically or a profit in terms of power.
America is the most corrupt nation on Earth at this time having just stolen billions from it's citizens to pay for debts owed by the corrupt government/financial industry complex.
You need to get smarter too.
Obama always sides with whoever he believes is strongest. He doesn't use intelligence. He uses vulnerablilty to determine his stance. He believes he's extremely vulnerable at all times and his solution on a political and personal level is to side with the strong…and that's the military/financial complex.
That's it in a nutshell. He learned that from his father Lolo who taught him to avoid anyone whose been victimized. And to side with the strong…the people who victimize. It's in his autobiography …if you can call it that. A very carefully written book intended to reveal nothing but reveals everything if you have a penchant for understanding.
Attack the System » Blog Archive » Updated News Digest April 9-11, 2010
April 9th, 2010 at 11:07 am
[…] How Brainy Is Obama? by Alan Bock […]
John S. Hatch
April 9th, 2010 at 7:28 pm
It's certainly not smart for an American President to be lecturing Afghans about corruption while presiding over the most corrupt nation on earth. Sort of like lecturing China about human rights, isn't it? Pretty dumb.
Roger
April 9th, 2010 at 7:43 pm
First of all, I don't think that it matters much whatever Obama means about Afghanistan or other matters for that. Obamas position is comparable to the position of a public relation director in a modern company. I think that Obama is taking orders from the powers that be and that Obama's job is to explain these orders to the sheeple.
I think it is stupid to believe that we are in Afghanistan to bring democracy, or to win a war. As for the reasons that we are in Afghanistan, I think that the most important are:
The powers that be want a pipeline through Afghanistan. The building of this pipeline is going to start in 2011, an that is the reason for the increase of American troops recently.
Taliban stopped the production of hashish in Afghanistan. This was not tolerated by the powers that be, that make millions and billions on narcotics.
The U.S. military-industrial complex needs new wars for profit.
Controlling bases in Afghanistan is a threat to Russia and China.
DMinor7th
April 9th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
An empty suit, inserted into position by his long time employers in the CIA.. In fact, he's a second generation CIA drone. Imagine that. But then again, after Bush's idiot son was inserted, why not any old apparatchik that fills the needs of the moment? The Pretorian Guard is now picking their own emperors. But of course! C'est la vie, mon ami!
OldUncleDave
April 9th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
In modern Amerika, the President serves at the pleasure of the psychopathic corporate oligarchs who make up the board of directors. If he fails to follow their agenda, he will be removed and replaced.
Robert Della Valle
April 9th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
I have long believed that Obama's alleged brilliance is a farce. He, obviously, got good grades in school, but, that hardly equates to true smartness. The only quibble I have is with your view that ouyr "troops" have performed" bravely and with skill". It takes neither bravery nor skill to shoot down unarmed ciivlians from an Apache gunship – and then gloat about their actions.
fedupandsick
April 9th, 2010 at 9:34 pm
Is Afghanistan allowed to have friendly relations with Iran?
The forces "perfoming with bravery and skill" almost made me upchuck. Of course it does take skill to carve your bullets out of pregnant corpses.
Very Brave Soldier
April 10th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
Author's of these kind of articles always throw a bone to the "brave men and women" cause they're afraid of getting their asses kicked. He obviously doesn't mean it.
"The forces "perfoming with bravery and skill" almost made me upchuck. Of course it does take skill to carve your bullets out of pregnant corpses."
Link?
C. Downs
April 11th, 2010 at 12:10 am
Where have you been? The US military admitted last week that the deaths of 2 pregnant women that were labeled "honor killings" were actually done by US military, who staged those murders plus 2 men and a teenage girl, including digging bullets out of the women's bodies.
Druthers
April 11th, 2010 at 5:42 am
Intelligence is not nearly as important as what is done with it.
So far the slate is almost blank except for the fortresses for embassies and bases.
There are still other existing fortresses – built by the crusaders.
Sam Lowry
April 24th, 2010 at 4:19 pm
"I’m coming to think that maybe he’s just not that smart."
Maybe this article is formulated to invite certain people to start thinking about the nature of authority in a way that might be new to them, but let's cut to the chase: Obama isn't stupid. He's lying. His job is to sell the war, just as his job was to sell the bailout, and health care 'reform,' and financial 'reform.'
But here's the important point: The goal of the politician is not to convince us that what they say is true. Their goal is to convince us that they believe what they say is true, or at the very least, that what they say and do is said and done with benevolent intentions. The fact that there were no "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq, for example, was, we are supposed to believe, an honest mistake made by genuinely concerned and well-intentioned leaders, and in the end it was all for the best. This is simply a lie.
"Presidents don't have power; their job is to draw attention away from it." — Ford Prefect
Jim Henley
April 26th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
U.S. military forces are performing with bravery and skill in Afghanistan
Could we please dispense with the ubiquitous rump swabbing of the sainted holy troops?
You don't have to go out of your way to insult the sainted holy paladin troops in Afghanistan but do you really need to include such throwaway lines about their "courage and skill"? Seems to me the way of fighting in Afghanistan (and Iraq) is simply to blast the shit out of anything that gets near you and ask question later. Indeed- the only overriding "value" the US military seems to have is "getting home in one piece" and "doing what it takes" to accomplish that- like blasting carloads of kids who get to close to them.
Just stop it with the template troop praise. I'm tired of it- and it just makes you look weak. The sort of people who need the troops praised for tying their shoes are not reading your articles. So just stop it.
Ron Jones
April 28th, 2010 at 2:48 am
While it's certainly appealing to think of liberals as "not nearly as smart as they think they are." It is the height of folly to presume that Obama is dumb…just as it was to call Bill & Hillary "stupid."
These people are the enemy of liberty, and thus, your mortal enemy. Yes your MORTAL enemy. Do not make the mistake of thinking that they are dumb. Always work under the assumption that they are two steps ahead of you.
eric siverson
May 20th, 2010 at 9:46 pm
To say that the US military is on a christian crusade or acting on christian charity cant possibley be true . The United States is no longer a christian country even our president told the whole world that .
Yrs before Obama was even elected president It became illeagal to use the name of ,Jesus or Christ in any way supported by the US government .
So now to blame these crimes on christs teaching is certainly wrong . I honestly think we could blame this armies crimes more on the lack of christianity
keltrava
June 23rd, 2010 at 1:04 pm
How brainy is Obama? Good question. When it comes to the Middle East region Obama has the AIPAC and Israel first crowd do all his thinking for him. On Afghanistan he is more on his own so therefore his brainpower and plain logic seems exposed.
Perhaps he should let the AIPAC people do all his foreign policy thinking.
1todd_sheen
July 9th, 2010 at 4:22 pm
Not brainy enough for me. Nuff said.
http://www.secsportsfan.com
V for Vendetta
July 10th, 2010 at 1:09 am
How brainy is Obama? Not very. He reads his scripted lines from a teleprompter. But the people behind Mr. Obama (or a Mr. Bush for that matter) are very "brainy." And just who is it that gives Mr. Obama his lines that are designed to mislead and brainwash a gullible and ignorant American people? Why it is David Rockefeller's treasonous Council on Foreign Relations globalists and the Goldman Sachs-Wall Street crime syndicate, that's who. Wake up Americans; your freedoms, your constitutional rights, and your economic and physical security are systematically being destroyed by those who are constantly calling for "Global Government" and a "New World Order." Go here for the truth while it is still available to you: http://www.infowars.com.
drewhause
July 30th, 2010 at 8:38 am
hat a no brainer.
Charles
bbb
August 21st, 2010 at 1:05 am
Oops, meant a thumbs up! sorry.
We cannot now be considered a Christian country but then again, were we ever? Would Christ have genocided Indigenous peoples to steal their land?
homer
January 1st, 2011 at 10:45 am
Obama was an intern for Henry Kissinger, Assoc. How "Left" is that?
Chris Bieber
February 9th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Great to see old friend Alan here again…..
Hope you(he) are/is doing better.
Look forward to your biting indictments and profreedom polemics……
YOUR President is NOT very smart but very clever…..and a BETTER actor then Reagan….
gary
February 21st, 2011 at 1:09 pm
everybody enjoys a knocking others intelligence but smartness is not the point…wisdom is a fa better measure and in this area obama seems lacking
Pshr
April 9th, 2011 at 12:19 pm
"It takes neither bravery nor skill to shoot down unarmed ciivlians from an Apache gunship – and then gloat about their actions"
Well said!
David Lee
May 26th, 2011 at 11:07 am
Having just watched "The Most Dangerous Man in America" to refresh my memory on Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, it seems more likely to me that Mr. Bock is the one who is "not so smart" – unless this entire article was tongue-in-cheek.
Doesn't it seems possible, indeed very likely, that Obama understands all the points Mr. Bock makes, yet stays in the war anyway? Behind the impenetrable veil of secrecy which surrounds our war machine, isn't it pretty much a given that discussions revolve around "saving face" for America and Obama's 2012 prospects?
It doesn't matter whether the war is "winnable", or even if that word has any coherent meaning under the circumstances. All that matters is whether the public's tolerance for having their money shoveled into the maw of the Pentagon is still in tact.
canberlin99
October 19th, 2014 at 7:55 pm
I think Obama Should be something to consider it or he has planed something and no one cant knew it.