Looks like President Obama has put his foot in it. Friends, allies and partners care for one another. They are usually careful when and how to offer advice and support. And, when they do, they do it without publicly showing off one another. This is exactly what Mr Obama failed to do. As an ‘ally’ and a ‘special friend’ he should have been a little more sensitive about Britain’s feelings and considered them before speaking out, but he did neither.

By sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong and telling the BBC “having the United Kingdom in the European Union gives us much greater confidence about the strength of the transatlantic union” Obama didn’t only show his arrogance he also confirmed his lack of diplomacy and his inability to handle matters of Foreign Affairs.

A true friend would have carefully considered the matter before expressing their view. A diplomat would not have interfered at all.

The issue of the EU membership is for the British people to decide and not anyone else to tell them what they should or should not do. Interfering in this way shows a lack of precaution and a selfish desire to put his country’s interest before ours. Which is understandable, after all he is the president of the United States. But it is insulting. It is offensive because he sees the UK as only useful in speaking to all the countries of Europe so he doesn’t have to.

There are many bad things about the Obama presidency. But for Britons Obama will be remembered as the self – important president that caused the most damage to the special relation of our two nations. Personally, I’m glad his term will soon be over. January 20th, 2017 cannot come soon enough.

In a recent interview with President Obama, Oprah Winfrey asked the US President if he was to grade himself for an end of year report card, what grade will he give himself? He replied; a good solid B plus!

A solid B plus is a hairline away from an A. The question some might ask is does this grade include the official 10% and rising unemployment rate, the slow jobless recovery, and the increasing number of homeowners defaulting on mortgage payments? Does it factor in the high and rapidly growing numbers of foreclosures? How about the ‘throw your allies under the bus’ foreign policies and apologising to the world for America and the US efforts, if these issues are built-in then many Americans might not agree with this grade.

But if the ranking is based on vigorously and rapidly attempting to radicalise the US and pushing a time bomb health care bill that will disaffect the weakest and neediest in the long run. Building a bridge and extending a friendly hand to socialist dictators and changing the definition of bipartisan from “involving two political parties” to “we’ll go it alone but call it bipartisan anyway” then he is being very modest and short changing his efforts.

At any rate, it is never a good idea for anyone in leadership to self rank, no matter how tempting that might be. More so when opinions and ratings of their management and stewardship are not favourable, but if the allure to self rate is so strong and compelling, then, it is best to aim for an average or lower grade. The public always prefer their own rating and ranking and they tend to be more sympathetic to those who undervalue themselves. Confidence is great; it is an admirable and very attractive trait to have but the same can not be said about over confidence.

Nile Gardner, the director of the Margaret Thatcher Centre for Freedom at the Heritage Foundation in Washington DC, wrote an interesting piece in the Daily Mail about the special relationship (or the lack of) between the US and Britain since Obama came to office.

It covered a number of incidents that separately might amount to very little but when stacked together they painted a decline and deterioration in the historic relationship between the two great allies. To prove his argument he sited evidence and occasions to back his claim. The first evidence was, the president ordering that a bust of Sir Winston Churchill to be removed from the Oval office just days after he was sworn into office. The bust was a gift from the British people to the US after the 9/11 atrocities. Then came the 25 DVD set gift and the snubbing of Mr. Brown when he was in Washington and the list went on, the latest indication of this decline was a few days ago when the president failed to mention Britain or the British Troops and their efforts in the Afghanistan War in his 40 minute speech at Point West.

Gardiner thinks that Obama seems to be oblivious to the debt of gratitude he and the US owe our country. And that the president needs to be made to open his eyes, woken up and reminded of that gratitude!

There is no doubt that both countries need each other and there is little doubt that Obama is ignorant of that fact or the effect and impact his actions have on the relationship. But Obama is a man on a mission a man with a dream; he wants to create a New World Order centred on socialist ideology and dogma, where he is the sole leader. His world will be the playground of the left, and the newly emerging markets, economies and powers (who are naturally left leaning), because he thinks that he is their saviour.

Britain as it is today is not left (socialist) leaning enough for him plus it is showing signs of moving further to the right (with the anticipation of a Conservative government after the next general election). Germany, France and most of Europe will fit much better within his system of belief and views, and in time they will emerge as the closer preferred partners not Britain. In the coming future we will see more and more corporations, partnerships and alignment between the US and the new economic powers such as China, India and some South America countries.
President Obama will slowly try to suppress any of the old traditional powers, allies and all those who do not follow or fall in line with his doctrine to achieve his dream.

Why on earth did President Obama put a date on when the US troops will pull out of Afghanistan?! Where is the element of surprise there!

My understanding is that the element of surprise in military operations is a basic fundamental and the essence of successful combat. If that’s the case then announcing to the world when the US troops will pull out can only work against that premise. It also gives the enemy the opportunity to concentrate their efforts on areas where there are no troops presence or simply sit out (in hiding) the eighteen month wait for the the troops to pull out, then carry on with their attacks. Therefore announcing a timetable gives the enemy an opportunity to set their own timetable to work towards. So, was this announcement intentional and a deliberate tactic or a rookie mistake?

It took the president sometime to come to the decision of whether to deploying and when to deploy, three month to be precise. He then deployed 10,000 troops less than General McChrystal needs and asked for. Mr. Brown (a major ally in this operation) talked about a withdrawal timetable but he wisely did not put a date on when British troops will pull out, now he is left hanging. All of these give the impression that President Obama is working alone and on a personal timetable rather than an ally who council’s with his allies. It seems the focus is more on his popularity and around the 2012 elections’ timetable rather than what happens in Afghanistan.