Nicholas Kristof, "From Peace Prize to Paralysis": Holy Cannoli, Kristof and I Agree

I think "contempt" would be a kind description of how I generally hold Nicholas Kristof's opinion pieces. Perhaps this explains why I almost fell out of my chair after reading his latest New York Times op-ed, "From Peace Prize to Paralysis" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/10/opinion/sunday/kristof-from-peace-prize-to-paralysis.html?ref=opinion). An irate Kristof writes from the Nuba Mountains in Sudan:

"WHEN a government devours its own people, as in Syria or Sudan, there are never easy solutions. That helps explain President Obama’s dithering, for there are more problems in international relations than solutions, and well-meaning interventions can make a crisis worse.

Yet the president is taking prudence to the point of paralysis. I’m generally an admirer of Obama’s foreign policy, but his policies toward both Syria and Sudan increasingly seem lame, ineffective and contrary to American interests and values. Obama has shown himself comfortable projecting power — as in his tripling of American troops in Afghanistan. Yet now we have the spectacle of a Nobel Peace Prize winner in effect helping to protect two of the most odious regimes in the world."

I agree: With respect to both Syria and Sudan, there are no easy solutions, and I would not consider an American ground presence in either country. However, there is so much more Obama could do to end the carnage in both these countries . . . if he really wanted to do so. But this time around, the problem is not one of "dithering" by the Procrastinator-in-Chief. Rather, as acknowledged by a recent article in The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/on-foreign-policy-obama-focuses-on-economic-issues-not-on-syrian-turmoil/2012/06/02/gJQAVrSX9U_story.html),
Obama is avoiding action at least with respect to Syria so as not jeopardize his chances of re-election in November:

"The reticence from a president who has made repairing America’s moral leadership in the region a central premise of his administration, and who delivered a speech from the heart of the Arab world three years ago designed to do just that, has disturbed those pressing for stronger international response to the crisis.

. . . .

Any incumbent president hopes for a quiet world during campaign season to avoid the distractions that can upset a successful reelection effort. That is especially true for Obama, who is making his case for a second term in part on the argument that he has been an effective steward of America abroad, concluding its long wars and rejuvenating its alliances."

Kristof concludes his op-ed by savaging Obama for his inaction:

"Obama was forceful in demanding that President George W. Bush stand up to Sudan during the slaughter in Darfur, so it’s painful to see him so passive on Sudan today. When governments turn to mass murder, we may have no easy solutions, but we should at least be crystal clear about which side we’re on. That’s not too much to expect of a Nobel Peace Prize winner."

Well, apparently it is too much to expect from a narcissist, whose primary motivation today is re-election, i.e. self-aggrandizement.