Obama may shake off an oil spill, but the war will hurt him

The success of a president is measured not only by how well he handles his own agenda, but by how he responds to the unexpected. This week Barack Obama was tested by challenges of both types.

Powered by automated translation

The success of a president is measured not only by how well he handles his own agenda, but by how he responds to the unexpected. This week Barack Obama was tested by challenges of both types. New questions are being raised about the conflict in Afghanistan (America's longest war) and there is growing concern about the expanding oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico (now referred to as America's most devastating environmental disaster). The first is being called "Obama's Vietnam", the other "Obama's Katrina".

@body arnhem:To be fair, Afghanistan is a disaster that Mr Obama inherited, but it is also a war he embraced early in his presidential campaign. At pains to establish his national security credentials and to make clear that he would be a responsible commander in chief, the candidate Mr Obama contrasted his opposition to the war in Iraq, which he termed the "wrong war", to the "right war" in Afghanistan.

In making his case, Mr Obama correctly observed that the Bush administration had failed to meet its objectives in Afghanistan and mistakenly abandoned the task of eliminating the threat of al Qa'eda, instead shifting resources and attention to Iraq. As a result, al Qa'eda was able to metastasise into a regional menace and the Taliban to regroup in Afghanistan and across the border in Pakistan. As president, Mr Obama worked with his military leadership to dramatically increase troops and resources in Afghanistan. Facing stiff opposition from Democrats in Congress, he was forced to include in his plan a somewhat vaguely worded timetable for a withdrawal of US forces beginning in July 2011.

On paper, the plan seemed clear. What was less clear was whether it would lead to victory or even progress. As we approach the first major test - a major intervention in Kandahar - serious questions are being asked. The pre-Kandahar effort to "liberate" tiny neighbouring Marjah, though initially touted as a success appears now to be unravelling, with a Taliban resurgence in the area. Gen Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in the country, acknowledged as much last month when he referred to Marjah as a "bleeding ulcer". This does not bode well for efforts in Kandahar, which is significantly larger.

The problems plaguing Afghanistan are many, with some predating even the neglectful and reckless policies of the Bush era. There is a tradition of wily leadership with questionable legitimacy and war lords fuelled by corruption and drugs; deep resentment of outsiders; and fierce competition between neighbouring powers seeking to project or protect their interests in Afghanistan. All of this has been compounded by the spread of the conflict into Pakistan. The US is already an unpopular country because of its broader regional policies and the expanded use of sometimes inaccurate drone attacks against suspected al Qa'eda and Taliban targets.

US casualties are growing, and soon more Americans will have been killed in Afghanistan during the Obama presidency than during George W Bush's time in office. And as they are expected to increase even more as the conflict intensifies, domestic opposition both in Congress and the public is mounting. The disaster was Mr Bush's, but this war is now Mr Obama's. This week, Gen David Petraeus, the commander of US central command in the region, faced tough questions on Capitol Hill about the war's progress and whether or not the administration was sticking to its July 2011 deadline. It is becoming increasingly clear that this war will not soon be won, or even that it can be won.

Mr Obama had a better week dealing with the unexpected oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. After facing weeks of criticism for failing to act, much of it partisan and unfair, his administration has begun to make its case and demonstrate leadership. Mr Obama spent the first two days of the week in the Gulf speaking with officials and individuals whose livelihoods are being affected by the spill. He returned to Washington to deliver his first address to the nation from the Oval Office. While the speech was not particularly compelling, it did provide the opportunity to outline his administration's response to date, including the resources they have committed and the actions they have taken.

Mr Obama established the seriousness with which he views this challenge and issued a "call to war", making clear his resolve to spare no effort until the spill is stopped and the Gulf region is restored. The next day, the president met with executives from BP and was able to deliver on the first of his commitments. BP officials issued an apology for the damage done, announcing that they would place $20 billion (Dh73.5 billion) in an escrow account to pay claimants for damages incurred. The company also agreed to forego paying dividends to shareholders.

To understand the magnitude of this accomplishment, one need only recall that in the wake of the Exxon Valdez spill in 1989, claims against Exxon totalled $7.1 billion. The company contested them, in the end paying a mere $383 million in reparations. If this leak can be stopped, if the damage can be contained, and if efforts to restore the Gulf coast can bear fruit - all big "ifs" - Mr Obama's efforts may, despite early criticism, be judged successful. Afghanistan, however, is a different and more difficult story with no clear way forward.

James Zogby is the president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC