Four more years, for more tears?

Just yesterday, November 7, 2012, the incumbent US President Barack Obama has sealed the deal to capture a second term as the head of the most powerful state in the world. After the economic problems and conservative backlash during his first four years, the Chicago native somehow pulled off a win in a tight race between him and Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. With all the promise of change during his 2008 campaign unfulfilled, Barack Obama faces a reality that his country is caught between a rock and a hard place, and that poorly placed idiom is an understatement.

Anyway, the big question is: Can Barack bring it this time?

I said "Barack," not The Rock

Of course, the president understands that some of the dilemma (e.g. Afghanistan war, a destabilized Iraq, military overspending) the US faces currently are the effects of other leaders (ehem, Dubya, ehem) before him. However, this does not, in any way, mean that the Obama administration have the right to play the blame game or make excuses for others' mistakes. As this year's election's theme suggests, it is time to move forward.

Of course, moving forward is not an easy path. The prominent hindrances to a successful, that is, fiscally and politically stable, Obama 2.0 administration is the impending doom brought about by the United States' "fiscal cliff," the international problems in countries like Syria and Afghanistan, and of course, Iran, which is perceived as a nuclear threat.

The first of the three problems mentioned has been talked about, although not comprehensively, in the presidential debates prior the November 7 vote. Obama's stance generally includes a tax hike on the rich which is the exact opposite of Romney's "trickle-down" tax policies. The former  has constantly pushed for a Clinton-era type of tax increase for the Warren Buffets or the 1% of the American society; the latter, on the other hand, has advocated that the budget deficit could be solved by means of protecting the rich for future investments and minimizing, if not totally eradicating, welfare policies, which includes battling Big Bird him(?)self.

You're safe. Don't worry.

With the Obama victory, a sense of both relief and urgency is imminent as far as fiscal policy is concerned. On one side, it is relieving that the US won't experience the impractical budget plans proposed by the Romney-Ryan team-up. Yet, this does not mean that the country is free from the chances of falling off the fiscal cliff. With the Euro-crisis in hindsight, it is necessary for Obama and the rest of the government to create a plan that would first bolster employment rates and economic growth, and then solve the budget, trade, savings, and leadership deficits. With Greece now experiencing severe social unrest because of high austerity measures, the US government must remain active in pursuing a solid budget plan.

With the "world's greatest nation" suffering such internal problem, it does not help that it has committed itself to various responsibilities abroad to ensure the spread of "democracy"--an ethos that has proven to be unpopular among the people of countries like Afghanistan. The Karzai government installed by the US has proven time and time again that it is not fully capable of handling its own state. Green-on-blue attacks are daily occurrences in most of its regions. The fact that the US spends billions of dollars on this state-building mission to fight terrorists like the Taliban who are, by the way, on the rise again indicates that the US is failing. With the troops set to leave by 2014, the efforts of BHO must be to their fullest.

The civil war in Syria posits another problem for the US government. The Arab Spring-inspired uprisings which started in March last year have escalated to armed conflict between the Free Syrian Army and the al-Assad forces, resulting to more or less 40,000 total deaths. Will the US and countries like the UK be successful in toppling the dictator Bashar, or will the former get itself into trouble again by arming militant groups like the FSA? Lessons from Libya show that transitions to democracy in these countries are easier said than done.

Prevention is better than cure.

Finally, the Iran threat continues to be one of the biggest problems of US foreign policy. As the biggest ally of Israel, the US has explicitly stated that it would make sure that the Islamic Republic does not create a nuclear weapon. In one of his debates with Romney, Obama vaguely mentioned that the US is committed to ensuring the Jewish state's security. Some time back, Netanyahu has presented to world leaders the "red line" that should be used in the Iran case to further pressure, even act militarily on, Islam state's nuclear program which it constantly claims to be for peaceful purposes. From this perspective, it may be true that Bibi Netanyahu wanted Romney to win, with the latter's strong anti-terrorist foreign attitude and his support of Israel's territorial claims. While Obama also is in favor of the existence of the Jewish state, he more or less delves into a policy that would please everyone. In a speech, he mentioned that the enemies "...are not just terrorists, it's not just Hezbollah, it's not just Hamas...it's also cynicism." Netanyahu does not want this. He wants more pressure for Iran--a fucking red line. The question now is: How will Obama handle the Iran threat and how will the implications of such action affect US-Israeli relations?

This says it all.

These are just some of the questions that are in dire need of answers from the Obama administration. Reiterating my first point, the key here is not to whine about how past governments handled or caused such problems, but rather to move on and understand the present situation, of course within the context of its historical formation. In other words, Obama can't afford to cry. Four more years should not result to more tears from the American people and from people all across the globe.

Be a man.