My Obama Story

My First Encounter with President Obama.

My encounter with President Barrack Obama in social media dates back to late 2011 or early 2012. I was very critical of him in my first two comments. First, I was not comfortable with the fact that Mr. President easily capitulated in the face of open resistance to his unemployment benefits proposal to displaced workers by the GOP. As you would remember, Republican members of congress threatened to shut down the government and they succeeded in tying the expiring President George Bush’s tax breaks for the rich to the extension of unemployment benefits to displaced workers. My position was that the President shouldn't have yielded ground without a fight, arguing further that a fight of that nature is very legitimate and worth fighting.

Days later, I wrote a short essay on Leadership and Accountability, with an opening line stating: leadership is not for the fainthearted. In the second piece, which I placed on my Facebook Wall, I argued that the fact that President Obama capitulated without a fight, was in my judgment, painted a picture of a political neophyte all around him. To my greatest surprise, President Obama was to address the issue of him being labeled a political neophyte later that same day on camera. 

After watching the President’s address on TV, I went back to my Facebook Wall to reread my post. And I said to myself, no way, it can’t be me. That was the last of such impolite or hash comments I ever wrote about Mr. President. Even in the face of his disappointing performance in his first debate with Governor Mitt Romney, I refused to let my anguish surface in my follow-up piece. See “President Obama: the Danger of Changing A winning Formula,” published October 10, 2012. I will address this piece later.

My first major break came on June 08, 2012. Incensed that some very prominent Democrats (former Governor El Rendell, Mayor Cory Booker, now a Senator, and the effervescence James Carville) and a prominent Business News Anchor, Maria Bartiromo were already reciting a dirge note for Obama's second term Presidential bid, I wrote a very lengthy piece, titled "Obama: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance and the Hacking of American Democracy,” published June 08, 2012, on this Blog and my FaceBook Wall. In it, I argued against the position of the three prominent democrats. In categorical order, I gave a detailed analysis of the areas or issues that the gentlemen warned Obama’s campaign team to abstain from. I argued, with verifiable facts that those forbidden areas or issues are what make his opponent vulnerable and at the same time the center point of his Presidential run.

We warned that any attempt of Obama’s camp to stay away from making these certain areas or issues the butt of his campaign is tantamount to providing Governor Romney a sure part to the White House.  The Obama team, God Bless them, followed my lead to the letter. In the end, the essay made unprecedented impacts, not only revamping the Presidential campaign but ensuring a decisive outcome at the end.

Our decision was strategic; influenced substantially by anger and the need to set the record straight.  We thought then that a no holds barred rebuttal to the memo from Mr. Carville and the "don't say this and don't say that" warnings from Ed and Cory flying all over the airwaves is needed urgently; otherwise, these influential Democrats and partisan TV Anchors would derail and bury the Obama Presidential campaign alive in no time. And I am glad I dare to dream.

Daring To Act

June 08, 2012, was the day I put everything I have learned in the art of politicking into effective use. I repeat, into effective use, not into the test, because I knew I was on the part of righteousness. Mr. Matt Lauer of NBC Today Show had on his studio, MS Maria Bartiromo of CNBC as his guest. And she was at her usual best, shielding her conservative bent with well-crafted financial nuances. After making so many uncomplimentary remarks about Obama’s economic policies, Mr. Lauer asked: what can the President do now? She declared in no uncertain terms: “There is nothing he can do right now. The guys on Wall Street will not spend their money until a new President is sworn in in January.” Just like that! No qualm in her disposition or pronouncement. She appeared, wearing the gab of an unbiased Business Analyst, but a closer reading of her style of analysis, reveals the trait of a hardcore Wall Street apologist, plotting President Obama’s defeat. 

The Money they are sitting on, the money they are not willing to spend until Obama is kicked out of the White House was accumulated in the last three years under the economic policies (Wall Street Bail Out Package, among others) introduced and implemented by President Obama. Now they don't want to spend the money?

Talking to my TV, I made a solemn declaration that the Presidential candidate that MS Bartiromo had in mind will not be sworn in as the President in January 2013. President Barack Obama will be sworn in come January of 2013 for a continuation of his second term as the President of the United States of America, I boasted to myself. And I went to my desktop to start typing.

That I took it personally was an understatement. I brought a huge load of emotion into the task that I set out to accomplish. The main issue is that Barrack is Black. If he were to be a person of another race or color, at that point in time in the US economic expansion, and given the near depression the situation was when he came into office, he would have been openly celebrated. But they want him out. Not because he did not perform, but because he is black. In my own calculation, the first black guy ever to occupy the Oval Office, will not go down in defeat. I took his victory at the poll as a noble challenge and as a personal odyssey. And I went to work – writing what works.

The essay generates instant buzz and gained momentous consensus within and outside of the mainstream media, heralding what has become known as the definition of Governor Mitt Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate, in the Presidential campaign. Pundits and consultants came on board in droves, repeating every line and every syllable of the piece until Election Day. It was magical and catchy. And it all began here, on this very Blog. Only in America!

However, contrary to all expectations, President Obama decided to put my talking points or essay to the test in his first debate with Governor Mitt Romney, the GOP Presidential candidate. To say the least, the outcome was devastatingly humiliating. President Obama, for reasons I couldn’t fathom, did not use one term or expression from the very successful talking points he had successfully deployed in the past in his debate. In the end, not only did Governor Mitt Romney dominate and outshines the President - flipping the content of the same talking points to his advantage - President Obama appeared looking subdued, unprepared, unlettered, and unlearned. It was a dismal outing seen all over the world. A republican commentator in a sarcastic, but celebratory mood, called the President a wimp after the debate – stating, Americans do not need a wimp for a President. I couldn’t stomach my disgust; I went to work again to pen another essay, titled “President Obama: the Danger of Changing A winning Formula,” published on October 10, 2012.

However, in the second debate, the President was able to resurrect his groove, showing strength and audacity. Only then did he remember the same lines, the same terms that did the magic for him before the first debate.

Given Governor Mitt Romney's performance in the first debate, it didn’t take me time to realize that his campaign team has become acquainted with my Blog, particularly, the essay on the talking points. In the first debate, he wasted no time borrowing copiously from my essay and flipping them to drive home his conservative philosophy throughout, especially on the issue of trickles down economy.

His campaign team didn’t stop there. They started following me all over the place on social media. One morning, I posted a comment on a friend’s Wall on Facebook. The thread was centered on the absence of religious issues in the Obama/Romney campaign. I argued that the Christian Right and Mr. Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition are playing it safe, because of Mitt Romney’s Mammon background. To my greatest amazement, the Romney team took me up on that comment immediately. Later that day, Mr. Ralph Reed appeared at a hastily arranged press conference with Governor Romney’s running mate, Mr. Paul Ryan, wherein Ralph, among other explosive comments, labeled President Obama anti-Christ. But then it was too late. The damage has been done. However, sensing that I have become a known and crucial factor in the campaign, I resolved to stay low.

After the second debate, my phone started ringing off the hook – people I do not know were calling to speak with Alex. My Son would pick up the call and I would signal to him to tell the caller that Daddy is not home. Most often, when I pick up, I would simply tell them to call back that Alex is not home. My reason for dabbling into the Presidential campaign is obvious: my love for the man, my brother, my President who reassured the World that black guys can think and reason. And I have no more reason to continue to inject myself into the debate or limelight. I have successfully played the part I cut out for myself and it is time for me to move on.

After the third debate, I knew that victory is assured for President Obama, with or without North Carolina and Florida. And I went on to pen a piece that turned out to be the most accurate prognosis or a forecast of the 2012 US Presidential election. See “Obama Will Win Decisively,” posted on November 1, 2011.

By the way, Maria Bartiromo is no longer with CNBC. She moved to the ultra-right Fox Business Channel after the election. Now you can see what I saw on that morning of June 08, 2012, watching the NBC Today Show. Millions of Americans watched that show that very morning. But I saw what Millions of Americans did not see, a voice of one seeing President Obama's defeat as ordained by the conservative god. And I responded appropriately, with what has become a historic adventure guide by common sense, audacity, and unparalleled confidence. I have performed a similar feat for Nigeria in the US, unannounced. See the series on Social Intelligence.

Daring To Dream: The Confluence of Thoughts

The one essay that I will never forget was the one where I defined President Obama’s war against terrorism. I labeled the emerging trend “the Obama School of thought” on the war against global terrorism. In my usual self, I bragged about the fact that no one has talked about it or written about it. In other words, I am the first to see a trend, to perceive a pattern in his approach to global terrorism. And I went ahead to define the School of thought.

Three days later, President Obama addressed a Press Conference at the Rose Garden, focused on his approach to stemming the scourge of global terrorism, and, of course, went ahead to define his new approach. If you had seen my piece written three days earlier and watched Mr. President that very day, you would think I prepare the speech for him to align with my analysis of his war against global terrorism, written about thirty-Six hours earlier. It was a one-of-a-kind experience or coincidence I will never forget. His stated approach was in all four with my definition or hypothesis. 

In all the instances cited in this essay, where there exists consistency between my works and the President’s pronouncements or actions, in no instance would you see similar views expressed elsewhere – not before and not after, by another person, but just his world and my world, always in sync, always at peace with each other.

For, instance, when I wrote “Obama: Citizen United, Invisible Resistance and the Hacking of American Democracy”, it was like a bolt from the blue – all the pundits, especially the progressive pundits, knew that I was right on the money, but they were skeptical of their judgment (not voicing their thoughts), maybe, because of the caliber of the democrats who argued the contrary.  However, when I stepped onto the scene, there was a pandemonium of the joy of instant gravitation to a job no one was audacious enough, or creative enough to assemble - a bandwagon effect resulted instantaneously.

A Misguided Judgment: How President Jonathan Squandered A Golden Opportunity on the Petroleum Subsidy Debate

Blogger's Comment: 

There are Bloggers and there are Bloggers. Social Media is not all about "bashing" of government and the leadership. The essay you are about to read was my Candid Opinion, written May 09, 2012, supporting the Removal of the Petroleum Subsidy by President Jonathan. Also referenced in the essay are my comments on Sahara Reporters, published on January 04 and 05, 2012, at the height of the "Occupy Nigeria" protest, supporting the removal. And I am Progressive - innate and unrepentantly Progressive. The essay and comments were written, without regards to ethnic, ideological, political or partisan consideration. They are reproduced here, because of the timelessness of the contents. That we have a new government in town at the moment doesn't make any difference; the institutional failure and economic forces that defined the planned removal in 2012, have not changed that much. Except, of course, the precipitous decline in crude oil prices in the international market. 

Disclaimer: My glowing opinion of Rep Farouk Lawan and his Ad-Hoc Committee on the subsidy scandal expressed in the essay that you are about to read does not by any stretch of the imagination constitute an endorsement of his decision to accept $500,000.00 bribe from the SSS. Let it also be on the record that the Aig-Imoukhuede Subsidy Scandal Panel subsequently set up by President Jonathan on the same matter, came out with an indictment of all the major characters fingered in the Lawan's report, proving beyond reasonable doubt every element of crime contained in the report. Here is the essay...

A Misguided Judgment: How President Jonathan and His Advisers Squandered A Golden Opportunity. May 09, 2012

Introduction

Over the years, in spite the skepticism or suspended judgment that I have in the petroleum subsidy scheme in Nigeria, I have always resisted the temptation to engage myself in the arithmetic of the funding methodology for the obvious reason: I hate Mathematics. Nevertheless, I am quite familiar with the basic principles of economics and strategic management. In a similar vein, I have a good understanding of the fundamentals of subsidy as they relate to pricing and competitive markets.  Thus, it is reasonable to assume that when government intervenes in the market and help to defray the cost of production or part of it, it makes the final product less expensive for the final consumers to buy than it would have been without the intervention or the subsidy. In the area of export, it enhances competitive edge in relation to similar products by other suppliers in the same market - foreign or domestic - because the subsidized products are cheaper to buy.

Sadly, those assumptions do not hold water in our (Nigerian) domestic petroleum market in terms of availability and pricing. The more funding our government injects into the petroleum subsidy scheme, the more scared petroleum products remain and the more expensive the final prices are at the gas pump. In hindsight, what I take away from the petroleum subsidy scam in Nigeria is that before we condemn the usual suspect - international financial institutions that we love to hate for, in our reckoning, always recommending deadly economic pills as panacea for our sluggish economic growth - we must first ask ourselves whether the patients (African countries) administer the drugs as prescribed by Doctors (the international financial institutions).

During the sit-in-protest that heralded the reported removal of petroleum subsidy by President Goodluck Jonathan in January this year, my concern was the long term implications of the removal. I supported the removal during the "Occupy Nigeria" protest, believing in my mind that something is inherently wrong somewhere in the subsidy regime that is preventing us from reaping the reward of the intended subsidy. The inability of the administration and those before it, to eliminate the loopholes in the regulatory framework, makes continuation of the subsidy economically imprudent. No one knows where the money is going. Not even the President.

On that ground, I took a stand in favor of removal and made my position public via my comments on social media. My position was (1), if subsidy must exit, it should be handled by a separate and independent government institution and not private companies as presently the case, and (2) that, economically speaking, it is unwise and unsustainable for the Federal government to continue to subsidize importation of fuel on behalf of private companies, while they reap millions of dollars in profit. Finally, I made a reference to the current trends in the disbursement of student loans in the US, introduced by President Obama - an initiative that has saved the administration billions of dollars in student loans since its inception. Please see my comments at the end of this piece, reproduced courtesy of Sahara Reporters.

Missed Opportunity

In hindsight, if President Jonathan has a firm grasp of his energy policy and governance in general, April 2012, would have been the finest moment in his short, but eventful political career. The recent revelation by the House of Representatives Ad-Hoc Committee on Fuel Subsidy Regime, detailing the large scale frauds in the management of the petroleum subsidy funds by Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and Petroleum Product Price and Regulatory Agency (PPPRA), apparently, is a vindication of President Jonathan. Surprisingly or maybe, naively, the President and his Advisers didn't buy into Representative Farouk Lawan's report. They saw friction, instead of triumphant and vindication.

The same administration that argued vigorously in January that funding petroleum subsidy is no longer sustainable because of the existence of a cabal scamming the subsidy regime of available funds, couldn't fathom a nexus between their proposition and the report of the House of Rep.

A month after the release of the report by the Speaker of the House, the President, and his Advisers were still searching for what to make of the report. They (Attorney General and the President) told the world that the report is a 'fact-finding’ and ‘we will react appropriately a soon as the investigation is concluded.’

It remains very troubling that the administration couldn't link their “unproven cabal in the subsidy regime” to the subsequent discovery "of massive frauds in the regulatory bodies" by the House of Representative to justify their January argument and convince the Nigerian people that they were right while the demonstrators were wrong. I feel like crying for the inept bunch.

If the administration had taken that stand, Nigerians wouldn't have had a problem connecting the dots, to wit, that the frauds that the President referred to, actually do exist. Thus, making continuation of the funding inadvisable. They didn't make that argument! Rather, they want to punch holes on the House report with a view to discrediting Farouk and discarding the report.

That is not unusual in Nigeria.  The only difference this time is that Nigerians are not buying the silence. Unless President Jonathan and his Advisers have a good understanding of the subsidy, the scams, and the frauds that the rest of us do not have; I want to conclude that given what we know so far, the President is not getting the right counsel and certainly not making the right judgment.

Analysis: Blinded Judgment or Shielding the Cabal?

The Farouk Lawan’s report, objectively speaking, vindicates President Jonathan on the issue of cabal scamming the Subsidy Regime. Why the administration did not take advantage of the report is beyond my understanding. From all indications, it is either the attempted removal scheme was haphazardly assembled and no one close to the President comprehends the general import and the underlying economic philosophy, or simply put, the administration lacks depth in communication management. Otherwise, they would have been able to see the nexus between "unsustainable" argument they made in January and report of "endemic, sleaze, incompetence, entrenched inefficiency and scam" in the regulatory regime as revealed by the House Committee.

To a reasonable administration, the report, no doubt, presents reasonable grounds for reasonable talking points for the Presidency to create a superior public policy mindset that is presently a challenge for Mr. President. And then, leverage that to develop a coherent narrative for eventual removal of the subsidy in future, if ever the need arises. They never did.

Twice, the President and his Advisers failed in the petroleum subsidy debate.

First, they couldn't frame plausible arguments for the removal, and second, when the outcome of an investigation of the House of Rep that they were not a party to and did not approve of, seemingly lend weight to their position, they developed cold feet and backed away. Unbelievable!

Without missing words, it is politically and strategically naive, and patently timid on the part of the President’s men not to dwell on the removal debacle and the "Occupy Nigeria" crusade that took place in January as well as the subsequent discovery of frauds in the regulatory regime to elevate the credibility of the Presidency at home and abroad. Unless the President is telling the whole World that he never really had a genuine reason to gamble with the subsidy removal as he did in January 2012.

According to the AGF, the report of the House of Rep is simply a ‘fact-finding’ investigation and therefore, not conclusive of any criminal conduct on the part of marketers to warrant an expedited response from the Presidency. Calling the House report a fact-finding exercise is a systematic calculation to trivialize it for eventual rejection.  Why do we have a court system in the country? Why do we have a separation of powers? The AGF and EFCC on the one hand and the Executive (the Presidency) on the other do not need to wait for the Senate to act or conclude its investigation before initiating its own investigation or making an arrest.

If AGF cannot see anything of value in the House report, then it is reasonable to conclude that the President and his negotiation team lied to the country when they claimed in January that there is a cabal frustrating the subsidy initiative. On the other hand, if the seeming rejection is to protect the same "cabal" that the President vilified in January, then, this administration wasted a golden opportunity to shine.

The credibility of the President is at stake. And whatever energy left in the President's commitment to the war against corruption, has been dissipated. As events unfold as predicted - failing to indict the thieves - the administration should brace for outrage from Nigerians at home and abroad.

Furthermore, failing to make an arrest, or at least, suspend some of the top personnel at NNPC and PPPRA, given the magnitude of the scam and the egregious nature of the profligacy in the two departments, is an indictment on the part of the Presidency. And It manifests complicity. The burden of proof is now on the President to convince Nigerians that he or his administration is not part of the scam.

Conclusion:

The importance of subsidy cannot be overemphasized. The economic and social benefits are enormous if the funds are judiciously managed. Prices of petroleum and related products are always on the rise because the funds meant to stabilize the market and lower prices at the gas pump are either stolen or diverted to spurious use by the management and staffs of NNPC and PPPRA in collaboration with bogus petroleum marketers. Therefore, it is incumbent on the part of this administration to arrest and prosecute those who made the realization of the intent and purposes of the petroleum subsidy in Nigeria, unreachable.

The argument by AGF that they do not want a repeat of what happened in the trial of some rogue Bankers is indirectly an indictment of EFCC, the Police, and ICPC. Because the report of the House of Rep is well-detailed, thorough and conclusive of malfeasance.

Mr. President, orientation is over and it’s time to govern. Your Presidency says something is wrong with the management of petroleum subsidy funds, yet EFCC, Justice Department, SSS, Ministry of Petroleum and Finance, didn't consider it prudence to initiate investigation since January.

The truth is that, if the House of Representatives had not intervened, the Presidency would not have considered investigating the cabal a political priority. That is the Nigerian story since the Second Republic and throughout the successive military regimes. The outcome of the ongoing investigation of the subsidy scam is what will make or mar President Jonathan's Presidency. The President must choose the part of righteousness, the part of glory; stay on the side of the people and cooperate with EFCC to rid NNPC/PPPRA of corruption and shenanigans. The President has nothing to lose by following the part of righteousness. Let the revolution be televised. If the Presidency does that, the entire Armed Forces, the Police, the Security agencies, and the Nigerian people will stand by it. It is a choice between good and evil.

Addendum:

My posts on SAHARA REPORTERS during the Subsidy Protest.

In a news report by SaharaReporters.com, titled “Sorry Nigerians, But The Fuel Price Increase Has Come To Stay – Government” Published, January 4, 2012 - 21:40, I posted this comment.

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:12.

“Hitherto, in the US Uncle Sam used to provide grants and loans to university students through the banks – they guarantee the loan, while the banks reap the interest accruing from the loans. That is no longer the case, the Department of Education, through the Financial Aid Offices in all the universities, now prepare the loans and grants and disburse them directly to students. If Uncle Sam and the Department of Education are to bear the cost and forbearance of the loans or in a case of default by borrowing students, they should as well take advantage of the interest being paid on the loans by students.” “It is economically stupid for the Federal government to continue to subsidize importation of fuel for people in the private sectors, while they reap millions of dollars in profit.”

The following day, I posted a similar message on Saharareporters discussion board, titled, ‘There is Sense in the Removal.” In it, I urged President Jonathan to emulate President Obama’s new regulation in the disbursement and management of student loans in the US, adding that it is uneconomical for our government to continue the subsidy funding while private companies are in charge.

A few minutes later, another blogger responded to my post and questioned the effectiveness of special advisers to the President in the subsidy debate. Below, you will find just the title of the article originally written by Dr. Reuben Abati for the Guardian Newspaper, when he was not in government, reproduced by Sahara Reporters to lampoon him, as well as, my post and that of the blogger mentioned earlier.

“We Shall Start Stoning The Economists In Official Corridors.” – By Reuben Abati In 2009 Posted: January 5, 2012 - 01:34 by Sahara Reporters

See Part I and Part 11 of my post, below:

"There is a sense in the Removal" - Part 1

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:07.

"Hitherto, in the US Uncle Sam used to provide grants and loans to university students through the banks – they guarantee the loan, while the banks reap the interest accruing from the loans. That is no longer the case, the Department of Education, through the Financial Aid Offices in all the universities, now prepare the loans and grants and disburse them directly to students. If Uncle Sam and the Department of Education are to bear the cost and forbearance of the loans or in the case of default by borrowing students, they should as well take advantage of the interest being paid on the loans by students. Our Federal Government has a problem with communication - we speak complex English in Nigeria, even when we are sending a message to a wider audience, It is economically stupid for the Federal government to continue to subsidize importation of fuel for the people in the private sectors, while they reap millions of dollars in profit."

"There is a sense in the Removal" - Part 2

Submitted by Hamiltonatlarge.blogspot.com (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 16:06.

"What the Fed must do, therefore, is to transfer the importation to NNPC or government agencies, so that the profit going to the private oil importers, as published by Senate last year,  would go to the government. The money saved should be reinvested into the sector. That is the only way that the Nigeria people will benefit from the removal. Removing the subsidy and leaving the importation in the hands of the same private sectors, is economically disastrous."

A few minutes later, another blogger sent this feedback, reacting to my post above.

Re: "There is a sense in the removal."

Submitted by dere (not verified) on January 5, 2012 - 19:13.

“Your piece makes sense but what beats me is whether our so-called advisers don't drill deep to consider all options with a view to proffering the best option for the people and the nation! Why do we have special advisers who are not specialists in their field? May the Lord help us indeed!” - dere

There is no doubt; subsidy regime is economically beneficial, if well managed. Because this government has not shown (1) the gravitas and rectitude to ensure transparency in the management of the subsidy funding, and (2) the legal muscle to prosecute the marketers   who perpetrate scam and the staffs of NNPC and PPPRA who facilitated the scam as revealed by the House of Representative, continuing the subsidy regime would constitute further drain on our lean financial resources.

 Mr. Alex Aidaghese

Writing What Leaders Read: My Obama Story Part One

"The first piece of advice is this. Don't just get involved. Fight for your seat at the table. Better yet, fight for a seat at the head of the table. If you decide not to set yourself at the table, you have to make sure you have a say in who does. It matters. My second piece of advice, never under estimate the power of your advice. The last one is simple, but perhaps most importance. Persevere. Persevere. Nothing worthwhile is easy." President Barack Obama’s commencement speech at Barnard College, New York. May 14, 2012.

Introduction

On September 22, 2012, I wrote a piece on managing the situation in the Middle East, titled “Overcoming the Crisis in the Muslim World.” Not comfortable with its outcome, I republished it on September 21, 2013, without any alteration. This second time around, I knew that, in spite the novelty of the canvassed lines of thoughts, on perusal, Washington and its allies will never again dabble into another troubling spot in the Middle East, unless, of course, under extraordinary humanitarian circumstances begging for western intervention. I also knew that President Obama will not buckle in the face of the orchestrated “leading from behind” accusations being brandished all over American TV Networks by Republican pundits. And the high point of the piece came, when this prominent Middle Eastern President, who did not only show his appreciation for the work, went as far as borrowing a phrase from it and had it incorporated into his address at the UN General Assembly. And suffice it to add at this juncture that the piece has been, on my last check, recommended 8,433 times on Google. Unprecedented, no doubt! Here are some excerpts.

“You can't fight a war, when you cannot define the struggle or the mood of those you are supporting or arming. The Spirit of change must come from within for outside intervention to be meaningful, appreciated and enduring.  The earlier the West and the rest of the World do the unthinkable and leave the troubling Muslim world alone, the safer and better it is for the unwanted guest and the rest of the World. This is not about weakness or surrendering in the face of heightened tension. The Muslim world will only be receptive to ideas for change generated from within, induced by factors or circumstances beyond their control and must be agreeable to their cultural and religious beliefs. That is the only way the potential visitor with the magic wand - capital and expertise - and with the ability to arrest those troubling circumstances that are begging for answer can be loved and appreciated.”

“To overcome the madness of the moment and similar occurrences in the future, we need a Mother Teresa, a Martin Luther King Jr. and a Nelson Mandela to champion the call for tolerance and self-awareness. Indeed, we have many a Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi within the Islamic faith. But the trouble is, the struggle and the narrative are not in any shape or form about tolerance, nor consistent with political and socio-economic emancipation championed by some of these individuals. It is not what Mahatma Gandhi lived and died for. It is not what Mother Teresa and Martin Luther King Jr. preached. And it is not what President Nelson Mandela suffered for and went to jail for. It is something else – something fundamentally and radically different in scope, style, content and goal. That is the dilemma that the World is facing.”

“Therefore, that spirit of change, of renewal, of acceptance and tolerance must come from within for it to be meaningful and sustaining. It cannot be imposed from outside. It must be internally generated by realities in search of new beginning. In other words, the circumstances certain to make foreign intervention or changes appreciated within the Muslim World must be internally generated for it to be sustainable and enduring. They have to want the change.” Culled from “Overcoming The Crisis In The Muslim World,” By Alex Aidaghese. Written and posted on this Blog on September 22, 2012.

In spite the seeming positive impacts of the essay, I was to alter my stand about two years later, persuaded by the avalanche of the carnage resulting from “Arab Spring” gone wrong in Syria.  Simply put, if the bloodbath and the indiscriminate beheading of Journalists, Christians and POW in the past four years in Syria and in the Iraqi desert are not extra-ordinary occurrences, I beg to differ.

Making The Dream: The Behind the Scene Action

September, 2014, after a critical review of the ISIS reign of terror and the lingering inter-tribal conflict in Syria, I wrote two essays on the subject. One was titled “A Timid World: Confronting the Dogmas of ISIS and Religious Radicalism Around Us,” published on September 06, 2014. The second part, titled “Of Combat Boots and The Search for A Moderate Rebel in Syria," was published on September 19, 2014. The second version centered extensively on the reasonableness of Western intervention in the civil war in Syria. In hindsight, none of the essay garners the sort of buzz that I expected. Nevertheless, they generated reasonable hits, but not to the extent that I wanted. I wasn't so particular about hits or the lack of it. My mind was on action or reaction from Washington and its allies.

So, about two years later, that is, March, this year, sensing that the situation in Syria is not knowing improvement, and given the enormity of the death toll accompanying the Brussels and Paris suicide attacks, I decided to revisit the two essays. Not losing sight of my earlier arguments on the piece devoted to managing the crisis in the Middle East, I am now under intense compulsion, seeking President Obama’s direct intervention in the Syria conflict.

What I did was simple. I assembled some vital paragraphs in the two previous essays and integrate them with the emerging realities on the ground in Syria and the ISIS held territories that I was developing. I came up with two versions, though, with differing subheadings. I titled the first version “Confronting the Dogmas of ISIS and Religious Fundamentalism around Us.”  It was published on April 08, 2016. The second version, titled “A Timid World: Of ISIS and the wisdom of American combat boots on the ground in Syria,” was published on April 10, 2016. And that was the version that I sent to Nigeriavillagesquare for publication.

In both essays, I argued strongly for the introduction of American Combat Boots on the ground in Syria, without undermining the political factor in the crisis.

In my own words: “In every respect imaginable, a war against ISIS is a just war, Godly, and morally defensible. Therefore, we cannot, and we must not downplay the urgency or the efficacy of American combat boots on the ground in Syria.” “Without mincing words, I want to maintain that arming the Free Syrian Army, without the direct involvement of the coalition forces in real combat, will not vanquish ISIS from the occupied territories. In addition, the underlying grievances, mostly political, and allegations of human rights violations must be addressed simultaneously with the quest to annihilate ISIS; otherwise, Syria will remain a vast land of unequal rights and justice, and a testing ground for every form of Islamic fundamentalism.”

Three days after its publication, President Obama was in Hanover, Germany, where he gave what I would consider a landmark speech on his dream of a new Europe, coming at the tail end of his Presidency.

In his own words: “Just as I approved additional support for Iraqi forces against ISIL, I've decided to increase U.S. support for local forces fighting ISIL in Syria, a small number of special operations forces are already on the ground in Syria and their expertise has been critical as local forces have driven ISIL out of key areas." "So given their success I've approved the deployment of up to 250 additional U.S. personnel in Syria including special forces to keep up this momentum.” “Just as we remain relentless on the military front we're not going to give up on diplomacy to end the civil war in Syria because the suffering of the people in Syria has to end and that requires an effective political transition.” Culled from The BBC.

Now this: Is there another President or writer or commentator or pundit out there with these lines of thoughts on how to manage and arrest the situation in Syria? There is no one else I can think of, other than President Barack Obama himself and yours truly, the author of this piece, Mr. Alex Aidaghese. To have a full grasp of the essence of this story, I would recommend you pause for a moment and go down two steps beyond this piece to peruse either of the two essays discussed above. They were originally written two years before the Hanover Declaration.

Finally, over the years, I have never stopped harping and bragging about my relationship – okay, “perceived relationship” - with President Barack Obama – a relationship built on the trust of the contents of my works in the social media. In whatever respect the relationship is construed or interpreted, I feel great already. Simply put, the confluence of our respective thoughts, visions, and ideas is strong. Indeed, the Challenges, the grace and honor of writing what visionary leaders read are ennobling and inspirational! 

It is about a purposeful life. A life not defined by Wealth, Power or Position. It is living the dream – bringing deeper meaning, satisfaction and fulfillment into my life, the lives of others and also into the desk of every leadership that cares. And I thank God I am living it – having the opportunity to live and share my world with a President who is not afraid to dream, reason, and take a chance on a dreamer - yes, a dreamer, with the mindset of having the world on the palm of his hand. It is about knowing thyself and daring to dream, and daring to act. Thank God, I am living it.