2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFred Kaplan: Obama Lays Siege to His Critics
At West Point, President Obama defends a foreign policy vision based on more than U.S. military might.
By Fred Kaplan
Fred Kaplan is the author of The Insurgents and the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
President Obama arrives at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, to deliver the commencement address to the 2014 graduating class on May 28, 2014. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
President Obamas speech at West Point on Wednesday morning could be called a tribute to common sense, except that the sense it made is so uncommon. The ensuing cable pundits complaintsthat it was insufficiently muscular or robustonly proved how necessary this speech was.
Obamas point was not (contrary to some commentators claims) to draw a middle-of-the-road line between isolationism and unilateralism. Thats a line so broad almost anyone could walk it.
The presidents main point was to emphasize that not every problem has a military solution; that the proper measure of strength and leadership is not merely the eagerness to deploy military power; that, in fact, Americas costliest mistakes have stemmed not from restraint but from rushing to armed adventures without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.
He drew one other distinction. On the one hand, there are core interestsdirect threats to America and its alliesthat we would absolutely defend with military force, unilaterally if necessary. On the other hand, there are crises that may stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction but dont threaten our core interests. In those cases, the threshold for military action must be higher; and if force is used, we should not go it alone, for the practical reason that collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes.
more
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/05/barack_obama_s_west_point_speech_the_president_responds_to_his_foreign_policy.html
riqster
(13,986 posts)Good speech, good read.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)I present this as "Exhibit A". I also reaffirm my thankfulness that we elected President Obama- twice- over avid and eager warmongers.
merrily
(45,251 posts)You must put more stock in his speeches than I do.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)But I think the poster is correct.
The American people are sick to fucking death of war. The President's rhetoric illustrates a departure from the reckless cowboy attitude of the Bush Administration. And I welcome it.
The Republican Party is the party of war. Pass it on.
If you want more war vote Republican.
This should be our refrain for the 2014 and 2016 elections.
merrily
(45,251 posts)say war is not a solution to everything. (Another Duh. Whoever thought it was a solution to everything--anything-- besides the people in DC?)
BTW, Democrats, including Obama, have not been slackers when it comes to conventional war, either.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Of course I'm not saying the President has gone far enough. My point is, rhetoric is a powerful way to moderate the tough guy talk.
merrily
(45,251 posts)I don't know how powerful Obama's rhetoric is anymore, even with Obama, let alone with Republicans and future Presidents of any stripe. We'll see. I hope you're right.
Leme
(1,092 posts)except I see it used as ruse, cover, sensationalism etc... and not as an indicator of action. I just look for the action these days mostly (or inaction).
merrily
(45,251 posts)I used to think I was a cynic, but Obama made me realize that I was cynical only with some people and with others, I was incredibly trusting and nave. And probably with no one was I as cynical as I should have been.
So, there's that.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)that has been paying attention to the many "passed on opportunities" to go to war, during his presidency.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Obama = Bush, Bush = Obama; thefore, Obama BAD BAD BAD!!!
See how that works?
Learn it, accept it, live it!
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,414 posts)But President Obama's words have largely been backed up with his actions. Also, I would say that Bush meant what he said when he laid out his "doctrine" back in 2002.
merrily
(45,251 posts)there's a reason to debate it.
Either way, I don't think Bush has anything to do with this. It's whether, as usual, Obama gets credit simply for rhetoric, before anyone bothers to wait and see what actually happens.
BrainMann1
(460 posts)Good read indeed