Wednesday
Feb252009
President Obama's State of the Nation: The Overseas Dimension
Wednesday, February 25, 2009 at 10:30
Related Post: President Obama's State of the Nation - As Good as The West Wing?
Related Post: Curing Cancer, Eating Baconnaise, and Slapping Down Bobby Jindal
Related Post: Transcript - President Obama’s “State of the Nation” Speech
Almost all of President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress last night was devoted to the US economy; however, there was a small but significant section reiterating the main points of his foreign policy.
Let it be clear: Mr Obama is going to war: "For seven years, we've been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."
On Iraq, the President gave the standard signal for withdrawal of US combat troops while backing up the media chatter that he is on the verge of announcing a timetable: "I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
The big call, however, was for the "Afpak" march, and the rhetoric could have been taken straight from George W. Bush: "We will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama did return to the Inaugural theme of no choice between safety and ideals: "To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America." He then repeated that the US "does not torture" and that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, although he added the assurance that his Administration would "seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists".
And for cases like Iran and Syria, Obama's "engagement" was present, even if he did not name those countries: "We cannot shun the negotiating table nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand."
All in all, no surprises in substance. Make no mistake, however: symbolically, Obama just make it known that Afghanistan and Pakistan will take the symbolic place in his Administration that Iraq did for his predecessor. And, just as George W. Bush reduced the issues of the Iraqi people to "Saddam", so a much better-spoken President has set aside the issues of Afghan and Pakistani populations for his attention to "terrorists".
Related Post: Curing Cancer, Eating Baconnaise, and Slapping Down Bobby Jindal
Related Post: Transcript - President Obama’s “State of the Nation” Speech
Almost all of President Obama's speech to the joint session of Congress last night was devoted to the US economy; however, there was a small but significant section reiterating the main points of his foreign policy.Let it be clear: Mr Obama is going to war: "For seven years, we've been a nation at war. No longer will we hide its price."
On Iraq, the President gave the standard signal for withdrawal of US combat troops while backing up the media chatter that he is on the verge of announcing a timetable: "I will soon announce a way forward in Iraq that leaves Iraq to its people and responsibly ends this war."
The big call, however, was for the "Afpak" march, and the rhetoric could have been taken straight from George W. Bush: "We will forge a new and comprehensive strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat al Qaeda and combat extremism, because I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it."
Obama did return to the Inaugural theme of no choice between safety and ideals: "To overcome extremism, we must also be vigilant in upholding the values our troops defend, because there is no force in the world more powerful than the example of America." He then repeated that the US "does not torture" and that he would close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, although he added the assurance that his Administration would "seek swift and certain justice for captured terrorists".
And for cases like Iran and Syria, Obama's "engagement" was present, even if he did not name those countries: "We cannot shun the negotiating table nor ignore the foes or forces that could do us harm. We are instead called to move forward with the sense of confidence and candor that serious times demand."
All in all, no surprises in substance. Make no mistake, however: symbolically, Obama just make it known that Afghanistan and Pakistan will take the symbolic place in his Administration that Iraq did for his predecessor. And, just as George W. Bush reduced the issues of the Iraqi people to "Saddam", so a much better-spoken President has set aside the issues of Afghan and Pakistani populations for his attention to "terrorists".
Reader Comments (6)
Dear Scott:
I must say I heard this component of his speech very diferently than you did. Particularly the "price of war" bit. If anything is likely to rally America's moderate/rightist lower-income segment, to get OUT of war, it will be a clear and unstinting accounting of the costs. The lack of clarity--and utter lack of transparency re: "why, where, with whom, and with what objectives" America has been at war for 7 years has left a roiling maelstrom of national debate, in part unresolved because the spin doctors have stirred the thorny truths into a mind-bending morass that requires some greater-than-average mental motivation (not ability, MOTIVATION) to slog through. But show America's most fiscally-stricken and scared socioeconomic group a pricetag, with all the unnecessary "extra features" included, and the sticker-shock will make them recoil. In my opinion, this was a shrewd move: it was political judo. What Congressperson--on EITHER side of the aisle-- can afford the political damage that would be occasioned by arguing AGAINST a clear accounting? And yet, what effect is that accounting likely to have?
RE: Afpak, as you call it. My response is: see my last post. Nothing, in my opinion, has changed in re: to what Obama is dealing with in terms of image, Pentagon intransigence, timing, and popular uncertainty. Too early to look for change in policy, I think. And in the meantime, he will attempt to build a coalition. And here's an interesting back-angle on Obama building a Coalition: a Coalition may exert pressure for a different approach to Afghanistan. In "acceding" to that pressure, Obama may be able to achieve a softening of policy without "looking soft" himself. If I was in his position, that's how I'd play it: I can attribute policy shifts to "necessary accommodations" to keep the Coalition evolving positively. My silly synopsis: At every step, watch for the judo throw in Mr. Obama's political moves. It's how he operates--and I think it will work well. But it will provide all sorts of fodder for pundits and critics (of EVERY political stripe) who want to see him move straight at his objectives. Re: which, see my post-election day post: he is going to be misunderstood in MANY areas. I suspect we're seeing some of that right now.
My lame $ .02--for what they are worth.
Best as ever,
Chuck
Chuck,
Not lame at all --- I'd even say a nickel's worth in there! It is a shrewd reading, and I do hope you're right.
Scott
I will not allow terrorists to plot against the American people from safe havens halfway around the world. We will not allow it.”
*************
Is this policy a realistic one? Failed states provide the ideal evironment for al-Qaeda and other terror cells to operate in. They thrive where there is lawlessness. Efforts at post-conflict peacebuilding have not succeeded in the Balkans, and Kosovo is the newest and latest failed state. That area could serve as a springboard for attacks in Europe, but what can be done short of occupation? How could the West avoid military overstretch with a policy like that?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,609660,00.html
"And, just as George W. Bush reduced the issues of the Iraqi people to 'Saddam', so a much better-spoken President has set aside the issues of Afghan and Pakistani populations for his attention to 'terrorists'."
Bush didn't reduce the issues of the Iraqi people to "Saddam," he reduced them to weapons of mass destruction, a weapons of mass destruction program, plans for a weapons of mass destruction program, a free and Democratic Iraq, an Iraq incapable of threatening its neighbors, an Iraq free of terrorism...I could go on. I'd also point out that Obama does not appear to be lying, distorting or abusing intelligence in order to make his case for war, unlike Bush who has faced possible impeachment over his push for war in Iraq. In fact, Obama campaigned for almost 2 years openly promising renewed focus and escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He won.
It's possible to prove al-Qa'eda is in Pakistan and Afghanistan. It's possible to prove that Pakistan has nuclear weapons. It's possible to prove that the Pakistani government is extremely unstable. It's possible to prove that al-Qa'eda has attacked the United States before. It's also possible to prove that al-Qa'eda in Pakistan is attempting to overthrow the Pakistani government in order to gain control over the nuclear arsenal and use it to attack the United States or its allies.
How is that remotely similar to the Bush Administration and its aggression in Iraq? And are you implying the goal of eliminating terrorist havens is somehow opposed to the interests of the Afghan and Pakistani people? How does al-Qa'eda using safe havens to attack the west benefit the populations of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and what evidence do we have to prove it?
Oops, here's the answer to my challenge of whether or not our escalation is in the interests of Afghan citizens.
http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/story?id=6787686
"The number who say the United States has performed well in Afghanistan has been more than halved, from 68 percent in 2005 to 32 percent now. Ratings of NATO/ISAF forces are no better. Just 37 percent of Afghans now say most people in their area support Western forces; it was 67 percent in 2006. And 25 percent now say attacks on U.S. or NATO/ISAF forces can be justified, double the level, 13 percent, in 2006. "
Found via Pakistan: Now or Never?
http://blogs.reuters.com/pakistan/2009/02/26/americans-vote-for-afghan-troop-surge-but-afghans-differ/
UJ,
All excellent points and you're right to haul me up on the misleading equation between Bush and Obama.
That said, my concern over Obama's formula of "terrorists" and "extremists" is unassuaged. It gives the impression that the "enemy" consists of bad-guy cells amongst the local population. In fact, the challenge --- political, economic, and social --- is within the local population and any scenario that the US and local armies can excise the cancer with airstrikes and some more boots on the ground is at best a distraction, at worst counter-productive.
S.