The Hidden Obama Speech to the UN: It's About US (and Al Qa'eda)

We'll have a full analysis of President Obama's speech tomorrow, but I thought this quick intervention might be useful.

Useful because the media is too busy gushing and sucking up the White House spin to note the key under-messages in the address. Just now the BBC has wet itself becuase supposedly Obama gave the speech that "British Prime Ministers dream of", committing the US to work with the UN and the international community.

Really? Hate to be a downer, boys, but you might want to think a bit about Obama's only two references to the US involvement in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Obama's first sweeping statement was this declaration: "We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies – a network that has killed thousands of people of many faiths and nations, and that plotted to blow up this very building. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people."

Later in the speech, Obama developed this with, well, another sweeping declaration: "We will permit no safe-haven for al Qaeda to launch attacks from Afghanistan or any other nation. We will stand by our friends on the front lines, as we and many nations will do in pledging support for the Pakistani people tomorrow."

So let's review. In a speech which.was supposedly about America's leadership of international co-operation (and was on subjects from climate change to reductions in nuclear arsenals), Obama snuck in a reference to perhaps the most immediate crisis, given the escalating US military presence, with the assurance that the US was "work(ing) with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies".

Really? Where are all those countries flocking to put in military personnel to whip up on Osama bin Laden? Where are the pronouncements that Afghan and Pakistani economic development and governancee are primarily about wiping out extremists who are plotting another 9-11? Seems to me that the international assistance and efforts, for all their difficulties, were looking for some kind of stability first and foremost for the populations of these countries.

Where are those people in Obama's speech? They are pawns and bystanders who come after the priority of the showdown with big bad guys (even if Al Qa'eda is no longer in Afghanistan).

Co-operation indeed.

Comments

[Amy]

I don't see this one as a policy speech-- not much to parse. It was more like "I'm tired as hell & I really don't have time to give this speech the effort it deserves"

It clearly was not one of President Obama's best moments. It was hard for me to stay focused on what he was saying-- I mean really hard. It's the first time I thought maybe somebody else wrote the whole thing bec there were no Obama touches... Pretty much anybody could have given the speech. I didn't have a sense that his heart was in it. It was more a litany of "stuff I have to mention."

It seemed like the points in the speech were strung together like beads instead of integrated into a vision of the US in the UN. Very Un-Obama. I think he is so focused on other issues that I wouldn't read much into what was or was not emphasized in this particular instance. Sad that he lost this opportunity.

[Amy]

I dunno, maybe it's my mood. Google News & Yahoo show reams of reports and analyses on President Obama’s UN speech. Apparently most people have strong opinions on it. I don't think I can bear to sit through it again to reconsider. It seemed excruciatingly uninteresting

[JP]

I agree with Amy on this one. It was pretty much the standard Obama speech:
e.g. Our common interests are greater than our differences; our focus should be on addressing common challenges rather than dwelling on differences that distract from a resolution of those challenges. Challenges include nuclear proliferation, the goal of shared peace and prosperity, and taking on global warming.

As far as the Afghanistan-Pakistan sections go, I'm not clear exactly who the "pawns" are in this process. The Afghan and Pakistan people? NATO and other member countries who have committed military and civilian assistance to stabilizing Afghanistan?

If the end game was just about Al Qaeda, then the U.S. and other nations would probably be OK reducing troop commitments inside Afghanistan. The argument in favor of an increase is that aid and reconstruction efforts -- which are focused on the Afghan people -- can't take place in an insecure environment. There's a related argument that increased stability in Afghanistan, and increased investment in Afghanistan will reduce the likelihood that Al Qaeda will return in force to the country. The end game is spelled out in the line: "In Afghanistan and Pakistan, we – and many nations here – are helping those governments develop the capacity to take the lead in this effort, while working to advance opportunity and security for their people.”

It's a fair question whether those goals are achievable at this stage -- even with an increased military commitment by the U.S., but I don't see anyone being used as "pawns" in achieving those objectives. Civilians may be caught in the middle of a quixotic endeavor. However, the alternative absent the military and non-military foreign assistance is unlikely to be shared peace and prosperity inside Afghanistan and Pakistan. It seems likely that the alternative would be equally tragic with civilians caught in the middle of a purely domestic conflict.