RSS Feed MenuThe Nobel committee baited a trap for Barack Obama — and on Thursday he tumbled right in.
The committee is made up of five Norwegian politicians, three of them from left-of-centre political parties. From the moment the award was announced, it was apparent that the committee hoped to achieve two things:
1) To compel the new American President to submit to limits on his future use of force. Would Obama like to read news stories that opened, “Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama today launched pre-emptive air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities?”
2) To intervene in American domestic politics. Since 2001, the Nobel committee has honored three Americans: Jimmy Carter in 2002, Al Gore in 2007, and now Obama. Could the message be more obvious?
Those objectives ought to have been utterly unacceptable to an American president.
He could not allow this small body of unaccountable people to impose restrictions on his power to make national security decisions in the American interest.
Nor could Obama properly allow a foreign body to insert itself into American politics in this way. Campaigning for the presidency, Obama vigorously criticized George W. Bush and his policies. That was normal. But to travel to a foreign country and lend himself to outsiders’ criticism of his predecessor in return for a prestigious award — that would be shocking.
Yet in his Nobel address, Obama flunked both these basic political conditions.
Failure number one: “I believe that all nations — strong and weak alike — must adhere to standards that govern the use of force. I — like any head of state — reserve the right to act unilaterally if necessary to defend my nation. Nevertheless, I am convinced that adhering to standards, international standards, strengthens those who do, and isolates and weakens those who don’t.”
Back in 2004, John Kerry was pummelled for suggesting that the legitimate use of force must meet a “global test.” That test has now returned, in even more ominous form. What are these “standards” that Obama has in mind?
He gives us a clue. Since 1990, the United States has fought four wars: the Gulf War in 1991, Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003. Two — 1991, 2001 — were approved by the UN Security Council. Two — 1999, 2003 — were not. Guess which two wars Obama specifically mentions as legitimate? Guess which two he omits?
Failure number two: Obama indulged in repeated criticism of the Iraq war. “I am the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars. One of these wars is winding down. The other is a conflict that America did not seek …”
Well that’s how he feels. Fine. Let him say it at West Point. In Oslo, the right answer is: “Nobody but me beats up my kid brother.” Obama is leader and representative of the American state and nation, conservatives and liberals, hawks and doves.
In the ordinary course of events, a President Obama charged with management of the Iraq file would not have indulged in unnecessary recrimination. That would be pointless and dangerous for a president waiting to discover whether his own “surge” proves as successful as George Bush’s did.
To be coaxed by a prize into reviving a domestic quarrel was unwise — and to conduct that quarrel on foreign ground was hugely inappropriate.
Few American conservatives share my negative assessment of the speech. Most were so pleased by the President’s vigorous defence of the occasional need for force that they overlooked the speech’s flaws.
It’s a relief of course that Obama is not a pacifist, but that’s a very low bar for an American president. His oath of office already requires him to “defend” the Constitution of the United States. What Obama did in Oslo was to submit to new preconditions for the exercise of that right of defence. At the same time, he denigrated one of the two wars currently being waged by the United States — and by the way, the more successful and strategically important one.
Barack Obama’s foreign policy will depend on the votes of Republicans in Congress even more than Democrats. Why lecture them from abroad, at this juncture of all times, about his continuing disapproval of his predecessor’s actions? Let him win his war first, then lecture later.
Originally published on December 12, 2009 in the National Post.
sdspringy // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Still just one sentence? Here I am trying to improve your communication skills and I can see we have a long way to go. See, curse words actually show a weak mind and limited verbal skills.
And repetitive statements are indications of brain injury and possible schizophrenia. I really hate to be the one to tell you Teabag, none of these things appear good.
Here is a simple exercise you can do in the privacy of your mother’s home. Type this:
My name is Teabag and sdspringy is my friend
My name is Teabag and I really need a better name.
Now typing this multiple times will break this habit of only simple, single sentences. See all those “S”s again, clever.
sdspringy // Dec 12, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Reason, the “presiding over two wars” is a little disingenuous. Obama has not made changes to the Bush strategy concerning Iraq since taking office. And his major announcement on Afghan certainly appears to follow the Bush playbook in Iraq.
Minor concern I know but it goes to the argument that Obama is all about appearances. His speech is Oslo was notable for the number of “I”s. How often he refers to himself is watched now during all his speeches because he can’t seem to acknowledge anyone but himself.
And the reference to a “just war” looks good on the teleprompter but what happens in 18 months. Is it no longer the “just war”?
I personally agree with you analysis of Frum’s postings but not about Obama
gmckee1985 // Dec 12, 2009 at 11:26 pm
What does “winning” in Afghanistan even mean?
Obama’s criticism of Bush gets old. But let’s be honest the Iraq War was handled poorly for years.
COProgressive // Dec 13, 2009 at 12:14 am
“At the same time, he denigrated one of the two wars currently being waged by the United States — and by the way, the more successful and strategically important one.”
David, President Obama may have “denigrated one of the two wars” in hs speech in Oslo, but he wasn’t saying anything that those in attendence, and those listening around the world, didn’t know. The War of Choice for Iraqi oil has been a stain on the good name of The United States of America and President Obama only “denigrated it to the level it deserved, no matter how successful and strategically important you believe it to have been.
BTW, the Iraqi government let contracts for developing its oil fields and after the big push by the CPA to force through the Iraqi Oil Law, which failed to happen, the Iraqi Oil Ministry awarded NO contracts to US or British oil firms.
So, the neo-con plan to overturn the Hussein government and hand over the Iraqi oil fields to American and British companies was a bust. It only cost Americans 4,400 lives, the Iraqis countless 10’s of thousands of lives and nearly a Trillion dollars from OUR Treasury. Some success…….
sdspringy // Dec 13, 2009 at 12:39 am
COProg, your statement is completely inaccurate.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bidding-war-for-iraqs-huge-oil-contracts-sputters-into-life-1726205.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/shell-wins-historic-iraq-oil-contract-1838472.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704328104574516901231406262.html
The myth of the Lib Bloggers concerning oil was proved wrong on day one of the invasion. No oil companies followed the troops over the border. And yet the proof of Bush’s strategy to have the Iraqi citizen benefit from their oil comes true. Which pains you more, Bush proven right, or more CO2 producing oil in production?
reason // Dec 13, 2009 at 1:29 am
sdpringy,
There’s nothing disengenuous about saying he’s presiding over two wars. He is in fact the commander-in-chief of a military fighting two wars yet receiving a peace award. That was irony he was confronting and that’s why he had to address this notion of just war.
As for him not giving credit to anyone else, that’s just false. He praised Reagan, Nixon, the military, and the united states as a whole just to name a few. When you don’t like a guy, you just find more reasons to dislike him.
sdspringy // Dec 13, 2009 at 2:07 am
Well Iraq ceased to be a War last year when all American troops are restrticted to base and are not allowed to operate unless directed by the Iraqi government. Really not much of a war. I will grant that Afghan is a War and that Obama is presiding over it. Success or failure now rests with Obama.
I am only reporting a media obsession concerning Obama speeches. Those speeches have lost their effect if the media focus is now to document how many times Obama says “I”.
These statements are what I consider disengenuous:
Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroika not only improved relations with the Soviet Union,
Reagan did not promote arms control, he considered the Soviet Union the evil empire and treated them as such. Reagan grew the US military to levels that the Soviet Union could not match and the Soviet Union crumbled. Perestroika argument is false.
………. That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed.
Is Obama closing Gitmo or just changing its location. And does that change of location actually provide greater or lesser security for the US. The prison will still exist, the imates still behind bars, so nothing is being closed.
jakester // Dec 13, 2009 at 3:05 am
MI Goper
Bush Derangement Syndrome: a conditions of the morons who supported Bush and stupid neocon policies unconditionally to deny any mistakes, corruption stupidity or just plain bungling by accusing everyone else of lying or hating them based on some crude leftist conspiracy against their morally superior, intellectually brillain conservative Xtian values.
balconesfault // Dec 13, 2009 at 4:52 am
sdspringy: Reagan did not promote arms control, he considered the Soviet Union the evil empire and treated them as such.
Actually, Reagan was an advocate of a nuclear weapon free world. The ultimate “arms control”. To this extent, he was far more idealistic than anything Obama has envisioned.
sdspringy // Dec 13, 2009 at 5:07 am
Well aren’t we all, however Reagan did not trust the Russian enough to believe they would eliminate their weapons. And without means of verifications Reagan would never sign another nuclear arms deal.
Deciding instead to promote Star Wars technology, which did not rely on false promises of the Soviet Union.
sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 8:57 am
COProgressive: the neo-con plan to overturn the Hussein government and hand over the Iraqi oil fields to American and British companies
WRONG.
There is NO EVIDENCE that oil was the motivation for Bush’s brain trust to invade Iraq.
They never said so in articles, in speeches, in interviews. NEVER.
So stop with the paranoid conspiracy theories.
They belong on FireDogLake, not here.
ottovbvs // Dec 13, 2009 at 10:48 am
…..Because Bush bequeathed two military/political shambles to his successor……one of them largely the product of manufactured evidence……….Obama is now trying to clean up the mess by essentially choosing the least bad courses of action to disengage from these fiascoes.
sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 8:57 am
“So stop with the paranoid conspiracy theories.”
……coprogressive maybe somewhat overstating the case as to motives, but there was clearly a conspiracy by the Bush admin to take us into this war on a pretext for reasons that are to this day somewhat obscure……the Chilcot inquiry in Britain has already established that in April of 2002 Bush and Blair met and essentially decided to invade Iraq……both the British Ambassador to Washington at the time Sir Christopher Mayer and the British Ambassador to the UN who were initially excluded from the decision making process but learned the details of this meeting and were intimately involved in the events in the run up to the war have confirmed mendacious conduct by both the American and British govt’s to bring this war about…….there’s ample evidence of a conspiracy although one might disagree about the motivations
…….co
ottovbvs // Dec 13, 2009 at 11:09 am
………Some extracts from of Mayer’s evidence to the Chilcot inquiry…..ultimately it will be this inquiry which is the third the Brits have held which will reveal if not all…..most of it
Blair met Bush at Crawford in April 2002 and we know from a leaked Cabinet Office memo that Blair said “the UK would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met”. The three conditions were: efforts being made to construct an international coalition, the Arab/Israeli conflict being “quiescent”, and the UN weapons inspection route being exhausted. But the precise nature of the understanding between the two men has never been revealed, prompting allegations that Blair made commitments in Texas that contradicted what he was saying in public.
“The real problem, which I did draw several times to the attention of London, was that the contingency military timetable had been decided before the UN inspectors went in under Hans Blix. So you found yourself in a situation in the autumn of 2002 where you could not synchronise the military timetable with the inspection timetable … the result of that was to turn resolution 1441 on its head. Because 1441 had been a challenge to Saddam Hussein, agreed unanimously, to prove his innocence. But because you could not synchronise the programmes … you had to short-circuit the inspection process by finding the notorious smoking gun … and we – the Americans, the British – have never really recovered from that, because, of course, there was no smoking gun.”
This was one of the most damning points made by Meyer. After the UN security council unanimously passed resolution 1441 in November 2002, the high point of British efforts to secure an international consensus, Hans Blix’s weapons inspectors were admitted back into Iraq. But by that stage the US military was preparing for war in January (although the invasion did not start until March). Blix never had time to complete the inspection process and Meyer implies that the process was therefore something of a charade.
“We could have achieved more by playing a tougher role … if, for example, at Crawford Tony Blair had said: “I want to help you, George, on this but I have to say, in all honesty, that I will not be able to take part in any military operation unless we have palpable progress on the peace process and we have absolute clarity on what happens in Iraq if it comes up.” I think that would have changed the nature – it would not have led to a rupture – it would have changed the nature of American planning.”
Another damning charge. Meyer said that Britain “failed miserably” to use its influence with Bush to achieve any progress in the Middle East. The allegation that post-invasion planning would have been better if Blair had made more of a fuss is particularly serious. “We underestimated the leverage at our disposal,” said Meyer.
“I’m not trying to make a party political point here whatsoever, but quite often I think about this – I think what would Margaret Thatcher have done. And she would have insisted – I take her name in vain, for Pete’s sake, I may be struck with a thunderbolt – I think she would have insisted on a coherent political and diplomatic strategy and she would have demanded the greatest clarity about what the heck happened if and when you removed Saddam Hussein.”
sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 11:22 am
ottovbs: coprogressive maybe somewhat overstating the case as to motives, but there was clearly a conspiracy by the Bush admin to take us into this war on a pretext for reasons that are to this day somewhat obscure
There’s nothing “obscure” about their motives–though they don’t exactly fit with “truth, justice, and the American way.”
They were well documented–in the writings of the Project for a New American Century, in the interviews that noted figures like Wolfowitz and Mylroie gave to talk-shows way back when Clinton was President, in the papers published by Angelo Codevilla at the Claremont Institute explaining the policy way back in 2001.
When the 9-11 Commission began its work, Saddam had already fallen and no WMD had been found in Iraq. Despite this, when Laurie Mylroie appeared before the Commission, she reiterated her own theories about the threat that Saddam had posed. AFAIK, she still believes them today. And this–crackpot–had sold her crackpot ideas to Wolfowitz and Perle. They fit neatly with their own views that America had to make an example of Saddam to prove to the whole world that America still had her “hayba–awesomeness or indomitable authority.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/633uuroh.asp
Newsweek Magazine published an article on their theory of hayba.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/60445
When a theory appears in a national newsmagazine, it’s no longer “obscure.”
sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm
sdspringy: Reagan did not promote arms control, he considered the Soviet Union the evil empire and treated them as such.
Reagan first proposed, and then negotiated with the Soviets, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)–the first treaty to actually bilaterally reduce nuclear stockpiles. (The earlier SALT I and SALT II treaties were just limitations on stockpiles, not reductions.)
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,921207,00.html
START I resulted in the removal of MOST of the warheads that the U.S. and U.S.S.R. had at the time.
sinz54 // Dec 13, 2009 at 12:04 pm
sdspringy: The myth of the Lib Bloggers concerning oil was proved wrong on day one of the invasion.
The reason it’s so easy for lefties to formulate conspiracy theories about oil, is that oil is ubiquitous.
Oil companies have explored for oil, and often drilled for oil, on every continent except Antarctica. They’ve gone into over a hundred countries in search of oil.
So if the U.S. undertakes a military venture anywhere in the world besides Antarctica, it’s a safe bet that some oil company is nearby or was nearby.
So conspiracy theorists see U.S. military forces in some spot, they see on their maps that oil is nearby, and so they claim it’s all about oil.
The truth is, oil is always nearby everything.
COProgressive // Dec 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm
sinz54:
“There is NO EVIDENCE that oil was the motivation for Bush’s brain trust to invade Iraq.
“They never said so in articles, in speeches, in interviews. NEVER.
“So stop with the paranoid conspiracy theories.”
NO EVIDENCE? Try looking harder.
“I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” – Alan Greenspan
knowledgebase // Dec 14, 2009 at 12:23 am
An excellent article by David. Greenspan is wrong that Iraq was about oil. It was about stopping Saddam, the most powerful man in the Middle East at the time and the most dangerous. Toppling him was essential. He had a large military; a dangerous ambition, having even invaded another country.
And it was a message to other radical leaders in the Middle East and it worked while Bush was in office. Gaddafi was a good boy for 7 years; Iran was less bold.
But they smell the weakness in this President, as we all do. He’s talking tough, but we’ll have to see how far he will go. Some believe this war leader posturing is only to buy time and silence critics until he can get his Socialist agenda started via Healthcare . We’ll see. It’s up to Obama: does he want one term only? That’s what he will get. As for the Democrat Congress; they are gone next year.
When will America learn? Democrats don’t do national defense very well.
“It’s so, so “messy” dontcha know. This defense thingy. It SO interferes with our little tea parties and evenings with the author of the latest hand-wringing scribble of what’s wrong with the world and why every one should just be like us?”
sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 9:03 am
COProgressive:
YOU are the one who made the charge.
YOU back it up with real evidence.
The burden of proof is on YOU.
FrumForum is no place for the paranoid conspiracy theorist.
sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 9:06 am
knowledgebase: And it was a message to other radical leaders in the Middle East and it worked while Bush was in office. Gaddafi was a good boy for 7 years; Iran was less bold.
It did NOT work “while Bush was in office.”
It worked for exactly 6 months after Saddam’s statue fell in April 2003. You’re right, Qaddafi was scared by that into making a deal with Bush.
Then the insurgency really took off, America’s troops got bogged down, the world saw America hunkering down along a broad front–and America’s adversaries got bolder.
In 2006, North Korea test-fired a nuke, and they’ve been testing nukes and missiles ever since, stockpiling at least 6 nuclear weapons. (You forgot to mention that one.)
Iran got bolder, sending agents into Iraq to stir up trouble, their centrifuges making weapons-grade nuclear fuel, stonewalling European negotiators, with Ahmedinijad making speeches about the end of Israel. In the meantime, it was leaked to the press that Bush had decided to take military action off the table.
I’ve often said that Fallujah was our Stalingrad. Fallujah was the high water mark of Bush’s War on Terror. From that peak, it went into retreat.
sinz54 // Dec 14, 2009 at 9:08 am
knowledgebase:
One more thing. We now know that North Korea has been assisting Syria, Israel’s mortal enemy on their border, with nuclear and missile technology. Israel had to take action to stop that on their own.
That’s what happens after your big offensive gets bogged down. The enemy (and in this case, America has several enemies) take the offensive against you.
America was on the defensive from 2006 onward.