In the wake of his recent speeches at West Point and Oslo, President Obama is basking in the glow of neconservative praise and approval.
Bill Kristol, for instance, praised Obama’s Oslo speech as “hardheaded and pro-American.” And he added on Fox News Sunday: Obama “made it clear that you need military force; [and] that he will act if threats are looming. He actually articulated his own version of the preemptive doctrine.”
Kristol’s sometime writing partner, Robert Kagan, agrees. “With his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech,” Kagan writes, “Barack Obama signaled that the world had better get ready for a tougher, less forgiving, more quintessentially American approach from a man who certainly gave the soft touch a try.”
Military analyst Max Boot, a frequent contributor to Kristol’s Weekly Standard, concurs with this assessment. The Oslo ceremony was “Obama’s finest hour,” Boot writes. The president’s speech was “a masterpiece that deserves inclusion in compendia of the finest presidential speeches.”
These neoconservatives are wrong. A careful reading of the president’s remarks reveals that, at best, Obama is a so-called realist who eschews the use of military force except in the most narrow and exceptional of circumstances. At worst, Obama is a dove who refuses to exercise U.S. military power when necessary, especially when doing so proves difficult or challenging.
In his Oslo address, Obama stated the obvious: that military force sometimes is required to help resolve international problems; that America is at war in two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan; and that, as commander-in-chief, he (Obama) sometimes must order men into battle.
Any American high school student knows this. That’s why former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton called the speech “analytically weak [and] sort of at a high school level.” In fact, when it comes to the actual use of military force today, Obama has built himself all sorts of escape hatches and excuses for inaction.
For example, Kristol makes much of the fact that, according to the president, “proliferation may increase the risk of catastrophe… There will be times,” Obama said, “when nations — acting individually or in concert — will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.”
Obama talks about the moral use of force in the abstract, but provides no actual, real-world examples save for stopping Hitler’s armies 65 years ago and, ostensibly at least, stopping al-Qaeda today. And as for nations “acting individually,” well forget it. What Obama saith in one (abstract) breath, he taketh away in the next (concrete) statement:
[I]n a world in which threats are more diffuse, and missions more complex, America cannot act alone. America alone cannot secure the peace. This is true in Afghanistan. This is true in failed states like Somalia, where terrorism and piracy is joined by famine and human suffering. And sadly, it will continue to be true in unstable regions for years to come.
Moreover, Obama’s statement about the necessity and morality of using force comes immediately after this amazing dictum:
I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war… We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.
Theoretically, Obama concedes, the United States may act militarily; but practically speaking, this is highly unlikely — and, in fact, don’t count on it.
Kristol suggests Obama is prepared to take military action against Iran and North Korea. But Kristol makes this argument by misleadingly juxtaposing an earlier Obama statement — “so yes, the instruments of war do have a role to play in preserving the peace” — with a much later passage:
[I]t is also incumbent upon all of us to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system. Those who claim to respect international law cannot avert their eyes when those laws are flouted. Those who care for their own security cannot ignore the danger of an arms race in the Middle East or East Asia. Those who seek peace cannot stand idly by as nations arm themselves for nuclear war.
But Obama’s remarks about the peaceful purposes of the “instruments of war” were written, again, as an abstract statement of principle. His exhortation to the “international community” “to insist that nations like Iran and North Korea do not game the system” was written, quite clearly, to signify what the president thinks should actually be done. And here, specifically, is what Obama thinks should be done vis-à-vis Iran and North Korea:
“First, in dealing with those nations that break rules and laws, I believe that we must develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior [emphasis added]– for if we want a lasting peace, then the words of the international community must mean something.
Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure — and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
Kristol and other neocons, of course, want Obama to grow up. They want him to recognize that “alternatives to violence” are not always available and may not be enough. They want him to recognize that military action and the threat of force may be required — in the here and now — to help resolve international crises and international problems.
Thus, these neocons seize upon whatever week reed that they can to try and make Obama’s rhetoric conform with reality. Consequently, Boot lauds the president with “‘growing in office — and not in a liberal direction.”
But that’s wishful thinking.
To the extent that Obama is becoming more hawkish, it is in a decidedly “realist” direction. At Oslo, for instance, he approvingly cited uber-realist Richard Nixon’s diplomatic overtures to China during the Cold War. Obama also heralded “Ronald Reagan’s efforts on arms control and [Reagan’s] embrace of perestroika.”
Similarly, at West Point, the president referenced Eisenhower to explain why, in his judgment, America’s renewed commitment to Afghanistan must be severely constrained, and why that commitment must end almost as soon as it begins.
Afghanistan offers the strongest evidence that Obama has grown more hawkish: because he’s sending 30,000 additional troops there. However, it is important to note that Obama inherited the war in Afghanistan, and that he campaigned as a hawk on Afghanistan precisely to burnish his bona fides as a legitimate commander-in-chief.
Once in office, then, Obama, had no real choice but to carry through on his campaign promise and fight the war in Afghanistan. Especially after his own handpicked general, McChrystal, said that he needed at least 30,000 more troops, Obama had no real choice but to acquiesce (albeit belatedly) and to agree.
But what is noteworthy is that Obama has rejected the neoconservative notion that there must be a moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy.
He denies this, of course. Obama says that he believes in speaking out on behalf of human rights and the dignity of all people. But where was the president last summer when protesting Iranian students were being beaten and murdered by the Iranian secret police — and where is he now?
In any case, talk that is not backed up by real and tangible actions is ineffective and inadequate. Sure, Nixon talked with the Chinese Communists — but he maintained America’s military commitment to Taiwan, and he continued to prosecute the Vietnam War.
Reagan, likewise, talked with Gorbachev, but made sure to arm democratic insurgent groups in Central America, Eastern Europe, Africa, and southwest Asia. Reagan also embarked upon a major U.S. military buildup, including missile defense, while deploying offensive missiles to Western Europe.
Yet, at Oslo, Obama didn’t talk about taking real and tangible actions to preserve a just and honorable peace. Instead, he said this:
“The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy.”
In other words, exhortations (i.e., talk) must be coupled with “painstaking diplomacy” (i.e., painstaking talk).
At best, Obama is a so-called realist, who eschews the use of military force except in the most narrow and exceptional of circumstances. At worst, he is a dove who refuses to exercise U.S. military power when necessary, especially when doing so proves difficult or challenging.
14 responses so far
1 mlloyd // Dec 14, 2009 at 10:58 pm
It is, of course, false to say that Obama has changed in office. See, e.g., Daniel Larison:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/12/12/yes-obama-is-a-liberal-internationalist/
Furthermore, please be aware that the Domino Theory, which provided the rationale for our involvement in Vietnam, proved to be false. In reality, capitalism is better than communism. Wasting more American money and lives in a bloody, futile effort to prevent a revolution in a peripheral state cannot be considered “moral.” Foreign policy is not about the emotions you feel when you close your eyes and fantasize about being Rambo winning the Vietnam War against the Chinese, the Soviets, Adolph Rupp’s 1966 University of Kentucky basketball team, and SPECTRE. The actual impact of our actions is, in fact, a great deal more important.
Another correction: as to our record in the 1980s, please be advised that Efraín Ríos Montt and Jonas Savimbi were not “democratic.” You are correct in your claim that we supported them, however.
2 John Guardiano // Dec 14, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Mlloyd,
1) I never said that Obama has changed in office. There is no discernible evidence that he has.
2) I’ve never seen any of the Rambo movies, and really have no desire to do so.
3) There are degrees of democratic commitment. We aided, in the ’80s, insurgents who were more democratic and reform minded than their adversaries — and certainly more democratic and reform minded than our enemies. Were they perfect? No, few people are in this world.
Regards,
John
3 mlloyd // Dec 14, 2009 at 11:55 pm
John– Thanks for reading and responding.
The big point of contention, I think, is over what it means to conduct a moral foreign policy. Why was escalating the Vietnam War “moral”? It seems to me that, in order to come to that conclusion, one must ignore our reasons for getting involved there (both immediate (Tonkin) and large scale (Domino Theory)), ignore the impact of our actions on Vietnam, ignore the cost to the US in lives and resources, and ignore that the regime in Vietnam today is not far at all from what it would ideally be had we prevailed. What is left, then, but our fantasy lives based on glossy PR to justify terming it “moral”?
You seem skeptical of Obama’s praise of Reagan and Nixon. Do you think that it was unwise and immoral for Reagan to talk to Gorbachev? Should Nixon have refused to meet with Mao– and if so, what should he have done, with what likely outcome? (OK, that’s asking a lot, but hopefully you see my point).
(We don’t need to wander into whether or not Obama has changed; I obviously read too much into your statement that “To the extent that Obama is becoming more hawkish…” And we need not relitigate the US’s Reagan-era support for given figures. The larger point, to me, is that democratic capitalism is really good, and we do best by it when we live it. When we support murderous autocrats simply because they’re willing to say they oppose communism/Islam/whatever Hitler du jour, we cause misery and breed resentment.)
Morality in foreign affairs must, I believe, be based on an evaluation of the practical impact of our actions. It would be more emotionally satisfying to make a bunch of excitable speeches about what’s gone on in Iran lately; but what is the reason to believe that it would actually help? That is, as I read your post, the only thing Obama has done that you don’t like (along with not announcing a surge in Afghanistan sooner). It doesn’t matter if there were some spectacular hypothetical justification for fighting in Vietnam/invading and occupying Iraq. What matters is what actually happened.
4 athensboy // Dec 15, 2009 at 7:11 am
“At worst Obama is a dove etc.” John, this is the guy that immediately sent more troops to Afhganistan when elected president. You just seem bound and determined to rip into Obama because in your opinion he’s not hawkish enough. You disagree with the neocons Kristol,Kagan, and Boot. You seem to be out on an island with your opinions. Are you just smarter than everyone else?When our predator drones are taking out Al Queda leadership, that still doesn’t satisfy your bloodlust?To me you seem like the crowd that rips Obama not matter what he says or does. Do you get tired of crying wolf all the time? You are a thinly veiled fraud, a partisan hack, and not even an intelligent hack. Maybe Glen Beck has a spot on his staff for you.Newsflash…Obama won, your team lost, get over it.
5 MI-GOPer // Dec 15, 2009 at 7:16 am
John G, I think you’re being generous to Obama when you write: “At worst, he is a dove who refuses to exercise U.S. military power when necessary, especially when doing so proves difficult or challenging.”
To my mind, his positioning on Afghanistan was pure politics and calculated to win the grudging momentary support of moderate and conservative voters who are correctly concerned about the govt’s shift to the Left. He boxed himself in on the campaign trail and his West Point speech was the quintessential political speech: “some of my friends want me to surge to victory, some of my friends want me to cut & run; I’m following the advice of my friends.”
There isn’t an overriding principle you can take away from Obama’s West Point speech except that Obama will always make the best decision that’s best for him politically. It’s why he can put on game face for Oprah and claim he deserves a “solid B+”… or is that just leftover Harvard grade inflation?
But it’s your article and well constucted opinion –if a tad generous to the Celebrity in Chief. I enjoyed it. I think the neo-cons will rue the day they jumped in bed with a man who changes spots faster than Tiger Woods changes lovers.
6 sinz54 // Dec 15, 2009 at 9:14 am
Mr. Guardiano:
Any good politician must tailor his speech to the occasion and even to the audience. Otherwise he ends up in conflict with both.
Obama went to Oslo to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, from a Nobel Committee who saw Obama as a peacemaker, not as a gunslinger.
For such an occasion, Obama went about as far as he could go with words on war and the use of force. And the media noted that the audience, composed primarily of European peaceniks, didn’t like what he was saying–Obama got less applause than he has gotten from European audiences before.
Note: Henry Kissinger, who was no lefty peacenik dove, received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for his work on Vietnam and the Middle East. In his acceptance speech were these words:
That goes even farther than what Obama said. Here, Kissinger seems to be scorning the whole notion of “just wars” in favor of a “common notion of justice.”
7 CentristNYer // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:24 am
Well put, sinz. My sentiments exactly.
8 balconesfault // Dec 15, 2009 at 10:52 am
But what is noteworthy is that Obama has rejected the neoconservative notion that there must be a moral dimension to U.S. foreign policy.
Perhaps the neoconservatives are feeling comfortable with Obama on this particular because their “moral dimension” really was like cheap fiberboard paneling tacked onto the inside of a concrete walled interrogation cell?
9 llbroo49 // Dec 15, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Why does there need to be a moral dimension to US foreign policy? To make us feel better? Is it because everybody that goes to war always claims the moral high ground? I mean Hitler accussed Poland of invading Germany first. I am not ashamed to admit that I support wars of “choice” that help maintain/sustain the American quality of life. So if we invaded Venezuela for their oil reserves to prevent a Recession/Depression/ Economic collapse- I think most Americans would find some way to rationalize it.
Besides it (moral dimension) does not exist (particularly if it is hard). Rwanda came and went, Darfur continues to burn, and the Allied effort during the Second World War could not spare a single bomber to destroy tracks leading to concentration camps. Hell eve honest Abe only announced the Emancipation Proclamation to keep France and England out of the War.
And lastly, we will not go to war with any country (no matter how bellicose) if they have the means to extract a high price for confrontation (let lone victory). So unless/until we develop an overwhelming military advantage that does not cause a global conflict or we are attacked directly- we will not invade Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia. You can also exclude countries that are likely to rely heavily on guerilla tactics ( Congo, Sierra Leone, basicaly all of sub-sahara Africa). You can talk tough, but even they know you are just talking. and until we are prepared to call for a draft (something this country has done everytime we went to war since the 1860s to the 1970s) , we will probably always need the help of other countries to wage war. Even if that help is just allowing us to use their airspace.
I don’t agree with everything the current President does, but I am probaly one of the few Americans that have liked all of our Presidents in my life time (I can only rember as far back as Reagan). All had faults, but all did the best they could to make our country great. I have always questioned individuals that ALWAYS find fault with a president or a political party.
10 MSheridan // Dec 15, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Mr. Guardiano, I do not believe I am misconstruing you when I say you feel the President is insufficiently hawkish. Nor that, apparently, you fail to discern much of a moral dimension in his foreign policy:
I share your suspicion that force is generally a last resort for him (although based on his past words it will not surprise me in the slightest if we intervene in Darfur at some point in the next few years) and unlike you this pleases me. However, I would also agree with you that our foreign policy vis-a-vis Iran has been unsuccessful thus far. So far as I can tell, this does not represent a marked change from the success rate of our previous foreign policy. However, given the real current constraints on American military power (two wars and all that), I wonder how much more hawkish it’s realistic to expect he could be on the world stage right now even if that were his inclination.
11 balconesfault // Dec 15, 2009 at 1:22 pm
given the real current constraints on American military power (two wars and all that)
Note that the Afghan surge has already, at least in the near term, curtailed Obama’s plans for extending Dwell Time ratios for our servicemen, as well as reducing the deployment times for reservists. The Obama Administration had stated a goal of moving from about 1:1 over most of the decade (1 year back home for every year deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan) to 2:1 (2 years stateside for year deployed).
Without significant increases in our forces, we’re not going to get anywhere near there.
12 sdspringy // Dec 15, 2009 at 9:20 pm
When exactly did the Messiah come to this conclusion? And did he arrive at this startling bit of intellectual wonderment all on his own. As always when the Messiah is involved its all about packaging and presentation.
13 balconesfault // Dec 16, 2009 at 4:02 am
As always when the Messiah is involved its all about packaging and presentation.
Your continuing to refer to him as “the Messiah” suggests that you’re projecting here.
Political speeches always contain phrases within them that isolated from their context sound like “well, duh” kind of statements. Criticizing a speech on that basis, particularly when one actually agrees with the conclusion, simply trivializes the critic.
14 sinz54 // Dec 16, 2009 at 6:46 pm
MSheridan:
Based on the recent words of President Obama’s envoy, Scott Gration, it would surprise me a great deal.
“We’ve got to think about giving out cookies [to the regime in Sudan]. Kids, countries — they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement.”
— Scott Gration, September 2009
You must log in to post a comment.