RSS Feed MenuRegrettably, George Will does not support the war in Afghanistan; but neither does he support intellectually empty and vacuous presidential rhetoric. Nor is the erudite Will a fan of inane presidential proclamations. Here, then, is Will’s devastatingly succinct, and newly published, assessment of Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.
[The speech] was remarkable for 38 uses of the pronoun ‘I.’
And for disavowing a competence no one suspected him of. (‘I do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war.’ Note the superfluous adjective.)
And for an unnecessary notification. (‘Evil does exist in the world.’) And for delayed utopianism. (‘We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes.’ But in someone’s.)
And for solemnly announcing something undisputed. (There can be a just war.)
And for intellectual applesauce that should get speechwriters fired and editors hired. (‘We do not have to think that human nature is perfect for us to still believe that the human condition can be perfected.’ If the human ‘condition’ can attain perfection anyway, human nature cannot be significantly imperfect.)
Unfortunately, George Will is virtually alone among the pundit class in finding Obama’s Oslo speech objectionable. Former United Nations ambassador John Bolton and David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute also didn’t like the speech; and neither did I, your not-so-humble scribe or correspondent.
Most other right-leaning pundits and pols, however, were eager to praise Obama for delivering a supposedly serious speech that defended the use of military force. This herd of independent minds includes such disparate conservative figures as Bill Kristol, Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, and Michael Gerson, all of whom have been lavish in their praise of Oslo Obama.
But as Will alludes to, and as I’ve pointed out here at FrumForum, what was right about the speech was platitudinous, elementary and obvious – though skillfully shrouded in cerebral and high-minded rhetoric to fool gullible pundits. And what was bad about the speech were its substantive policy implications, which include these foolish and dangerous assertions:
- that exhortation must be backed up not by force, or the threat of force; exhortation must be backed up instead by… ‘painstaking diplomacy’ (!);
- that we must “develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior” (a leftist chimera that); and
- that the United States cannot today, in the here and now, employ military force unilaterally in defense of the national interest.
But what happens when talk and “painstaking diplomacy” fail? And what “alternatives to violence” (or alternatives to the threat of force) are there that will change the behavior of thugs and tyrants like Iranian ruler Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Korean dictator Kim Jong-il?
Obama doesn’t say, and his conservative pundit fans don’t bother asking, lest they learn an inconvenient truth about our president.
What is most objectionable in Obama’s Oslo speech, however, is its utter failure to credit the greatest peacemakers of our time: the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. Indeed, about their heroic sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama had nothing to say. He was, as Will rightly observes, too busy talking about himself.
This should bother the conservative pundit class; but for reasons that baffle and bother me, snubbing the troops doesn’t seem to register even their mention or concern.
balconesfault // Dec 17, 2009 at 6:28 pm
that we must “develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior” (a leftist chimera that);
So Guardino believes that the only way to actually change behavior of other nations is through violence?
I mean, that seems to be EXACTLY what this says. And it’s a pretty damned scary worldview.
John Guardiano // Dec 17, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Balconesfault,
Sigh. I know you most likely don’t speak Spanish or Italian — heck, you’re challenged enough with the English language, I’m sure! — but it’s Guardiano, not Guardino. Guardian as in “Guardian angel” with an “O” at the end.
I never said that the “only way to actually change [the] behavior of other nations is through violence.” What I did say is that talk and diplomacy are insufficient and inadequate unless backed up by violence or the threat of force.
This is a nuance that surely escapes you, but if you read, think and reflect, I’m sure you’ll develop a more sophisticated understanding of international dynamics. What’s frightening is that many political leaders in Washington — and within the Obama administration — share your ignorance and naivety.
Regards,
John
sinz54 // Dec 17, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Guardino: What I did say is that talk and diplomacy are insufficient and inadequate unless backed up by violence or the threat of force.
About three or four years ago, it was reported, Ahmedinijad’s economists advised him that war in the Persian Gulf would send world oil prices up to $300 per barrel. Ahmedinijad thus regarded any military threats from America as bluff.
It will take a long time to rebuild American credibility from the battering it took in the Iraq War. And it will take even longer for America to have an energy policy that will make it possible for the Persian Gulf to become a battleground without wrecking the American economy.
sinz54 // Dec 17, 2009 at 8:47 pm
teabag: This is the 4th attempt at disrespecting and discrediting a President at a time of war.
We learned that tactic from you lefties:
“Hey, hey, LBJ,
How many kids did you kill today?”
— Popular left-wing refrain in the late 1960s
balconesfault // Dec 17, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Sinz: It makes sense to discredit a President during a time of war if you want America to withdraw from the war.
It is utterly asinine to try to discredit a President during a time of war if you want America to continue fighting.
John – my apology for your name. Sloppy on my part.
However, when you say that “develop alternatives to violence that are tough enough to actually change behavior” is a leftist chimera – you are saying that negotiation without the threat of violence is useless.
Oh wait – you actually say that in your response more directly – talk and diplomacy are insufficient and inadequate unless backed up by violence or the threat of force.
By extrapolation, does this mean that no nation should expect for talks and diplomacy with the USA to have any ability to serve their national interests unless they can threaten us with violence and force?
jakester // Dec 17, 2009 at 10:39 pm
sinz54
classic non elitist consevative reasoning,
1) Those kids wanted us to lose the war
2) Two wrongs don’t make a right, you’d think the morally superior cons would understand that.
Once again, where is the political victory coming from? This is not a military engagement, it is a war that requires a unified friendly Afghanistan to win.
SFTor1 // Dec 18, 2009 at 3:57 am
Guardiano: you again?
Oh, please.
athensboy // Dec 18, 2009 at 7:11 am
Karzai’s power does not extend beyond the palace walls.The Pashtun tribes do not want foreign troops in their country.The Pakistan military and their intelligence services have ties to the Taliban.Our nation is going broke, but hey, what the hell, lets spend a few decades and a few trillions to try and settle a centuries old civil war in the region.Fabulous foreign policy.And then lets invade a middle east country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Oh, thats right, we already did that. More piles of dung thinking from a disgraced neo-con. Yes John, thanks for your brilliant insights on foreign policy.Obama…bad Bush and Shooter….good.
teabag // Dec 18, 2009 at 7:53 am
The Republicans in the Senate showed last night exactly how much they actually support the troops. All but 3 voted AGAINST funding the troops.
Imagine if the Dems had done that anytime in the past 8 years. The “liberal” media would be calling them surrender monkeys and traitors. It’s Ok though if you are a Republican/Conservative
sinz54 // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:04 am
balconesfault: It is utterly asinine to try to discredit a President during a time of war if you want America to continue fighting.
You should have noticed from my other posts that I am NOT trying to “discredit” President Obama on Afghanistan.
Nor is Mr. Guardiano, I believe.
Rather, we are offering constructive criticism, which is the job of a political opposition.
Even during World War II, the Republican Party, though in the minority, did a good job of holding the FDR Administration’s feet to the fire by inquiring about corruption and cost overruns in the various defense projects used to win the war.
It looks like you liberals, especially “Teabag,” learned YOUR lessons from the Nixon Administration: “Any criticism of how the war effort is being handled is un-American.”
Quite a role reversal.
balconesfault // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:11 am
sinz – read this paragraph from Guardiano:
What is most objectionable in Obama’s Oslo speech, however, is its utter failure to credit the greatest peacemakers of our time: the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. Indeed, about their heroic sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama had nothing to say. He was, as Will rightly observes, too busy talking about himself.
Is that not an attempt to discredit Obama? It actually looks directly like an attempt to poison the relationship between the Commander in Chief and his forces.
This wasn’t a constructive criticism over how the war effort is being handled. I think you know that.
teabag // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:29 am
It looks like you liberals, especially “Teabag,” learned YOUR lessons from the Nixon Administration: “Any criticism of how the war effort is being handled is un-American.
I am just pointing out the total hypocrisy of the position. We as liberals were told that any opposition to Bush’s wars were “un-American” That we “hated America’ that we were “against” the troops because we were against the war of choice. I am putting you in that same position to point out the utter stupidity of that rationale. Obviously you do not like to be called unpatriotic when you obviously are. Sucks doesn’t it?
As I said above can you imagine the outrage if the Dems had voted against funding the troops! It would have never ended
John Guardiano // Dec 18, 2009 at 9:46 am
balconesfault,
If you really believe that substantive criticism of a presidential speech is beyond the pale, then you simply don’t believe in American democracy and the First Amendment.
Censors and tyrants have used your “logic” repeatedly throughout history to shut people up and to inhibit free speech, thought, analysis, and debate.
In any case, stop changing the subject. There is, quite obviously, no “attempt to poison the relationship” between anyone, least of all the relationship between the commander-in-chief and our troops. That’s your ridiculous and malevolent spin. Unlike you, our troops understand and appreciate American democracy and the robust debates that engage us Americans.
Mine is an attempt, quite clearly, to substantively discuss and analyze a presidential speech. And it is for this express purpose, in fact — political dialogue and debate — that the American founding fathers drafted the First Amendment.
Your argument isn’t with me; it’s with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and the American founding fathers. In this respect, you are, quite literally, anti-American. Unfortunately, the tyrannical impulse that you articulate is a strongly held sentiment on the Left today.
Moreover, my speech is aimed, quite clearly, to strengthen public support for U.S. military missions. The speech from the anti-war Left, by contrast, is designed to undermine those missions. You are comparing apples to oranges, and you know it. But nice try.
Regards,
John
balconesfault // Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 am
John: If you really believe that substantive criticism of a presidential speech is beyond the pale, then you simply don’t believe in American democracy and the First Amendment.
I don’t believe that substantive criticism of a presidential speech is beyond the pale.
My statements on the matter were:
1)It is utterly asinine to try to discredit a President during a time of war if you want America to continue fighting.
2) Is that not an attempt to discredit Obama? It actually looks directly like an attempt to poison the relationship between the Commander in Chief and his forces. This wasn’t a constructive criticism over how the war effort is being handled.
I stick by them.
You certainly have a right to criticize whatever you want about the President, and even a right to be offended if someone calls you unAmerican or unpatriotic because of your criticism.
In fact, people can have wildly competing visions of what America should be doing in Afghanistan and both be patriotic, depending on one’s motives. There is a case to be made that America will be strongest in 10 years if we continue a committment to a military presence to keep the Taliban out of power … and a case to be made that America will be strongest in 10 years if we withdraw as expeditiously as possible.
I still believe that it is the height of insanity to actively undermine the man who will be occupying the Oval Office for the next 3 years, at least, if you believe our continuing presence in Afghanistan is critical.
In any case, stop changing the subject. There is, quite obviously, no “attempt to poison the relationship” between anyone, least of all the relationship between the commander-in-chief and our troops.
Please – again, your takeaway from the speech was:
What is most objectionable in Obama’s Oslo speech, however, is its utter failure to credit the greatest peacemakers of our time: the men and women of the armed forces of the United States. Indeed, about their heroic sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan today, Obama had nothing to say. He was, as Will rightly observes, too busy talking about himself.
You blame the President for not crediting the troops. You then make the claim that he doesn’t recognize their sacrifices because he was “too busy talking about himself”.
If any soldier takes this critique to heart, will that not cause them to question the motives of their Commander in Chief … and by extension, to question the purpose and motives behind the call to sacrifice that the Commander in Chief is making on them?
Note that if you really believe that Obama is sending our troops into harms way in a wrong or futile cause, there is nothing unpatriotic in raising those questions.
But if you really believe that the cause is right and just, then once again, seeding division between the troops and their Commander in Chief at this time is some combination of insane and cynical.
John Guardiano // Dec 18, 2009 at 10:33 am
balconesfault,
I don’t know that you’ve ever been in a combat zone; I have. Let me assure you that no Soldier or Marine is going to slack off or not do his job because of substantive criticism of a presidential speech. Your argument is absurd.
Nor is any Soldier or Marine going to “question the purpose and motive behind the call to sacrifice that the Commander-in-Chief is making on them” because of substantive criticism of a presidential speech.
Our Soldiers and Marines are professionally trained and highly skilled warriors. They fight for the United States of America and for each other. They fight for the First Amendment right to free speech which you so foolishly deprecate.
I have absolutely no doubt — and neither should you nor anyone else — that our troops will fight well and hard regardless of how much or how little people substantively criticize a presidential speech.
Yes, there is nothing wrong with opposing the president’s decision to send additional troops to Afghanistan. Disagreement and dissent are legitimate and thoroughly American. No one objects to that.
What I and other conservatives do object to is this: The dissent of the anti-war Left typically extends far beyond reasonable disagreement. It oftentimes includes outright attempts to undermine our warriors abroad, and a transparent desire to see America lose so that we can get what the Left thinks is our comeuppance.
What I and other conservatives object to is the attempt by you and other Leftists to undermine the war effort, and your attempts sometimes to help facilitate an American defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In any case, if you really think that substantive criticism of a presidential speech is unwarranted, then I suggest you push our elected representatives to repeal or abridge the First Amendment during this time of war.
Good luck with that! See how far that gets you. Watch in amazement as all nine members of the Supreme Court unanimously strike down such a law – assuming that such a law ever passed, which, of course it would not.
Either that, balconesfault, or move to China or North Korea where you can live out your tyrannical dreams and desires. Of course, I don’t think that you’d be more happy there; but living abroad where a tyrannical regime calls the shots might make better appreciate the freedoms we Americans enjoy. I think it would serve as a good object lesson for you — a semester abroad!
Regards,
John
teabag // Dec 18, 2009 at 10:54 am
What I and other conservatives do object to is this: The dissent of the anti-war Left typically extends far beyond reasonable disagreement. It oftentimes includes outright attempts to undermine our warriors abroad, and a transparent desire to see America lose so that we can get what the Left thinks is our comeuppance.”
What do you think then Neocon John of the Republican vote to defund the troops? Let’s have your answer.
balconesfault // Dec 18, 2009 at 11:05 am
John – I appreciate your participation here.
I am insulted that you continue to allege that I am attacking anyone’s right to free speech. I think that this is kind of a projection thing … people on the right are so used to attacking the patriotism of anyone who criticized Bush, that they immediately conclude that anyone the left views any criticism of Obama as unpatriotic. That is not the case.
It oftentimes includes outright attempts to undermine our warriors abroad, and a transparent desire to see America lose so that we can get what the Left thinks is our comeuppance.
You, sir, are a demagogue of the worst kind, if this is your allegation.
But just to be clear … are you contending that criticism of the Commander in Chief cannot diminish the morale and effectiveness of our fighting forces abroad?
Given your experience, I am heartened by this confidence on your part. I will make sure to cite it in the future when I hear arguments that political arguments in the US are harming our forces in harms way.
teabag // Dec 18, 2009 at 11:19 am
balcon,
John the Neocon has gone completely off his rocker. Must be all the lobbyist money gone to his head.
His basic premise is.
I can say what I want about the President in a time of war, I can undermine him all I want.
On the other hand.
You as a pinko hippy liberal scum-bag cannot say anything about Bush’s war disasters because you suck and are an unpatriotic anti American douche bag.
Got it?
balconesfault // Dec 18, 2009 at 11:37 am
teabag – your language is a bit inflammatory – but the takeaway does seem to be:
Criticism of a Republican President during a time of war is an unpatriotic abuse of free speech rights, and undermines our troops
Criticism of a Democratic President during a time of war is a patriotic exercise of free speech rights, and will not affect our troops
teabag // Dec 18, 2009 at 12:03 pm
You got it in a nutshell.
jakester // Dec 18, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Why can’t we win this darn war? Why can’t we put our heads together and find the right mix of political and military savvy to do it? We toppled them the last time in a couple months. There are no superpowers using the Taliban as proxies.
There are tons of Afghani immigrants here and the ones I’ve met seem on the ball, even the women, Can’t we get the Afghani community to return to help? I doubt all but a few want some warlord Taliban like country.