“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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

To the realist, peace represents a stable arrangement of power; to the idealist, a goal so pre-eminent that it conceals the difficulty of finding the means to its achievement. But in this age of thermonuclear technology, neither view can assure man’s preservation. Instead, peace, the ideal, must be practised. A sense of responsibility and accommodation must guide the behavior of all nations. Some common notion of justice can and must be found, for failure to do so will only bring more “just” wars.

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.”

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.