When reminding the cadets of why our domestic challenges were directly correlated with our ability to project power overseas, here I thought Obama was as his best even as I dissent from his domestic policies. His words accurately reflect the current national mood, are traditional themes in American foreign policy, and are mindful of the realities on the limits of force:
Simply put, American innovation must be the foundation of American power -- because at no time in human history has a nation of diminished economic vitality maintained its military and political primacy [emphasis added]. And so that means that the civilians among us, as parents and community leaders, elected officials, business leaders, we have a role to play. We cannot leave it to those in uniform to defend this country -- we have to make sure that America is building on its strengths. (Applause.)
As we build these economic sources of our strength, the second thing we must do is build and integrate the capabilities that can advance our interests, and the common interests of human beings around the world. America's armed forces are adapting to changing times, but your efforts have to be complemented. We will need the renewed engagement of our diplomats, from grand capitals to dangerous outposts. We need development experts who can support Afghan agriculture and help Africans build the capacity to feed themselves. We need intelligence agencies that work seamlessly with their counterparts to unravel plots that run from the mountains of Pakistan to the streets of our cities. We need law enforcement that can strengthen judicial systems abroad, and protect us here at home. And we need first responders who can act swiftly in the event of earthquakes and storms and disease.
The burdens of this century cannot fall on our soldiers alone. It also cannot fall on American shoulders alone. Our adversaries would like to see America sap its strength by overextending our power. And in the past, we've always had the foresight to avoid acting alone. We were part of the most powerful wartime coalition in human history through World War II. We stitched together a community of free nations and institutions to endure and ultimately prevail during a Cold War.
This latter paragraph is a direct repudiation of what many critics viewed as Bush's unilateralism. From here, the speech takes a twist in how Obama views Islamic terrorism:
So the threat will not go away soon, but let's be clear: Al Qaeda and its affiliates are small men on the wrong side of history. They lead no nation. They lead no religion. We need not give in to fear every time a terrorist tries to scare us. We should not discard our freedoms because extremists try to exploit them. We cannot succumb to division because others try to drive us apart. We are the United States of America. (Applause.) We are the United States of America, and we have repaired our union, and faced down fascism, and outlasted communism. We've gone through turmoil, we've gone through Civil War, and we have come out stronger -- and we will do so once more. (Applause.)
And I know this to be true because I see the strength and resilience of the American people. Terrorists want to scare us. New Yorkers just go about their lives unafraid. (Applause.) [emphasis added]. Extremists want a war between America and Islam, but Muslims are part of our national life, including those who serve in our United States Army. (Applause.) Adversaries want to divide us, but we are united by our support for you -- soldiers who send a clear message that this country is both the land of the free and the home of the brave. (Applause.)
Here, in the bold portion, the applause was at its most tepid, because Obama attempts to impart his our version of reality that is at odds with most Americans. First, he tries to disassociate Al Qaeda from Islam as a way to curry favor with the Muslim world, instead of starting a dialogue with them to speak honestly of these challenges within their culture. Second, New Yorkers DO care about and are quite sensitive to to terrorist attacks. Playing down Al Qaeda or Taliban attacks will not sap them of their zeal to attack Americans, as shown in numerous Al Qaeda attacks in the lead-up to 9-11. This is where I think Obama fundamentally gets America wrong, and ignores the historical impact of Pearl Harbor and the Cold War on the American psyche. While most Americans do not want the US engaged in perpetual or long-term wars, they expect justice when Americans are killed by terrorists, and not the kind of justice Obama and Holder would bring in a NYC trial of KSM. They view these attacks as acts of war, and want a strong display of American power in response.
The other problems with the Jeffersonian view as discussed by Walter Russell Mead, is that America during that time, was a free rider in a somewhat stable order due to Great Britain's hegemony. Additionally, Jeffersonians are often criticized as being too passive in the face of gathering threats. Moreover, the desire to recede and instead rely on continual cooperation can backfire:
A Jeffersonian policy of restraint and withdrawal requires cooperation from many other countries, but the prospect of a lower American profile may make others less, rather than more, willing to help the United States.
We see precisely this phenomenon happening now. Nations like Iran are exploiting this opportunity by becoming bolder in their defiance of the international community. In Obama's shoddy treatment of our allies and willingness to repeatedly extend open hands to our adversaries, many countries are concluding US leadership is weak, and are acting accordingly in their own interests without the US, as shown in the recent example of Brazil and Turkey overseeing a nuclear deal with Iran. While Obama acknowledges the shortcomings of the international community, nowhere in his speech does he state when it may be appropriate to unilaterally defend America's interests with force (Jefferson did act unilaterally in US interests, particularly during the Barbary raids). North Korea has calculated the US will probably do nothing, as it sank a South Korean ship. Although the options on the Korean peninsula are not particularly good for any US president, one wonders if they would have escalated their modus operandi of fomenting crises with a deliberate act of war during the Bush presidency.
Where Obama parts from Jefferson is what I've described in past blogs as the moral equivalence with which Obama treats America compared to other nations, or his belief in America's unexceptional nature. This reveling in our flaws undercuts our own rationale for international leadership. This was not evident in his speech; after all, he's addressing West Point cadets. But we see this again and again in his actions, as in his embrace of the Mexican President when he remarkably ignored the reality of the situation on our borders, pretending they did not exist, in a cheap political rebuke to the Arizona immigration enforcement law. Amazingly, his own State Department discussed the Arizona immigration law in the context of human right violations with China of all nations. While Obama's policy is realistic in its assessment of the need to rebuild the American economy, regular weaknesses of a Jeffersonian foreign policy are accentuated by his beliefs in moral equivalence and naturally, multiculturalism. This undermines traditional Jeffersonian views further by leading to unrealistic assessments on the nature of threats that surround us, as evidenced by Holder's refusal to answer whether Islamic fundamentalism is even a factor in any recent terrorist attacks. This denial of cultural greatness is the biggest weakness in Obama's foreign policy. Other nations get a vote--sooner or later, a nation or terrorist group, sensing this weakness in his continued narrative of America's flaws, is going to throw down the gauntlet, and it remains to be seen what Obama will do when that moment arrives. North Korean, Iranian, and Pakistani Taliban actions to date are just a start--the challenges will grow bolder. One wonders if stronger action beforehand, or a policy predicated on preserving and promoting America's greatness, could have prevented those challenges from arising in the first place.
No comments:
Post a Comment