Is Obama a Realist, Isolationist, Humanitarian Interventionist, or Drone-Dropping Hawk?
—By David Corn | Wed May 28, 2014 11:39 AM EDT
http://www.motherjones.com/...
The answer is yes. But he gives
great speech.
Since the end of the Cold War, foreign policy has become much more challenging. In a post-bipolar world where nonstate actors pose real threats and disrupters (good and bad) are everywhere, the issues are knottier and unforeseen developments often yield difficult options. In the aftermath of 9/11, George W. Bush chose not to come to terms with this fundamental change. Instead, he opted for a blunderbuss policy dominated by a misguided invasion of Iraq. President Barack Obama inherited a helluva cleanup job.
I read that as a couple of obvious truths being chased by an obligatory jab at Jr finished off by the standard apology. Is it just me?
My personal SWAG (subjective wild assed guess) is that Bush tends to get too much credit and Obama not enough.
"George W. Bush chose" or "George W. Bush chose not to", in this writers humble opinion, wildly overstates the case. George Junior, like Ronnie Raygun, was hired to be the CEO, the front man, the public face of the corporation who just needs to be confident and photogenic to reassure the investors. All Junior had to do was get his picture taken, deliver the approved message to the carefully vetted reporters and play golf with the other CEOs. Which he did fairly well, except when he tried to read his lines or when he tried to ad-lib. Talking well he not so good with. There would invariably, eventually come that moment when the presidential smirk of total confidence in his own infallibility would give way to that blank, deer-in-the-headlights look of complete befuddlement and you would realize you were looking into the eyes of the President of the United States of America, the symbol of western democracy, the leader of the free world, the most powerful man in the history of forever and there was just nobody home. More than a little chilling.
And then there came Obama. He is so much better at what Bush was supposed to do that it is almost embarrassing. Like having your daughter's baseball team run up a 27 to 0 score. He is so good at selling the message and selling himself and his vision that our expectations were raised to an unattainable level and when Democrats talk about him now it is almost always accompanied by (if not solely consisting of) an apology. As in "President Barack Obama inherited a helluva cleanup job." Which has the benefit of being perfectly true, but not the whole story by any means. Here's another obvious truth: History will judge.
But whatever history decides about the credit and/or blame that attaches to his presidency, he
does give one hell of a speech:
And as he had handled the details—such as winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—he has had tried to articulate an overall strategy. His latest stab at this was the speech he delivered to West Point graduates this morning.
Early in the address, Obama noted, "you are the first class to graduate since 9/11 who may not be sent into combat in Iraq or Afghanistan." The young men and women before him cheered. It was a poignant moment.
(Emphasis added.)
Whoever the "real" Barack Obama turns out to be, I think these were the exact words that needed to be said to this graduating class.
[S]ince George Washington served as commander in chief, there have been those who warned against foreign entanglements that do not touch directly on our security or economic well-being. Today, according to self-described realists, conflicts in Syria or Ukraine or the Central African Republic are not ours to solve. Not surprisingly, after costly wars and continuing challenges at home, that view is shared by many Americans.
A different view, from interventionists on the left and right, says we ignore these conflicts at our own peril; that America's willingness to apply force around the world is the ultimate safeguard against chaos, and America's failure to act in the face of Syrian brutality or Russian provocations not only violates our conscience, but invites escalating aggression in the future.
Each side can point to history to support its claims. But I believe neither view fully speaks to the demands of this moment. It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option. If nuclear materials are not secure, that could pose a danger in American cities. As the Syrian civil war spills across borders, the capacity of battle-hardened groups to come after us increases. Regional aggression that goes unchecked—in southern Ukraine, the South China Sea, or anywhere else in the world—will ultimately impact our allies, and could draw in our military.
Beyond these narrow rationales, I believe we have a real stake—an abiding self-interest—in making sure our children grow up in a world where schoolgirls are not kidnapped, where individuals aren't slaughtered because of tribe or faith or political beliefs. I believe that a world of greater freedom and tolerance is not only a moral imperative—it also helps keep us safe.
But to say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution. Since World War II, some of our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint, but from our willingness to rush into military adventures—without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, or leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required. Tough talk draws headlines, but war rarely conforms to slogans. As General Eisenhower, someone with hard-earned knowledge on this subject, said at this ceremony in 1947: "War is mankind's most tragic and stupid folly; to seek or advise its deliberate provocation is a black crime against all men."
I hope they were listening.