Some here, and some on the cable channels are lamenting the lack of specifics in President Obama's speech tonight about the catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico. Some are decrying the missed opportunity to summon the Nation to the challenge, as FDR and JFK did. A close examination of the speeches strongly suggests that President Obama is following closely in the footsteps of those two of his predecessors.
A review of diaries and comments here tonight indicates that many people are unhappy with a lack of specific in President Obama's address from the Oval Office on the catastrophe that has occurred at the Macondo Prospect oil well in the Gulf of Mexico. Some people lament that President Obama missed his chance to channel FDR, or JFK, or maybe both at once. Lack of specifics, they cry. He should have demanded passage of cap-and-trade. He should have demanded adequate protective gear for the crews cleaning up the fouled shoreline. He should have told us how he is going to make BP pay. Etc., etc., etc.
I respectfully suggest that people making these criticism take a look at the historical record. After doing so, they may want to rethink their criticisms.
Early on the morning (local time) of 7 December 1941, two strike waves from the aircraft carriers Akagi, Kaga, Sōryū, Hiryū, Shōkaku, and Zuikaku of the Imperial Japanese Navy attacked vessels of the U.S. Pacific Fleet as they lay at anchorage in Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Ninety minutes after it began, the attack was over. Almost 2,400 Americans had died, a further 1,139 had been wounded. Eighteen ships had been sunk or run aground, including five battleships.
The day after, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed a Joint Session of Congress... his famous Day of Infamy speech.
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 -- a date which will live in infamy -- the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
The United States was at peace with that Nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with its Government and its Emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific. Indeed, one hour after Japanese air squadrons had commenced bombing in Oahu, the Japanese Ambassador to the United States and his colleague delivered to the Secretary of State of form reply to a recent American message. While this reply stated that it seemed useless to continue the existing diplomatic negotiations, it contained no threat or hint of war or armed attack.
It will be recorded that the distance of Hawaii from Japan makes it obvious that the attack was deliberately planned many days or even weeks ago. During the intervening time the Japanese Government had deliberately sought to deceive the United States by false statements and expressions of hope for continued peace.
The attack yesterday on the Hawaiian Islands has caused severe damage to American naval and military forces. Very many American lives have been lost. In addition American ships have been reported torpedoed on the high seas between San Francisco and Honolulu.
Yesterday the Japanese Government also launched an attack against Malaya.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Hong Kong.
Last night Japanese forces attacked Guam.
Last night Japanese forces attacked the Philippine Islands.
Last night the Japanese attacked Midway Island.
Japan has, therefore, undertaken a surprise offensive extending throughout the Pacific area. The facts of yesterday speak for themselves. The people of the United States have already formed their opinions and well understand the implications to the very life and safety of our Nation.
As Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy I have directed that all measures be taken for our defense.
Always will we remember the character of the onslaught against us.
No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.
I believe I interpret the will of the Congress and of the people when I assert that we will not only defend ourselves to the uttermost but will make very certain that this form of treachery shall never endanger us again.
Hostilities exist. There is no blinking at the fact that our people, our territory, and our interests are in grave danger.
With confidence in our armed forces -- with the unbounded determination of our people -- we will gain the inevitable triumph -- so help us God.
I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December seventh, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese Empire.
Three days later, Germany and Italy declared war on the United States. The United States reciprocally declared war on the two of them.
In President Roosevelt's speech, he did not discuss whether the United States should engage in an island-hopping strategy as opposed to a full frontal assault, or whether we should concentrate on clearing the Japanese out of China and the Korean Peninsula and Taiwan before attacking the Japanese home islands. Nor did he talk about whether we should bring Japan to its knees through the use of aerial bombardment, versus invading the Home Islands. Nor did he discuss whether we should declare war on Germany, or wait for Germany to declare war on us, and if we entered the European conflict, whether to focus attention on defeating Germany before defeating Japan.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§
On 25 May 1961, in response to the Soviet feat of launching a cosmonaut into space less than six weeks earlier, President Kennedy proposed that we, as a nation, adopt the goal of putting a Man on the Moon by the close of the decade.
The relevant portion of his speech was:
SPECIAL MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS ON URGENT NATIONAL NEEDS
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, my co-partners in Government, gentlemen and ladies:
The Constitution imposes upon me the obligation to "from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union." While this has traditionally been interpreted as an annual affair, this tradition has been broken in extraordinary times.
These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength as well as our convictions have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause. No role in history could be more difficult or more important. We stand for freedom. That is our conviction for ourselves-that is our only commitment to others. No friend, no neutral and no adversary should think otherwise. We are not against any man-or any nation-or any system-except as it is hostile to freedom. Nor am I here to present a new military doctrine, bearing any one name or aimed at any one area. I am here to promote the freedom doctrine. ...
IX. Space
Finally, if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. Since early in my term, our efforts in space have been under review. With the advice of the Vice President, who is Chairman of the National Space Council, we have examined where we are strong and where we are not, where we may succeed and where we may not. Now it is time to take longer strides-time for a great new American enterprise-time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on earth.
I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.
Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own. For while we cannot guarantee that we shall one day be first, we can guarantee that any failure to make this effort will make us last. We take an additional risk by making it in full view of the world, but as shown by the feat of astronaut Shepard, this very risk enhances our stature when we are successful. But this is not merely a race. Space is open to us now; and our eagerness to share its meaning is not governed by the efforts of others. We go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share.
I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals:
First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate lunar space craft. We propose to develop alternate liquid and solid fuel boosters, much larger than any now being developed, until certain which is superior.
We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations -- explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon-if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.
Secondly, an additional 23 million dollars, together with 7 million dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Rover nuclear rocket. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond the moon, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself.
Third, an additional 50 million dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for world-wide communications.
Fourth, an additional 75 million dollars-of which 53 million dollars is for the Weather Bureau-will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for world-wide weather observation.
Let it be clear-and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make-let if be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action-a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62 -- an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.
Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully.
It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last four years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space.
I believe we should go to the moon. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year.
This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, materiel and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel.
New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further-unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space.
In that speech, President Kennedy dealt mainly with the general goal, and not with many of the specifics. One of the specifics that he did mention, the Rover nuclear rocket, went nowhere.
JFK did not talk about whether we should accomplish the Moon Mission by:
-- a direct ascent from the surface of the Earth to the surface of the Moon (the fastest way, but requiring the most powerful and heaviest rocket); or
-- an Earth Orbit Rendezvous mission, which would have required at least two launches from Earth, with assembly of a direct-descent lunar vehicle in Earth orbit; or
-- a Lunar Orbit Rendezvous mission, which would have required one Earth launch, but a smaller lunar lander detaching from and hooking up again with a larger vehicle in lunar orbit.
(The latter was the method ultimately chosen.)
No, in his speech, the President set forth a broad goal, whose implementation would be developed by the engineering profession, and he sought a national consensus about that goal. For by himself, the President lacked the power to put a Man on the Moon... either by the end of the decade, or the end of the century, or the end of the milenium.
§§§§§§§§§§§§§
I respectfully suggest that those criticising President Obama for his speech tonight as coming up short when measured against FDR or JFK are looking at history through rose-colored spectacles, and that an actual comparison of what each of the Presidents said on the three occasions reveals much less disparity in approach than the critics are braying about.
The goal here is no less challenging than the defeat of the Axis Powers or landing a Man on the Moon. In many ways -- most importantly politically -- those were far less challenging. Although there was a strong Isolationist faction in the U.S. prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, by the morning of 8 December, it had vanished like the morning dew. There was no serious political opposition to entering the war by that time. Few vested interests would be harmed by declaring war on Japan. Similarly, there was no strong Anti-Moon-Mission faction in the U.S. Congress in 1961. The Space Race was on, and we did not want the Soviets to win it.
Changing the energy-consumption methods of this country is both technology and logistically as challenging as either of those endeavours, if not more so, Breaking free of our dependence on petroleum will take broad cooperation from many sectors, and there are powerful vested interests that like things just the way that they are. Those vested interests, and their allies in Congress, are very likely to be more obstinate than the Isolationists were in the earlier days of 1941.