Published for Contentious on commentarymagazine.com, September 2nd, 2010:
As the Obama presidency and the Democratic Party continue their journey into the Slough of Despond, it’s interesting to watch Obama’ supporters try to process the unfolding events.
Some blame it on a failure to communicate. E.J. Dionne, Jr., for example, ascribes the Democrats’ problems to the fact that Obama “has chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all his achievements together.” Joe Klein offers this explanation: “If Obama is not reelected, it will be because he comes across as disdaining what he does for a living.” And John Judis points to the Obama administration’s “aversion to populism.”
Others are aiming their sound and fury at the American people. According to Maureen Dowd, “Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America — a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.” Jonathan Alter argues that the American people “aren’t rationally aligning belief and action; they’re tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences.” And Slate’s Jacob Weisberg has written that “the biggest culprit in our current predicament” is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.”
Published for The Wall Street Journal, September 2nd, 2010:
A dangerous world needs stronger U.S. leadership.
At times Tuesday night, it sounded as if President Barack Obama didn’t know what kind of speech he wanted to give. Was it a foreign policy address aimed at assuring a world-wide audience of America’s resolve in the war against militant Islam? Or was it an election stump speech to confirm to voters that the economy is job No. 1 for this president and his party?
The speech’s best moments were those praising the commitment, courage and sacrifice of America’s military. The president powerfully said that “our troops are the steel in our ship of state,” and all who serve join “an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar.”
For someone who had been such a vocal war opponent, he was generous in acknowledging what our troops accomplished—defeating “a regime that had terrorized its people” and helping “Iraq seize the chance for a better future.” Because of our troops, he said, “Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.”
As a foreign policy address, however, the speech missed the mark. While Mr. Obama did acknowledge that the U.S. “intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership” in the world, most foreign observers will probably remember the president’s tone of haste, withdrawal and even retreat. His phrase, “It is time to turn the page,” caught many an ear around the world—and not to America’s advantage.
Watch the full episode. See more Nightly Business Report.
Published for The Enterprise Blog, September 1st, 2010:
The speech last night had the feel of a mini-State of the Union address, and not a good one at that. The president talked not only about Iraq and Afghanistan, but also Middle East peace, education, energy, jobs, competitiveness, manufacturing, and veterans policy. It is hard to effectively cover all those topics in an hour-long State of the Union address; it is virtually impossible to do so in a 18-minute address to the nation.
The pivot to the economy was not only awkward, but revealing. President Obama rarely talks about the war on terror. This is an abdication of one of his principal responsibilities as commander in chief—to explain our mission, lay out the stakes, and rally the country to victory. When he finally takes a moment to meet that responsibility and deliver a high-profile address on the war, he cannot resist the temptation to turn it into a speech about his domestic agenda.
The president said that addressing his domestic priorities “must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as president.” In fact, his “central responsibility as president” is to defend the country. And his failure to recognize this points to a central difference between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. After the attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush saw that his highest responsibility was to prevent another attack on our country—by defeating the terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other fronts in the war on terror, and by defeating their hateful ideology by advancing the hopeful alternative of human freedom. President Obama does not see any of this as the central mission of his presidency. His central mission is to transform America—and the war on terror is a burden and a distraction from that mission.
Published for Contentious on commentarymagazine.com, September 1st, 2010:
1. The most Obama could say about George W. Bush is that “no one could doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security.” That’s correct; no once could doubt it, which is why there was no need to say it.
The real issue was whether Obama would praise Bush for the surge — one of the most courageous and wise presidential decisions in the modern era and one Bush pushed through over fierce, widespread opposition, including from Obama and his vice president, Joe Biden. But for Obama to praise Bush for the surge would be to admit his own massive error in judgment in opposing it — and a man of Obama’s vanity could not bring himself to do that. So Obama could only say that Bush was well-intentioned rather than right.
As for his own record on Iraq, the Obama administration is now trying to corrupt the historical record, with press secretary Robert Gibbs making assertions that are not only wrong but the opposite of the truth.
2. On Iraq, Obama did say that while our combat mission is ending, “our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.” But you could be forgiven for believing, amid all the talk of page-turning and missions ended and over, that Obama has detached himself from a war he opposed and wants to have nothing more to do with it. He clearly considers it a distraction from his larger ambitions to transform America here at home.
Published for Shadow Government on foreignpolicy.com, August 31st, 2010:
How did Obama do in his Iraq speech on those Four Essential Items I was tracking? Better than I feared, but not as well as I hoped.
Gimmickry vs. Candor? He did not say “mission accomplished” but he did say mission completed and responsibility met (specifically: “The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given.” and “we have met our responsibility”). The emphasis is all on what has been done and not on what still needs to be done. If what remains to be done is light and easy, the speech is strong enough to sustain it. But the speech did not prepare Americans for any hard and dangerous tasks to come in Iraq.
The gestures towards reality — “Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission” — felt like nothing more than gestures. And the breezy confidence — “But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets.” – seemed disconnected from the real challenges still confronting the Iraqi people, and therefore the United States.
Defining the mission going forward? The way forward seemed dotted with hopes and aspirations — a vague commitment to “support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world” — rather than with hard-headed strategies for achieving realistic goals. He also doubled down on the promise that all U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by the end of the year, leaving no flexibility for responding to the expected Iraqi request for a post-2011 American presence.
