Obama's Oslo triumph

Posted By John Hannah Thursday, December 10, 2009 - 10:14 PM Share

Last week, I wrote that perhaps the best part of President Obama's West Point speech was his robust recitation -- for the first time in his presidency -- of America's unparalleled contributions to global peace and security. In part it was so welcome because it was so unexpected. In most of his major addresses throughout his first 10 months in office, the president had fallen into the unfortunate habit of appearing before foreign audiences and dwelling excessively on his own country's faults and transgressions -- a style that, while sure to win him plaudits from the likes of those deciding the Nobel Peace Prize, was unlikely to prove particularly productive in advancing concrete American interests around the world. In my comments after the West Point address, I'd urged the president to take his newfound appreciation for American exceptionalism and make it a centerpiece of his riff at Oslo.

Well, that's just what he did. I thought the president's sober defense of the essential role of force and military power -- and specifically American military power -- in maintaining global order against the predations of those who would destroy it was extremely important. It was important most of all because it's the truth, perhaps the central truth of international affairs for the last 60-odd years. It was important because it was this particular president saying it, who at times has seemed more focused on currying favor with the world's pacifist left than on fully embracing his role as America's commander-in-chief at a time when our forces are engaged in two major wars and the threat of a nuclear-armed Islamist tyranny looms ever closer on the horizon. And it was important because these hard truths were spoken to an audience of European elites who, as the president bluntly said, have increasingly come to question whether any cause at all is worth fighting for, and whose reflexive anti-Americanism has grown increasingly strident.

There were things here and there to quibble with in this speech, both stylistically and substantively.  But at its core, what really mattered -- and what I think people will remember about the address -- is that President Barack Obama went before an international audience for the first time in his young presidency and, rather than giving them what they wanted to hear, told them what they needed to hear about the enduring indispensability of American power and principle in a deeply troubled and flawed world. That's a potentially important -- and welcome -- evolution in the Obama presidency, one that could have real significance for U.S. national security going forward.

JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images

 

GOEDEL

2:10 AM ET

December 11, 2009

"A deeply troubled and flawed world", Hannah wrote.

And Mr Hannah is correct. What he seems not to realize is the contribution to the trouble and the flaws caused by American exceptionalism and its promotion of military force and subterfuge since the end of WWII. The conflicts with the Soviet Union during most of that period were confronted by us in some wise policies, the Marshall Plan, for example, but most of our responses to Soviet power did not reflect well on us as a supposedly democratic and peaceful nation. We toppled legitimate governments, installed military dictatorships, police states that took the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. We engaged in murderous warfare in southeast Asia, killing well over a million Asians, as well as tens of thousands of our own youth. We set the present stage in our relations with Russia, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. In our own hemisphere, our behavior has been no better and no wiser. Yes, Mr Hannah, you are right about our world. You simply are blind to our great contribution to its trouble and flaws - to say the least.

 

SAINTSIMON

1:38 PM ET

December 11, 2009

Conservatives have adopted

Conservatives have adopted Obama's Nobel speech as if it came from one of their own - Max Boot has called it a masterpiece - I can't agree, even though it was well crafted [aside from some cloying wobbles into sentimentality, but I suppose you have to appease public tastes with these things], generally free from his usual nebulous idealist effusions and presented a view of American foreign policy that was distinctly moderate and reasonable and unburdened by liberal guilt, realistic if you will. Nevertheless, I can't share an optimism that wants to believe that the speech represents Obama moderating his liberal ideology, of him growing into the presidency, as I think Boot put it - it could be that, sure, it could also be him throwing red meat to conservatives before heading off to Copenhagen to sell the country down the global warming river - in short, another political calculation - in fact, from what so far has been revealed about Obama and his inner circle and their way of governing, I'd say that without supporting evidence it'd be naive to think the speech anything other than a political calculation - after all, as I've said before, having made the dubious choice to accept the honour what option did he have but to give a speech similar to this? But what if he doesn't actually believe in the rhetoric? What if subsequent actions do not adequately reflect the hard edged realist tone of it? In a wider context then, outside of its political utility, doesn't the speech end up doing more harm than good if it's only intention was to be a clever speech that conservatives would embrace?

I don't wanna be the constant cynic here [well, I do, actually] but my tendency is to think it very unwise to read too much into the speech. I freely grant that it may represent Obama's world view maturing under the weight of his responsibilities - but my instincts tell me otherwise.

 

JARCHER

7:22 PM ET

December 11, 2009

Weighted Pragmatism... of little value to domestic politics

@saintsimon

Please be very careful with your definitions; a liberal domestic policy is very different from a liberal foreign policy. In fact, the policy outlined by Obama the candidate was decidedly more realist than that of his predecessor, Bush fils. (Not to digress too much, I'll summarize that the Bush policy was quite often riddled with discussions of "freedom from tyranny"--security through the spread of friendly ideologies, i.e. democracy. In contrast, Obama's withdrawal from the region showed a greater awareness of the security dilemma confronting the United States, and placed considerably less emphasis on the spread of democracy emphasized by neoliberal world views.)

By my analysis, the Nobel acceptance speech was not indicative of a grand evolution of Obama's foreign policy, but rather a comprehensive summary of the policies he's outlined since his candidacy. In terms of domestic politics, this won't be easily digested by the further left of Obama's supporters, who see the world in terms of absolutes. (War=bad, Peace=good). Meanwhile, his detractors on the right will look past the nuance, pick up on words like "evil", and misinterpret Obama's words as those of a hawk.

As someone in the middle, I saw in the President's words a balance of pragmatism and resolve that I think, to echo John's words, will have significant influence on this administration's security doctrine.

 

MKP

3:10 AM ET

January 27, 2010

Obama is a great leader with

Obama is a great leader with a vision. He would lead America in the right direction. When you are sure that you have some things that are to be made right then we would work for that. In the case with Obama is has found out the fault that exist with his country. Now that would make him much easier to rectify it. We can see that with the proper uses of the economic tools for Business Process Automation in the country, The President is adopting more economic strings to banks and other financial institution which is the need of the hour. As the author has pointed out it would not be good for a President like him to always highlight the negative points of his own country. Precision Machining and with the use of proper economic strings he would be able to take back his country into glory. Mathew of Superbowl Ticket

 

Shadow Government is a blog about U.S. foreign policy under the Obama administration, written by experienced policy makers from the loyal opposition and curated by Peter D. Feaver and William Inboden.

Read More