Posted on 05/05/2007 4:37:05 PM PDT by Maelstorm
Barack Lieberman? Democratic Neocons
President Kennedy once described his gift for rhetoric as the ability to "mobilize the English language and send it into battle." In a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations Senator Barack Obama employed the same language of American value promotion that Kennedy used to inspire a generation to government service. His rejection of the "notion that the American moment has passed" along with belief that "America is the last, best hope of Earth," stands in stark contrast to the defeatism prevalent in the modern Democratic Party.
Obama's Monday night foreign policy speech is more than just clever language. He displays a commitment to moral principles and a serious foreign policy usually found in the halls of the American Enterprise Institute, or the pages of the Weekly Standard: promoting the American interest through a strong offensive military that, in conjunction with diplomatic, political and economic means, is used to remake foreign nations in a liberal democratic image.
Here are some of the main points of the Obama speech:
"We must lead by building a 21st century military [that] stays on the offense." Unlike empty platitudes about doubling the size of the Special Forces, Obama connects our need to "put boots on the ground" with his support for the "expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers...and 27,000 Marines." This also stands in contrast to the John Kerry Democrats who see police force, not military force, as the means to prosecute the Global War on Terror. Winning small wars, like Iraq, requires large armies not just high tech armies. Together with his call to increase the military's understanding of the Middle East, Obama demonstrates an understanding of how our military will actually be used in the 21st century.
"No President should ever hesitate to use force—unilaterally if necessary—to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened." Preventive war—military operations to protect against imminent threat—is on the table. Obama does suggest that we use the "full arsenal" of our power, including enhanced intelligence networks and more robust diplomatic efforts. But these efforts should "complement our military" not replace it. In the words of Charles Krauthammer, the mission defines our coalition, not the other way around.
"America must lead...by...securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction." The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to un-deterrable rogue states is generally regarded as the main 21st century security threat. Obama doesn't back down. He calls out Iran's "peaceful nuclear power" as bunk and states that we must "prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and work to eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program." While "aggressive diplomacy" is rightly the first order of business, "we must never take the military option off the table."
In a recent Foreign Affairs article Professor Drezner of Tufts' Fletcher School shows how the Bush Administration used executive power to "reconfigure U.S. foreign policy and international institutions in order to account for shifts in the global distribution of power. American interests are shifting geographically as new powers, such as India and China, displace old powers such as France and Germany. Obama shows a similar acuity when he calls on the U.S. "to build new alliances and relationship in other regions [like Asia] important to our interests in the 21st century."
Far from disdaining multilateralism, the Bush administration put outcome above process. The 2006 National Security Strategy says that "where existing institutions can be reformed to meet new challenges, we, along with our partners, must reform them. Where appropriate institutions do not exist, we, along with our partners, must create them." Obama uses similar words: "reform of [the United Nations, the World Bank, and other organizations] is urgently needed if they are to keep pace with the fast-moving threats we face." Taking a page from Paul Wolfowitz's efforts at the World Bank, he also insists that we must "couple our aid with an insistent call for [government] reform."
"[Terrorists] operate freely in the...disconnected corners of our interconnected world...[U]ngoverned states...have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror." Barack Obama shows deference to the Administration's belief that failed states run by dictatorial thugs breed terror. Only if we provide "dignity and opportunity" and help build the "pillars of a sustainable democracy" can we hope to have a long-term impact on international terrorism. To assist in nation-building, Obama suggests that we must pressure and reform NATO so it can "contribute troops to collective security operations...[and] reconstruction and stabilization."
The link between human rights and American security is also present. Obama notes that "the security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Militant ideology is a problem: "our children are threatened" when "religious schools in Pakistan teach hatred." This was made clear to the current Administration and the American people on 9/11 when the fundamentalist Taliban created fertile ground from which al-Qaeda could recruit and plan.
There were plenty of Democratic tropes. Global climate change is mentioned, and venom for the current administration and the War in Iraq is frequent. But issues like "oil addition" are mentioned not as environmental concerns but as a way to "weaken the hand of hostile dictators." Taken as a whole, and enacted with a willingness to pursue the American interest, Obama's speech shows an understanding—dare I say a conservative understanding—of America's foreign policy challenges. If nothing else it raises the hope that, as Professor Weinberg of Puget Sound reminds us, "candidate Obama may want to bring the boys home, but President Obama will see that decision in a different light."
Jacob Aronson is a research fellow at the World Without War Council and a research associate at the New Politics Institute.
Is Mitt Romney giving him council?
Yes, but which side is he on?
Actually JFK used the phrase to describe Winston Churchill, in a speech when Churchill was given honorary US citizenship. The phrase was originated by Edward R. Murrow in reference to Churchill.
I hope the rest of the article is more accurate.
I think Obama’s tack is going to be different. He can afford to Jettison the real loonytunes in the party and still win. It is a big chunk of the party but it would set him up to appeal to independents. Who are the radical left going to vote for if it is him against a conservative? Are they going to sit home like spoiled brats. Probably not. Hillary I think is going to try the same thing but she can’t win without the Democrat black vote nor can any of the other Democrat candidates.
Good catch! I only wish President Bush knew how to mobilize the english language and send it into battle.
He wants to keep that ambiguous. He is thinking long term to the general election.
For all your Churchill needs see THE CHURCHILL CENTRE
America needs someone to mobilize the english language so we can flee with our tail between our legs in the most elegant fashion. /sarc
You may be underestimating how whacked out these people are, I'm guessing many of them would stay home. What do you want to bet if you go over the the DU site they are just screaming about this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.