Obama's Foreign Policy Speech

Full text here.

The "vision thing" is what Obama's good at, and I think it's on display here. An appealing vision of American leadership embedded in an interconnected, fundamentally cooperative world. I think he does a good job of putting the terrorism issue in the appropriate context, as a serious problem on a par with several other serious problems rather than the organizing principle of everything we do in the world. He's also very strong on nuclear non-proliferation, which happens to be the most important issue. The section on when to use force is fuzzy, and manages to not distinguish Obama's view from things Edwards or Clinton could also espouse. There are a couple of head-nods in the direction of indicating that Obama understands the central role the Israeli-Palestinian conflict plays in the mess that is the broader Middle East, which is great if I'm reading the head-nods correctly.

Comments

[snore, snore]

I actually made it through his whole speech, reading. Lofty rhetoric? not so much (and it needed some of that). Solid proposals: like jello. He did OK unilateral war by the US, but didn't mention if they would be pre-emptive.

Maybe the problem is that the speech was touted by his team as being 'major'. I'm not sure what I expected, but surely more than I received. This had all the hallmarks of a committee written effort that was trying to be very careful - which isn't bad in itself, but highlights his newbieness.

I don't want to be seen as picking on Barak, since Clinton and Edwards probably will repeat the general tenor. But as a counter to the wild claims of the neocon, imperial US folks with their promises of victory over evil, it certainy wasn't a rallying cry for another approach.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | April 23, 2007 6:35 PM

1. Mr. Yglesias is all for non-proliferation of nuclear weapons except in the case of Iran.

2. Settling the Israeli/Palestinian problem will have little effect on the internal disputes within the Moslem world vis secularism vs Islamic fundamentalism, and Shiites vs Sunnis. The attached link provides a down the middle analysis of the situation. Although I am not in agreement with much of the analysis therein, it seems like a pretty good sum up of the issues involved.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20176

Posted by SLC | April 23, 2007 6:41 PM

Umm. Barack Obama just committed us to a war with Russia, threatened a ground war in China, and anticipated turning India into an enemy.

Obama just unilaterally recognized the secession and independence of one of Russia's constituent territories in which Russia is currently suppressing a revolt:

"A recent report detailed Al Qaeda’s progress in recruiting a new generation of leaders to replace the ones we have captured or killed. The new recruits come from a broader range of COUNTRIES than the old leadership – from Afghanistan to CHECHNYA, from Britain to Germany, from Algeria to Pakistan."

To say the least, this may be a problem. It'd be rather like officially recognizing Taiwanese independence, only worse since Taiwan has de facto American secured independence, and Chechnya does not.

He also seems startlingly ignorant of the dynamics of a possible Sino-American war, and wants to turn India from ally to enemy;

“A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women’s ability to succeed in today’s complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi,
Urdu, or Korean. “

Arabic, Urdu, Korean. Fine.

Mandarin. As Obama correctly notes, languages are useful in a ground war on territory that speaks said language. A war with China would be fought by sea and air to protect Taiwan. Unless Obama plans to invade mainland China.

But that isn’t the most disturbing part: Hindi!? Does Obama forsee a war with India? Does he think that will happen? If so, we deserve to be told why he wants to turn a great power ally into a great power enemy. It seems that the world’s second largest country is relatively important.

Posted by JD Andrews | April 23, 2007 7:23 PM

Barack Obama just committed us to a war with Russia, threatened a ground war in China, and anticipated turning India into an enemy.

Classic! One of the best comments ever.

Posted by Steve | April 23, 2007 7:27 PM

lol @ JD Andrews.

I'm curious what additional specifics you (as in various people) would have liked to have seen in the speech. I agree with JimPortlandOR that Obama was being very careful.

Posted by Korha | April 23, 2007 8:03 PM

we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.

It's a measure of how fucking awful the Bush administration has been that a statement like that, which should go without saying, comes as a breath of fresh air.

Honestly, I'm impressed. I'm not terribly pre-disposed to like Obama, but he hit a lot of the right notes. Sounded a bit Reganesque, ironically.

Posted by TW Andrews | April 23, 2007 8:55 PM

So do we not need more Hindi speakers? It is true that there are more al-Qaeda members coming now from places like Kashmir (both Jammu & Kashmir and Azad Kashmir). I wouldn't be surprised if some Chechen (but probably a small minority of the ones involved in armed conflict) are making the jump from focusing on Chechen independence to more international issues. Recognizing this is not committing ourselves to war. You put up the full quote, "Afghanistan to CHECHNYA, from Britain to Germany, from Algeria to Pakistan," yet you don't think he plans on invading Britain and Germany, yet you think we wants us to invade Russia. You also mention, "Arabic, Urdu, Korean. Fine." However, spoken Urdu and spoken Hindi are extrememely similar to the point that native speakers confuse them (the written language and classical poetry differ more). In fact, schools like Columbia teach Hindi and Urdu in the same classes. In Uttar Pradesh, one of India's biggest provinces, the "main" language is Urdu. We need Hindi, Korean and Mandarin speakers to be able to understand India, Korea and China better than we already do? Should we stick with current levels? You seem to be putting a weird spin on his speech unless I'm missing the fact that your comment was a joke or sarcasm.

Posted by Reality Man | April 23, 2007 9:16 PM

I'm pretty sure it was a joke... at least I hope so.

Posted by Korha | April 23, 2007 9:24 PM

Reality Man: JD Andrews can speak for himself, but he has a point that despite trying to be cautious Obama managed to make some (small) mistakes that indicate inexperience. The Chechnya-as-a-country thing would certainly be noticed unfavorably if he'd said it in the presence of Russian diplomats. Knowing Mandarin and Hindi is great, as is knowing any other language, but singling them out as something our troops need for the same reason they need Arabic today could cause some people to take offense. Overly sensitive people, but then there's a lot of them out there. Of course our current guys in charge do much worse on a daily basis, nevertheless, Obama still needs practice.

Posted by eeyn524 | April 23, 2007 10:15 PM

Barik "fresh face" Obama: apparently not such a fresh face after all. How 'Merica is supposed to have generous old age entitlements, low middle class taxes, and military spending many times more than any other country on earth in the context of an aging population, let alone all of these things plus universal health care and *increased* military spending is beyond my understanding.

Posted by Linus | April 23, 2007 10:19 PM

Very true, eeyn524. I would have expected Power to know to separate these things better with some filler. I expect, however, that the Chinese government would realize it was just poor word choice, much like how they noticed but didn't utter a peep when Rumsfeld accidentally used language that made it sound like the US considered Taiwan a sovereign nation. Nobody made any movement to change policy, so nobody made a big deal about it. This isn't exactly "Bomb Iran"-land. However, what you wrote is also not what JD Andrews wrote and makes a lot more sense.

Posted by Reality Man | April 23, 2007 10:23 PM

"Barik "fresh face" Obama: apparently not such a fresh face after all. How 'Merica is supposed to have generous old age entitlements, low middle class taxes, and military spending many times more than any other country on earth in the context of an aging population, let alone all of these things plus universal health care and *increased* military spending is beyond my understanding.
Posted by: Linus on April 23, 2007 10:19 PM"

Well, for one thing, the rich can always be taxed more than they are (ranging from income to estate taxes, the latter of which the large majority of the top 1% actually support). The aging population issue can be dealt with with immigration, which will likely continue under just about any president we have a realistic chance of having (more immigrants in general = younger average population and the fact that a lot of immigrants who work here pay taxes here but leave before receiving social security benefits to go back hom means we also get their labor and their tax dollars and don't give them social security in return). We already spend more on healthcare than industrialized nations with universal healthcare, so it would probably end up costing us less money overall. As for military spending, I would personally like to see Obama say we need to stop spending money on military pork for new naval equipment we won't realistically need and say he is going to cut stuff, but that is the only part of your critique, Linus that 1) doesn't have an obvious answer 2) is related to foreign policy and thus 3) would be relevant to this speech.

Posted by Reality Man | April 23, 2007 10:30 PM

I thought his foreign policy speech was very good. I think he answers the critics who try to paint him as light on substance or foreign policy understanding.
I don't know how, since Senator Obama is obviously an intellectual and thoughtful man of great depth who penned his own books, that he is a lightweight and without substance.
I do hope the msm takes notice that he is more than a flash and a real force. And I do hope those who underestimate Senator Obama, those who support someone else, at least give the nod that he did a good job with this.

Posted by vwcat | April 24, 2007 1:04 AM

JDAndrews rightly uses Obama's gaffes to show how tone-deaf Americans have become when it comes to the subtle business of diplomacy. Although he exagerrates for effect, he is right when he suggests that had these words been spoken by President Obama they would have raised at least one diplomatic sh*tstorm with Russia, as well as inviting well-deserved frosty questions to the US ambassadors in Beijing and New Delhi. When are Americans going to learns that every country in the world has as its implicit motto "Don't tread on me", and that influence should always be exercised with the greatest care. 'Diplomacy' has acquired its overtones of careful and delicate speech for a reason, and it would be appropriate for a leading candidate to get into practice early.

Posted by JohnTh | April 24, 2007 4:29 AM

He's also very strong on nuclear non-proliferation, which happens to be the most important issue.

Talk about the low hanging fruit, homages to nulcear non-proliferation are obligatory for everyone from BrownbacK to Kucinich. It shows that you are "serious." I think the lack of clarifaction of use of force, though that may be coming, and his pledge to leave troops in Iraq to fight "al-qaeda terrorists" are more note worthy aspects of the speech

Posted by AJ | April 24, 2007 10:27 AM

Soaring rhetoric? Light on substance? Not ready for prime-time? YES! YES! YES!

Posted by JoeCHI | April 24, 2007 1:17 PM

Pretty good stuff. I especially like this line: I believed then, and believe now, that [the Iraq war/GWOT] was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies – a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset.

For all their supposed dynamism and snazz, the neocon geniuses are really just mediocre - generally too stupid to apprehend the world in other than a cold war mindset. Reflexive thought is stupid thought. Or not-thought.

Posted by jonnybutter | April 24, 2007 2:45 PM