Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Fred Kaplan: Obama Lays Siege to His Critics
Obama Lays Siege to His Critics
At West Point, President Obama defends a foreign policy vision based on more than U.S. military might.
By Fred Kaplan
Fred Kaplan is the author of The Insurgents and the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
President Obama arrives at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, to deliver the commencement address to the 2014 graduating class on May 28, 2014. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
President Obama’s speech at West Point on Wednesday morning could be called a tribute to common sense, except that the sense it made is so uncommon. The ensuing cable pundits’ complaints—that it was insufficiently “muscular” or “robust”—only proved how necessary this speech was.
Obama’s point was not (contrary to some commentators’ claims) to draw a “middle-of-the-road” line between isolationism and unilateralism. That’s a line so broad almost anyone could walk it.
The president’s main point was to emphasize that not every problem has a military solution; that the proper measure of strength and leadership is not merely the eagerness to deploy military power; that, in fact, America’s costliest mistakes have stemmed not from restraint but from rushing to armed adventures “without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.”
He drew one other distinction. On the one hand, there are “core interests”—direct threats to America and its allies—that we would absolutely defend with military force, “unilaterally if necessary.” On the other hand, there are crises that may “stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction” but don’t threaten our core interests. In those cases, “the threshold for military action must be higher”; and if force is used, “we should not go it alone,” for the practical reason that “collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes.”
more…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/05/barack_obama_s_west_point_speech_the_president_responds_to_his_foreign_policy.html
At West Point, President Obama defends a foreign policy vision based on more than U.S. military might.
By Fred Kaplan
Fred Kaplan is the author of The Insurgents and the Edward R. Murrow press fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
President Obama arrives at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, to deliver the commencement address to the 2014 graduating class on May 28, 2014. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
President Obama’s speech at West Point on Wednesday morning could be called a tribute to common sense, except that the sense it made is so uncommon. The ensuing cable pundits’ complaints—that it was insufficiently “muscular” or “robust”—only proved how necessary this speech was.
Obama’s point was not (contrary to some commentators’ claims) to draw a “middle-of-the-road” line between isolationism and unilateralism. That’s a line so broad almost anyone could walk it.
The president’s main point was to emphasize that not every problem has a military solution; that the proper measure of strength and leadership is not merely the eagerness to deploy military power; that, in fact, America’s costliest mistakes have stemmed not from restraint but from rushing to armed adventures “without thinking through the consequences, without building international support and legitimacy for our action, without leveling with the American people about the sacrifice required.”
He drew one other distinction. On the one hand, there are “core interests”—direct threats to America and its allies—that we would absolutely defend with military force, “unilaterally if necessary.” On the other hand, there are crises that may “stir our conscience or push the world in a more dangerous direction” but don’t threaten our core interests. In those cases, “the threshold for military action must be higher”; and if force is used, “we should not go it alone,” for the practical reason that “collective action in these circumstances is more likely to succeed, more likely to be sustained, and less likely to lead to costly mistakes.”
more…
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2014/05/barack_obama_s_west_point_speech_the_president_responds_to_his_foreign_policy.html
14 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
But I think the poster is correct. 
The American people are sick to fucking death of war. The President's rhetoric illustrates a departure from the reckless cowboy attitude of the Bush Administration. And I welcome it.
The Republican Party is the party of war. Pass it on.
If you want more war vote Republican.
This should be our refrain for the 2014 and 2016 elections.
Obama = Bush, Bush = Obama; thefore, Obama BAD BAD BAD!!!
See how that works?
Learn it, accept it, live it!
