Last month, The Atlantic columnist Jeffery Goldberg set off a wave of criticism of President Obama by reporting about an interview with his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in which she “said about Obama’s slogan: ‘Great nations need organizing principles, and “Don’t do stupid stuff” is not an organizing principle.’”
Yesterday, in anticipation of Obama’s prime time address to the nation about ISIS, Goldberg called him “the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency,” referring to his takedowns of Osama Bin Laden, the al-Shabab leader in Somalia, and the ongoing drone warfare
Yesterday, in anticipation of Obama’s prime time address to the nation about ISIS, Goldberg called him “the greatest terrorist hunter in the history of the presidency,” referring to his takedowns of Osama Bin Laden, the al-Shabab leader in Somalia, and the ongoing drone warfare
Somewhere between those two poles is a prevailing national perception—fostered by Republicans and supported by the president’s record of caution—that Obama is not sufficiently proactive about foreign affairs.
The president established this position in a 2002 speech in which he called the Iraq “a dumb war.” Then, throughout his 2008 campaign and his six years in office, he maintained his resistance to overt military action (except for the 2009 “surge” in Afghanistan). He withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, he held back action on Iran during their public riots in 2009, and again during their build-up of nuclear capabilities in 2012. Nor did he attack Syria in 2013 for having crossed his “red line” warning about using chemical warfare.
But the rapid rise of ISIS has caused him to reconsider his approach. And so has public opinion. On the eve of the speech, a new WSJ/NBC poll found: “some 40% of those polled said action against ISIS should be limited to airstrikes and an additional 34% were willing to use both airstrikes and commit U.S. ground troops—a remarkable mood swing for an electorate that just a year ago recoiled at Mr. Obama’s proposal to launch airstrikes against Syria.”
The president responded. Early in last night’s speech he said:
I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIS in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
Sound familiar? Remember what George W. Bush said during his speech following 9/11 (ironically 13 years ago today):
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
Obama succinctly stated his plan:
First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists…
Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…
Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIS attacks…
Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization…
Then he concluded:
This is American leadership at its best…American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists.
One of the president’s leading opponents, House Speaker John Boehner, grudgingly conceded, saying that the president “has finally begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time: that destroying this terrorist threat requires decisive action.”
Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, now a CNN analyst, tweeted, “Probably most pro-American speech he’s ever given.”
However, if you look back at Obama’s plan, you’ll see that he used the future tense to describe what he has already been doing—and for which he was being accused of insufficient action. That was because he had been stating his decisions negatively, the subject of my previous Forbes blog.
The difference is that last night he stated his actions assertively.
As William Shakespeare had Hamlet say, “to take arms against a sea of troubles/And, by opposing, end them.”
The president established this position in a 2002 speech in which he called the Iraq “a dumb war.” Then, throughout his 2008 campaign and his six years in office, he maintained his resistance to overt military action (except for the 2009 “surge” in Afghanistan). He withdrew U.S. forces from Iraq in 2011, he held back action on Iran during their public riots in 2009, and again during their build-up of nuclear capabilities in 2012. Nor did he attack Syria in 2013 for having crossed his “red line” warning about using chemical warfare.
But the rapid rise of ISIS has caused him to reconsider his approach. And so has public opinion. On the eve of the speech, a new WSJ/NBC poll found: “some 40% of those polled said action against ISIS should be limited to airstrikes and an additional 34% were willing to use both airstrikes and commit U.S. ground troops—a remarkable mood swing for an electorate that just a year ago recoiled at Mr. Obama’s proposal to launch airstrikes against Syria.”
The president responded. Early in last night’s speech he said:
I have made it clear that we will hunt down terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I will not hesitate to take action against ISIS in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: if you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.
Sound familiar? Remember what George W. Bush said during his speech following 9/11 (ironically 13 years ago today):
Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.
Obama succinctly stated his plan:
First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists…
Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting these terrorists on the ground…
Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIS attacks…
Fourth, we will continue providing humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this terrorist organization…
Then he concluded:
This is American leadership at its best…American leadership is the one constant in an uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to mobilize the world against terrorists.
One of the president’s leading opponents, House Speaker John Boehner, grudgingly conceded, saying that the president “has finally begun to make the case the nation has needed him to make for quite some time: that destroying this terrorist threat requires decisive action.”
Former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, now a CNN analyst, tweeted, “Probably most pro-American speech he’s ever given.”
However, if you look back at Obama’s plan, you’ll see that he used the future tense to describe what he has already been doing—and for which he was being accused of insufficient action. That was because he had been stating his decisions negatively, the subject of my previous Forbes blog.
The difference is that last night he stated his actions assertively.
As William Shakespeare had Hamlet say, “to take arms against a sea of troubles/And, by opposing, end them.”
Culled from http://www.forbes.com
No comments :
Post a Comment
we will love to share your experience: