Obama Wants To Settle the Bush Years
Are Americans ready to turn the page on Sept. 11? Can the United States settle the Bush years and put an end to the “global war on terrorism”? President Obama hoped for this in an eloquent and important speech delivered on Thursday, May 23 in front of the National Defense University. For him, “This war, like all wars, must end. That’s what history advises. That’s what our democracy requires.”
This speech in itself is an admission of failure. Obama had already expressed a desire to end the counterterrorism strategy of the Bush-Cheney administration during his first election campaign in 2008. During his first term, he left the Bush rhetoric of anti-terrorism, but not its methods. The “global war on terror” and “Islamo-fascists” are no longer discussed in the U.S. presidential vocabulary. But the Democratic president has failed to keep his promise to close the Guantanamo camp, where 166 suspects are still being held without trial, of which 100 are on a hunger strike. And the strikes carried out abroad by drones to liquidate targets considered a terrorist threat have increased under the authority of the CIA.
Barack Obama has now entered his second and final term in the White House, during which he may consider, without having to worry about re-election, the mark he wants to leave on his country. Rebuilding the image of American democracy in the Arab-Muslim world, where it has particularly suffered from the abuse of the war on terror, is a task that can only be welcomed.
In this speech, the president has put forward a redevelopment of the counterterrorism arsenal, bringing it more in line with American values. It will now be the military, not the CIA, who will decide on the strikes carried out by drones. The criteria for these strikes and the choice of targets will be more strictly controlled to allow for better democratic oversight and to avoid maximum civilian casualties.
He is also once again committed to closing Guantanamo prison. To this end, he asked Congress to lift restrictions that prevent the transfer of 86 detainees deemed releasable and to help them solve the legal headache created by the status of prisoners and the resort to torture during their interrogations.
Like a good lawyer, Barack Obama perfectly articulated the challenge posed by the permanence of the terrorist threat to democratic societies, “to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are.” After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has placed too much emphasis on the need for security. Obama wants to bring back a balance to the sense of freedom. He’s right — even though as always with him, his speech remained very incantatory.
In 12 years, the terrorist threat has evolved. It is less massive, more diffuse, but still a part of our daily lives. The recent scandal of the secret surveillance of journalists in the United States shows how difficult “the right balance” is to maintain. Obama did not give all the answers, but he has the merit of having made the right commitments.
This speech in itself is an admission of failure. Obama had already expressed a desire to end the counterterrorism strategy of the Bush-Cheney administration during his first election campaign in 2008. During his first term, he left the Bush rhetoric of anti-terrorism, but not its methods. The “global war on terror” and “Islamo-fascists” are no longer discussed in the U.S. presidential vocabulary. But the Democratic president has failed to keep his promise to close the Guantanamo camp, where 166 suspects are still being held without trial, of which 100 are on a hunger strike. And the strikes carried out abroad by drones to liquidate targets considered a terrorist threat have increased under the authority of the CIA.
Barack Obama has now entered his second and final term in the White House, during which he may consider, without having to worry about re-election, the mark he wants to leave on his country. Rebuilding the image of American democracy in the Arab-Muslim world, where it has particularly suffered from the abuse of the war on terror, is a task that can only be welcomed.
In this speech, the president has put forward a redevelopment of the counterterrorism arsenal, bringing it more in line with American values. It will now be the military, not the CIA, who will decide on the strikes carried out by drones. The criteria for these strikes and the choice of targets will be more strictly controlled to allow for better democratic oversight and to avoid maximum civilian casualties.
He is also once again committed to closing Guantanamo prison. To this end, he asked Congress to lift restrictions that prevent the transfer of 86 detainees deemed releasable and to help them solve the legal headache created by the status of prisoners and the resort to torture during their interrogations.
Like a good lawyer, Barack Obama perfectly articulated the challenge posed by the permanence of the terrorist threat to democratic societies, “to strike the appropriate balance between our need for security and preserving those freedoms that make us who we are.” After the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States has placed too much emphasis on the need for security. Obama wants to bring back a balance to the sense of freedom. He’s right — even though as always with him, his speech remained very incantatory.
In 12 years, the terrorist threat has evolved. It is less massive, more diffuse, but still a part of our daily lives. The recent scandal of the secret surveillance of journalists in the United States shows how difficult “the right balance” is to maintain. Obama did not give all the answers, but he has the merit of having made the right commitments.