Obama Defends His Foreign Policy
It had already been announced by some media: Barack Obama would give a speech this Wednesday in which he would defend himself from the criticism his foreign policy strategy has received.
Vaguely — as usual — he talked about military conflicts and promises of peace; he tried to convince the audience that the United States has not lost its power, while admitting that “the world is changing with accelerating speed;” and — as is also usual — he emphasized his country's leadership and “American exceptionalism.” “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” he underscored.
In the West Point Military Academy, New York, the president recalled that the first time he spoke there, in 2009, America had “more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.”
“We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan,” he said on Wednesday, after announcing a day before that he will keep about 9,800 soldiers in Afghanistan.
In one of the most interesting turns of his speech, the president took sides on a debate that is already commonplace in academic and political circles: the relative loss of hegemony of the United States.
“America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world,” he assured. “Those who argue otherwise — who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away — are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”
To support his statement he used contradictory phrases that show, in spite of the rhetoric, how hard it is to deny the decline of his country’s authority in the world.
He said, for example, that its military power “has no peer,” which is true, but when was the last time the United States won a war?
“Our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative,” was another one of Obama’s half-truths, since that country still has an unemployment rate of over 7 percent.
“America continues to attract striving immigrants,” he noted. But over 2 million people have been deported during his presidency.
Finally, he admitted that “the world is changing with accelerating speed.” He referred to two viewpoints that are present in assessments of his foreign policy.
On one side, the so-called “realists,” who think the United States should not become involved in the affairs in Syria and Ukraine, an opinion that, according to Obama himself, is logically shared by many Americans “after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home.”
On the other extreme are the “interventionists,” who think that ignoring those conflicts is a “peril” for the United States.
“It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option,” emphasized Obama. In his opinion, the United States must “lead” on the world stage. “If we don’t, no one else will.”
However, he admitted that the solution will not always be conventional military action. “Military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
Thus, he described his “vision” of what that leadership should be like in the coming years and the way to achieve it. He did not rule out — because he cannot, especially at a military academy — the possibility of the use of force.
“First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it — when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.”
Too many “whens”; and besides, what is he calling use of military force? Perhaps he is not taking into account the thousands of people who have died as a result of drone attacks in territories such as Pakistan and Yemen — countries against which he has not declared war — the increasing expenditures on cyberattacks, or the non-conventional operations in countries such as Libya and Ukraine.
Regarding the conflict in Syria, he admitted that “there are no easy answers,” and stood by his decision not to send troops. However, he said he would continue “helping” the Syrian people, which until now has meant supporting armed groups.
In another moment of his speech he defended multilateral actions, and he gave as an example the accords reached over the Iranian nuclear program. “For the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force.”
He also stated — once again — that he will insist on the closure of the illegally occupied naval base at Guantanamo.
In addition, just as some analysts had predicted, the president did not talk specifically about Latin America or the Caribbean. Therefore, the debate over whether the subject is not among his priorities or whether he has not set a coherent strategy concerning the changes in the region continues.
Vaguely — as usual — he talked about military conflicts and promises of peace; he tried to convince the audience that the United States has not lost its power, while admitting that “the world is changing with accelerating speed;” and — as is also usual — he emphasized his country's leadership and “American exceptionalism.” “I believe in American exceptionalism with every fiber of my being,” he underscored.
In the West Point Military Academy, New York, the president recalled that the first time he spoke there, in 2009, America had “more than 100,000 troops in Iraq.”
“We have removed our troops from Iraq. We are winding down our war in Afghanistan,” he said on Wednesday, after announcing a day before that he will keep about 9,800 soldiers in Afghanistan.
In one of the most interesting turns of his speech, the president took sides on a debate that is already commonplace in academic and political circles: the relative loss of hegemony of the United States.
“America has rarely been stronger relative to the rest of the world,” he assured. “Those who argue otherwise — who suggest that America is in decline or has seen its global leadership slip away — are either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.”
To support his statement he used contradictory phrases that show, in spite of the rhetoric, how hard it is to deny the decline of his country’s authority in the world.
He said, for example, that its military power “has no peer,” which is true, but when was the last time the United States won a war?
“Our economy remains the most dynamic on Earth, our businesses the most innovative,” was another one of Obama’s half-truths, since that country still has an unemployment rate of over 7 percent.
“America continues to attract striving immigrants,” he noted. But over 2 million people have been deported during his presidency.
Finally, he admitted that “the world is changing with accelerating speed.” He referred to two viewpoints that are present in assessments of his foreign policy.
On one side, the so-called “realists,” who think the United States should not become involved in the affairs in Syria and Ukraine, an opinion that, according to Obama himself, is logically shared by many Americans “after costly wars and continuing challenges here at home.”
On the other extreme are the “interventionists,” who think that ignoring those conflicts is a “peril” for the United States.
“It is absolutely true that in the 21st century, American isolationism is not an option,” emphasized Obama. In his opinion, the United States must “lead” on the world stage. “If we don’t, no one else will.”
However, he admitted that the solution will not always be conventional military action. “Military action cannot be the only — or even primary — component of our leadership in every instance. Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
Thus, he described his “vision” of what that leadership should be like in the coming years and the way to achieve it. He did not rule out — because he cannot, especially at a military academy — the possibility of the use of force.
“First, let me repeat a principle I put forward at the outset of my presidency: The United States will use military force, unilaterally if necessary, when our core interests demand it — when our people are threatened; when our livelihoods are at stake; when the security of our allies is in danger.”
Too many “whens”; and besides, what is he calling use of military force? Perhaps he is not taking into account the thousands of people who have died as a result of drone attacks in territories such as Pakistan and Yemen — countries against which he has not declared war — the increasing expenditures on cyberattacks, or the non-conventional operations in countries such as Libya and Ukraine.
Regarding the conflict in Syria, he admitted that “there are no easy answers,” and stood by his decision not to send troops. However, he said he would continue “helping” the Syrian people, which until now has meant supporting armed groups.
In another moment of his speech he defended multilateral actions, and he gave as an example the accords reached over the Iranian nuclear program. “For the first time in a decade, we have a very real chance of achieving a breakthrough agreement, one that is more effective and durable than what we could have achieved through the use of force.”
He also stated — once again — that he will insist on the closure of the illegally occupied naval base at Guantanamo.
In addition, just as some analysts had predicted, the president did not talk specifically about Latin America or the Caribbean. Therefore, the debate over whether the subject is not among his priorities or whether he has not set a coherent strategy concerning the changes in the region continues.