When Obama held his big Foreign Policy speech last Monday, I didn’t bother to read it. But yesterday the Washington Post editors lauded it. A good reason to get suspicious and today Robert Kagan has fun with some damning Obama quotes:
Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
Kagan works for McCain, who probably would have little chance in a run against Obama. So there is his motive for some selective quoting. But in fact Kagan is right. Reading the speech now, there is some stuff I could support, but I find the basic philosophy behind it very wrong.
Obama wants a bigger Army even while he wants to pull out of Iraq. The U.S. has to have enough to fight two war and defend the "homeland" he says. Wars against whom and why?
No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.
"Imminently threatened vital interests," what might those be? Who will define those?
Why should, as he says, more in the U.S. military learn Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. Do those languages reflect his hit list?
We have heard much over the last six years about how America’s larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom – that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.
I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice.
Delivering on these universal aspirations requires basic sustenance like food and clean water; medicine and shelter. It also requires a society that is supported by the pillars of a sustainable democracy – a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force. It requires building the capacity of the world’s weakest states and providing them what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, and generate wealth.
Only the methods are currently wrong he says. But the U.S. mania of "spreading freedom" and "democracy" is just the same.
How does he know other people do want this "freedom"? Do they want it the way he understands it? Will he ask the Chalabi’s of his time to find out?
I can not even see logic in the argument. Is "opportunity" a "universal asperation"? Dignity, security, justice, food, water, medicine and shelter can certainly be secured by a benevolent dictatorship – they don’t require "democracy." Especially when the alternative is the U.S. Army "spreading freedom." Indeed, talk to some homeless folks in our streets and ask them how "democracy" has delivered on Obama’s list.
Maybe I am falling for Kagan’s trick here, but I do get some very disturbing feelings whenever I read such idealism.
Obama lauds the US troops in Djibouti for distributing food and it sounds so nice. But Djibouti is the place U.S. Air Force AC-130 gunship recently started to kill civilians in Somalia. To fight for U.S. "interests" is the only reason why U.S. troops are there and it is what they do.
Maybe such rethoric is needed to get the votes for becoming President. But maybe Obama really believes in what he says. What would then be the difference between him and the neocons?
Those, you might remember, are mostly former idealistic lefties too.
