The days leading up to Memorial Day seem a particularly appropriate time to start a broad discussion about war and national security. And President Obama tried to do that in his speech at the National Defense University last week. If his actions back up his words (and if he can persuade Congress to support him), it may prove to be the most important speech of his presidency.
He got headlines for saying that we can’t live in a perpetual state of war. But he went much, much further, laying out the nature of the terrorist threats we face and prescribing a cautious, multi-faceted course to deal with them.
Increasingly, national security is a complex task, and Obama’s topics covered a wide range: the war in Afghanistan, our relationship with Pakistan, drones, Muslims in America, Guantanamo Bay, sectarian violence, al Qaeda, Syria, the Boston bombings….
Overall, it was a highly significant speech, one that could define US policy in a period of troubling challenges. It offers a policy based on full recognition of the complexity of those challenges, a clear departure from the approach of the Bush administration, and a clear divergence from the wishes of some members of Congress.
Obama emphasized the necessity of adhering to our laws and our principles. He warned that our actions – the use of torture, misguided wars, even the most thought-out and essential military actions – can have unintended consequences.
He warned against both exaggerating and simplifying the threat of terrorism. “Neither I, nor any president, can promise the total defeat of terror,” he said. “We will never erase the evil that lies in the hearts of some human beings, nor stamp out every danger to our open society.”
Our task, he said, is to protect against the terrorism that is a direct threat “while maintaining the freedoms and ideals that we defend.”
Our decisions must be based “not on fear but on hard-earned wisdom,” he said. “That begins with understanding the threat that we face.”
Some terrorists are “al Qaeda affiliates,” he said, intent on attacking Americans in the US. Others are groups of extremists hoping to gain political control and territory in countries like Algeria and Libya, posing a threat not to us in the US but to our diplomats and businesses in other countries.
And others are “radicalized individuals here in the United States”: Timothy McVeigh in Oklahoma City in 1995, the Boston Marathon terrorists this year…. We faced terrorists like them before 9/11, Obama noted, and we’ll continue to face them. Not every “collection of thugs that labels themselves al Qaeda,” he said, “will pose a credible threat to the United States.”
Use of military force, Obama said, is only one aspect of a strong national security policy: “Force alone cannot make us safe.” We also need to address “the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism – from North Africa to South Asia,” he said.
He called foreign aid “fundamental to our national security,” “fundamental to any sensible long-term strategy to battle extremism.”
After the speech, Republicans and conservatives were furious. South Carolina Senator Lindsay Graham called the president “tone deaf” about terrorism’s threat. But Obama’s speech was an eloquent, principled, and rational one – the result, maybe, of the president wrestling with his conscience and listening to his liberal critics.
He has disappointed before, though. In a Brookings Institution post, Benjamin Wittes said that the speech was “less than meets the eye,” full of “nice words” but giving the president plenty of wiggle room.
Obama cannot run for president again, so maybe he is finding some freedom that he did not see before. But for much of his national-security agenda, he will need a willing Congress and an informed public. And we are a year away from a crucial Congressional campaign.
Proof of the value of his words last week – of his intent, his will, and his leadership skills – will be in what he does to flesh out his national security vision over the next three years.
‘Force alone cannot make us safe,’ the president said. We must also address ‘the underlying grievances and conflicts that feed extremism.’
This article appears in May 29 – Jun 4, 2013.
Oh, so that’s how you end the war on terrorism: declare victory and go home.
@Reggie: We are neither going home nor declaring victory, although at least this President has decimated al Qaeda. He’s also made us more hated in Pakistan than India, an ominous situation with a country that is producing nuclear weapons by the dozens. It is time, though, to wind this war – whatever you want to call it – down. It’s also time to wind down the war on drugs, now, after how many hundreds of billions of dollars? And with what results? but is now in 115 countries. 115 countries! That’s the definition of insane.
This “war on terrorism” lexicon is nuts, too: Are we really at war with, for example, Shining Path? The military wing of the Irish Republican Army? Does anyone recall Franklin D. Roosevelt declaring war on carrier-based airplanes on December 8, 1941?
This would have been a great speech, had Obama made it in 2009 as part of fulfilling his campaign promises, or rather his implied campaign promises. Four years later however it’s stale, trite, disingenuous and way too late.
“It is time, though, to wind this war – whatever you want to call it – down. It’s also time to wind down the war on drugs, now, after how many hundreds of billions of dollars? “
How about winding down the liberal “War on Poverty” that has been in place since the Johnson administration? TRILLIONS of dollars have been spent on that and guess what? We seem to have more poor people than ever.
“Trillions”? Hardly. But, hey, the poor have too much and the rich not enough. How about winding down the right-wing war on the middle class?
I find the selection of the subject of Obama’s speech on the US and terrorism as an amazing attempt to look at this past week through rose colored glasses …… To ignore three separate scandals with this administration over its head in defending its actions for a speech which was clearly an attempt to deflect the attention from the scandals is just amazing even for a liberal leaning paper ….. But lets take the speech, “the destruction of Muslim Extremist terrorism” is anything but close to an end. Right now the US is working on a method to cover their gun running to Syria via Benghazi and Turkey by getting multiple countries to remove the international restriction on aiding any single side to overthrow a government. The US government violated international law by these actions. Gun running is exactly why the Ambassador was in Benghazi in the first place….. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Syria are all being controlled / disrupted by the Muslim Brotherhood and its associates. The Coptic Christians are fleeing Egypt by the 10s of thousands due to the attacks by members of the Muslim Brotherhood there…… but Mary Anna Towler chooses to do a critique of the President’s speech and describes it as ” eloquent, principled and rational one”….. She references the need for an “informed public” …. I must suggest that what we need is “a more informed media” at all levels ……. then maybe we would get those who have access to this administration to start the inquiries to expose the tyrannical actions of big government , and specifically this administration.