(HOST) President Barack Obama’s recent speeches at West Point and in Oslo have left liberals griping and conservatives gloating. This morning commentator and former ABC News diplomatic correspondent Barrie Dunsmore offers his interpretation of the president’s message.
(DUNSMORE) When President Obama spoke at West Point last month, virtually every headline focused on his decision to escalate the war in Afghanistan by sending in another 30,000 American troops. When he accepted the Nobel Peace Price in Oslo last week, the most often cited quotations were: "We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: we will not eradicate violent conflicts in our lifetimes." "Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement would not have halted Hitler’s armies." "There will be times when nations will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified."
I do not fault the headline writers or the journalists who reported on the two speeches. They were responding to what seemed like the most compelling issues of the day. But history suggests that the story of the day does not necessarily provide the real or complete story. In reporting the dedication of the battlefields of Gettysburg in November 1863, many newspapers ignored President Lincoln’s speech. One reported, "The president also spoke." The next day the Chicago Times dismissed the speech as "silly, flat and dishwatery," while the Springfield Massachusetts Republican said it was a "perfect gem." Then, as now, perceptions of a president’s words are shaped by partisanship.
But, politics aside, some thoughtful analysts are beginning to say that, taken together, the address in West Point and the speech in Oslo provide a kind of Obama doctrine on national security that is far more complex and nuanced than the headlines suggest.
Leslie Gelb is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations. In his analysis Gelb writes of the closing words of the West Point speech: "Those paragraphs zeroed in on the overriding imperative of restoring America’s economic strength – the very heart of America’s military and diplomatic power." Says Gelb, "Without that economic power… there will be no military victories."
The second part of the Oslo speech also got much less attention. There, Obama talked about the need to avoid wars and to build a just and lasting peace, stressing that "…true peace is not just freedom from fear but freedom from want." The president also called on the world to stand as one against regimes that break the rules, but reminded them that the pressure of sanctions without diplomatic discussions would not work. "I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation," said Obama; but he then added, "No repressive regime can move down a new pat unless it has the choice of an open door."
This week New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote positively of an early-to-mid 20th century Christian realism, that he sees reflected in Obama’s recent speeches. Brooks noted that an Obama doctrine was emerging that suggested the values of President Truman, who once said, "we have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please."
There may not yet be a full fledged Obama doctrine – but it’s a promising start.