Polls show half of Americans want a less ambitious, less involved, less demonstrative, less declarative, less unabashedly American foreign policy, in keeping with what Obama is giving them - I wonder how many tomes on war and statecraft and strategy those polled have read - one assumes most if not all of them couldn't spell Thucydides never mind discuss the merits of his famous book - but hell, forget scholarship, I wonder how many of those polled have ever served or know the slightest god damn thing about serving in the military or even have the most basic understanding of how a military functions. Foreign policy cannot be poll driven because it is too complex, too far reaching, too sophisticated in its reasonings and modes and historical contexts and too removed from the humble experiences of the average citizen - it is by and large and necessarily so the sole purview of the chief executive and quite possibly, certainly when you're talking about a superpower, the most important thing that chief executive will do - it is up to him or her to judge the best path forward that serves the vital interests of the country and then explain and justify that path forward to the people regardless of whether or not they wanna hear it or can even comprehend it - it is not his or her job to give the people what they ostensibly want but rather to convince them that he or she deserves their trust - if congress disagrees, the founders gave them the power to do something about it.
So people who try to defend Obama's foreign policy by claiming it comports nicely with what nearly half the country wants are idiots or mere apologists or naive sycophants. If you wanna defend Obama's foreign policy, do so on its own terms and don't you dare quote polls to me.
Which brings us to Obama's upcoming West Point speech which, according to previews, will be promising more small ball dressed up as something bold and engaged but not in a very bold or particularly engaged way - in other words, more leading from behind - in other other words, more beguiling optics, more theatrics, more rhetoric, more empty gestures that sufficiently poll well. Obama, ever image conscious, sees that the perception of him as weak is settling in and so, true to form, he's gonna roll out the teleprompters and give a lofty and no doubt well reviewed speech which the NY Times will hail as substantial maybe even inspiringly so but that will change absolutely nothing in reality - unless of course one thinks the preening of Obama's image a reality worth considering.
[of course the real thing to worry about with this speech will not be that it is just more image management from Obama but rather that it will be deliberately obscure and disingenuous since the actual behind the words point of it will be that a less powerful America is a good thing and not at all inherently problematic and full of perils]
So people who try to defend Obama's foreign policy by claiming it comports nicely with what nearly half the country wants are idiots or mere apologists or naive sycophants. If you wanna defend Obama's foreign policy, do so on its own terms and don't you dare quote polls to me.
Which brings us to Obama's upcoming West Point speech which, according to previews, will be promising more small ball dressed up as something bold and engaged but not in a very bold or particularly engaged way - in other words, more leading from behind - in other other words, more beguiling optics, more theatrics, more rhetoric, more empty gestures that sufficiently poll well. Obama, ever image conscious, sees that the perception of him as weak is settling in and so, true to form, he's gonna roll out the teleprompters and give a lofty and no doubt well reviewed speech which the NY Times will hail as substantial maybe even inspiringly so but that will change absolutely nothing in reality - unless of course one thinks the preening of Obama's image a reality worth considering.
[of course the real thing to worry about with this speech will not be that it is just more image management from Obama but rather that it will be deliberately obscure and disingenuous since the actual behind the words point of it will be that a less powerful America is a good thing and not at all inherently problematic and full of perils]
