Opinion: Obama's Speech -- Long on Platitudes, Short on Substance

(Dec. 1) - If you tuned in late to President Obama's speech this evening announcing his decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan, you might be forgiven for initially thinking that George W Bush was still president.

For a candidate who ran for the nation's highest office on the notion that he would change the mind-set of American foreign policy and de-emphasize the war on terror, the initial part of Obama's speech brought back the bogeyman of al-Qaida.

In vivid detail he reminded Americans of the terrible events of Sept. 11 -- and the potential for new violence. Though the terrorist organization is by all accounts a spent political force, on the run in Pakistan and down to perhaps 200 core operatives, Obama consistently raised the specter of al-Qaida-style violence against Americans.

He also conflated the Pakistan Taliban -- and its recent spate of terrorist attacks in Pakistan -- with the Afghan Taliban, even though the former is at war with the Pakistani government and the latter is a recipient of its protection.

In fact, it was striking to hear the president refer to Afghanistan/Pakistan as the "epicenter of the violent extremism practiced by al-Qaida" when in fact Afghanistan has lacked an al-Qaida presence since 2002 and "al-Qaida central" has not launched an attack on American targets since 9/11.

The second half of the speech, on the other hand, was classic Obama and indeed offered perhaps one of the most profound descriptions of what a progressive foreign policy agenda actually looks like. Obama focused on the importance of weighing the costs, benefits and limits of military engagement. "I refuse to set goals that go beyond our responsibility, our means or our interests. And I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces," he noted. He punctuated this thought with a quote from President Eisenhower's famous farewell speech warning of the dangers of the military-industrial complex.

In addition, the president devoted significant attention on the need to rebuild America's economy and infrastructure -- and to make the example of American power and influence at home a shining example overseas. That these words came at the tail end of a speech in which Obama said he would be increasing the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to 100,000 troops, at an estimated cost of $1 billion a year, was striking indeed. Perhaps only a speaker as rhetorically gifted as President Obama could use an escalation of troop levels in Afghanistan as a time to call for a more modest and restrained foreign policy!

What was missing, however, was a more specific discussion about Afghanistan itself. Indeed, for weeks now the debate on Afghanistan strategy has been intimately focused on the question whether the U.S. military would utilize a counterinsurgency or counterterrorism approach. Obama used neither word in his speech and offered little guidance as to whether he endorses the military strategy offered this summer by Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

Obama said that a transfer of responsibilities to Afghan forces would begin to take place in July 2011, based on "conditions on the ground," but didn't say what those conditions would be -- leaving the possibility of an open-ended commitment even as he warned against such a possibility.

He boldly asserted that "the days of providing a blank check [to President Hamid Karzai] are over" and that the U.S. "will be clear about what we expect from those who receive our assistance." But in fact he didn't say what those expectations would be or even the benchmarks he would use to define progress. Finally, on Pakistan, Obama gave little sense of how he would convince the Pakistani government to crack down on the Afghan Taliban safe havens that are being used to wage the insurgency in Afghanistan against U.S. and NATO troops.

Quite simply, Obama's speech was long on platitudes, but bare on substance -- and provided little actual guidance to how this increased military escalation will be waged. However, if the goals of the speech were to build public support for stabilizing Afghanistan by invoking the genuine fear many Americans feel about Islamic terror -- and rallying Americans behind their president -- you'd have to say mission accomplished.

Whether it adds up to a policy that stabilizes Afghanistan; disrupts, dismantles and defeats al-Qaida; or keeps Americans safer was far less clear.
________
Michael Cohen is a Senior Research Fellow at the New America Foundation where he co-helms the Privatization of Foreign Policy Initiative.