‘Moral Health and Martial Vigour’
Jun 9, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 37 • By WILLIAM KRISTOL
President Obama’s announcement that U.S. forces will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by the end of 2016 should have been no surprise. As the Washington Post editorial page pointed out, “You can’t fault President Obama for inconsistency. After winning election in 2008, he reduced the U.S. military presence in Iraq to zero. After helping to topple Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi in 2011, he made sure no U.S. forces would remain. He has steadfastly stayed aloof, except rhetorically, from the conflict in Syria.”
The Post editors—who endorsed Barack Obama for election in 2008 and for reelection in 2012—went on to observe:
One might add: Iran, with the acquiescence of the Obama administration, is on the verge of becoming a nuclear threshold state. Russia has responded to five years of efforts by the Obama administration to “reset” our relationship by invading a neighboring state. American counter-terrorism efforts in Pakistan have now virtually ground to a halt, and al Qaeda branches and affiliates are gaining strength throughout the greater Middle East. FBI director James Comey recently commented, “I didn’t have anywhere near the appreciation I got after I came into this job just how virulent those affiliates had become. There are both many more than I appreciated, and they are stronger than I appreciated.”
Let’s repeat that last sentence from the Obama administration’s new FBI head: Al Qaeda affiliates “are stronger than I appreciated.” One could says more generally: Our enemies are stronger than the administration appreciates. The United States is weaker than the administration appreciates.
So what is the loyal opposition to do? First of all, don’t be intimidated by the president’s demagoguery. Speaking at West Point, President Obama derided critics of his foreign policy as “either misreading history or engaged in partisan politics.” Both charges are risible. As for the first, Obama’s West Point speech may be the most ahistorical major foreign policy speech ever given by an American president. It offers no “reading” of the history of American foreign policy, or even of post-Cold War or post-9/11 American foreign policy, to support his policies. The headline of the Post editorial the next day was correct: “At West Point, President Obama rejects decades of U.S. foreign policy.” But he offered no rationale for that rejection either.
As for the charge of partisanship, we cite the Post once again:
In any case, if the president wants to insist that his critics are mere partisans, we would respond: We wear his scorn as a badge of honor. Edmund Burke, the founder of the modern political party, described it as “a body of men united for promoting by their joint endeavors the national interest upon some particular principle in which they are all agreed.”
The principle upon which Republicans are agreed, and which leads them to oppose President Obama’s foreign policy, can be summarized as American strength. In a talk given the same day as Obama’s West Point remarks, Rep. Mac Thornberry, the next chairman of the Armed Services Committee, emphasized: “Peace through strength is one of those principles we can and should relearn, keep fresh, and apply over and over.”
Thornberry’s speech suggests Republicans may rise to the challenge of providing serious opposition to Obama’s foreign policy—and of laying out an alternative. Thornberry made the case that, under Obama, the United States is and is seen to be “in withdrawal mode.” He pointed out the consequences: “Aggressors are emboldened; friends are unsure; neutrals are making new calculations; and according to the yearly index published by Freedom House, freedom is in retreat, declining for the eighth consecutive year.”
Recent Blog Posts