President Obama's address at the United Nations was at times eloquently aspirational, and for the most part conventionally unobjectionable. But there was one sentence that gave away the fundamental lack of seriousness of the Obama worldview: "We have begun a transition in Afghanistan, and America and our allies will end our war on schedule in 2014."
Really? Isn't this statement almost a parody of wishful liberalism? Do we get to end our wars on schedule? It would of course be nice if the world allowed us to fight and end wars on schedule. But wishing doesn't make it so. Reality doesn't operate on our preferred schedule.
In fact, to say we're ending our war on schedule means we're not fighting our war to win. If we're not fighting to win, it's hard to justify sending more young men and women over to fight at all. And if we're not fighting to win, it's hard to convince enemies that we're serious about doing what it takes to help achieve the goals President Obama discussed in his speech. Which means the world will get even more dangerous than it is today.
All of which is why President Obama has presided over a high-toned but failed foreign policy—and why four more years of Obama would likely mean yet more failure. Mitt Romney is capable of explaining this, and laying out an alternative path. Will he? All the world wonders.