Commentary Magazine


Contentions

RE: Obama from the Oval Office

Much like the man who gave it, President Obama’s speech on Iraq was many things to many people. It was a paean to Americans in uniform, a bone tossed to Bush-nostalgic conservatives, a placeholder for Afghanistan hawks, a pacifier for the anti-war Left, and, clumsily, an acknowledgment of Americans worried about the economy. Much like the man who gave it, the speech was too irresolute to signify anything other than America’s ambivalence on the world stage. According to Obama, the Iraq war was at once a mistake and a success. In Afghanistan, we will both fight and leave (as if he has not given a second’s thought to the damage his confusion on this point has already done). For all the president’s talk of “turn[ing] the page,” he is stuck in the extended paradox of his own contradictions.

Not surprisingly, the most revealing part of the speech came in the form of a seemingly negligible aside, not a strategically inconclusive talking point. Obama said, “In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation.” Reread the first part of that sentence. What reason is there to think we have passed into an age without surrender ceremonies? Barack Obama believes this because he assumes that mankind is now so modern and reasonable that we are outside the vast breadth of history. Nations will never formally go to war again and will not get caught up in pre-21st-century anachronisms like “victory” and “surrender.” For Barack Obama, an old-fashioned victory is as quaint as a duel at 20 paces. This unjustified optimism is not a historically new phenomenon among academics and has invited exploitation by tyrants throughout the modern age. (We need only look to the post–Cold War gambits of Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam Hussein to disprove the contention.)

To wit: the single mention of the word “victory” in a speech acknowledging the successful conclusion of a remarkable American military effort came in a bid to redefine the term as a universalist construct. If only the world’s bad actors would agree to do the same, this would prove to be a speech for the ages.


Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.