Victor Davis Hanson: Bitter Harvests to Come
[Victor Davis Hanson is the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow in Residence in Classics and Military History at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, a professor of Classics Emeritus at California State University, Fresno, and a nationally syndicated columnist for Tribune Media Services. He is also the Wayne & Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History, Hillsdale College.]
Reflections on the Speech to Congress
If one were to sum up the Obama speech to the joint session of Congress, it is the same old, same old formula:"I am a uniquely post-American fresh start; the era of Bush and our dreadful past is over; and because this is our moment, you, the world, owe me attention and support for my redefining America more to your tastes."
The problem with all this is endless:
(1) most existing problems predated Bush and transcended him, as Obama is discovering with Iran, radical Islam in America, North Korea, Russia, etc.;
(2) By separating himself from the past, Obama sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for the Bush regime;
(3) By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second...
... A Loyal Opposition
1) It is false to suggest that Obama is a multilateralist, while Bush and his supporters were preemptive unilateralists. Bush worked well with allies, especially in the second term, and had close relations with Merkel, Sarkozy, and Blair, as well as with India and China. Most of these unilateralist charges were exaggerated, and based on elite anger in the West over the Iraq War and the European street over his Texanisms and skepticism of cap-and-trade. In contrast, Obama has lurched to the left of France (as we saw in Sarkozy’s Iran worries), left the Eastern Europeans bewildered, tried to dump Gitmo detainees on allies, slapped a tariff on China, and is stimulating/inflating the U.S. economy in ways that make our debtors very nervous. So we should get beyond the notion that anyone who doubts the Obama outreach approach is de facto not desirous of working with allies or prefers military action.
2) Obama will buck public opinion if it is for a liberal-base issue, such as healthcare and cap-and-trade. But his problem on Afghanistan is that it is both unpopular with the public and an anathema to his base. Moderates and conservatives will support him on Afghanistan, since they think stabilizing the country is necessary, humane, and doable, but there are those whom he has so far ostracized and caricatured on other issues, and may not wish to reach out to. So his options and time are limited. For all the acrimony and hysteria, the truth is that Afghanistan has endured for eight years, American casualties have been by historical standards kept to a minimum, and we have attrited al Qaeda to a great degree. We are in a lot better shape than we were during December 1950 or right before the surge in Iraq, crises when most wanted out, but persistence saved the theater...
Read entire article at Private Papers (website of Victor David Hanson)
Reflections on the Speech to Congress
If one were to sum up the Obama speech to the joint session of Congress, it is the same old, same old formula:"I am a uniquely post-American fresh start; the era of Bush and our dreadful past is over; and because this is our moment, you, the world, owe me attention and support for my redefining America more to your tastes."
The problem with all this is endless:
(1) most existing problems predated Bush and transcended him, as Obama is discovering with Iran, radical Islam in America, North Korea, Russia, etc.;
(2) By separating himself from the past, Obama sends the implicit message to allies (like Israel, India, Columbia, the Maliki government, eastern Europe, Sarkozy, Merkel, etc) that there must have been something wrong with them to have allied themselves with the U.S. during the Bush years — and to enemies and belligerents that their anti-Americanism is perhaps understandable given a shared antipathy for the Bush regime;
(3) By staking out the messianic, prophetic ground, and his strident anti-Bush credentials, observers are going to note his serial hypocrisies, such as keeping the Patriot Act, rendition, tribunals, Predator attacks, the Petraeus plan in Iraq, wiretaps, intercepts, etc., and in fact anything that smacks of a transnationalist protecting U.S. interests first, and global ones, second...
... A Loyal Opposition
1) It is false to suggest that Obama is a multilateralist, while Bush and his supporters were preemptive unilateralists. Bush worked well with allies, especially in the second term, and had close relations with Merkel, Sarkozy, and Blair, as well as with India and China. Most of these unilateralist charges were exaggerated, and based on elite anger in the West over the Iraq War and the European street over his Texanisms and skepticism of cap-and-trade. In contrast, Obama has lurched to the left of France (as we saw in Sarkozy’s Iran worries), left the Eastern Europeans bewildered, tried to dump Gitmo detainees on allies, slapped a tariff on China, and is stimulating/inflating the U.S. economy in ways that make our debtors very nervous. So we should get beyond the notion that anyone who doubts the Obama outreach approach is de facto not desirous of working with allies or prefers military action.
2) Obama will buck public opinion if it is for a liberal-base issue, such as healthcare and cap-and-trade. But his problem on Afghanistan is that it is both unpopular with the public and an anathema to his base. Moderates and conservatives will support him on Afghanistan, since they think stabilizing the country is necessary, humane, and doable, but there are those whom he has so far ostracized and caricatured on other issues, and may not wish to reach out to. So his options and time are limited. For all the acrimony and hysteria, the truth is that Afghanistan has endured for eight years, American casualties have been by historical standards kept to a minimum, and we have attrited al Qaeda to a great degree. We are in a lot better shape than we were during December 1950 or right before the surge in Iraq, crises when most wanted out, but persistence saved the theater...