Let's cut to the chase: Barack Obama sees the world as a dangerous, scary place which requires a bigger and badder military than now, "aggressive diplomacy" and more American "leadership."
The world is an evil, evil, bad place
He only considers the world via the lens of threats and dangers. Foreign policy is not about sharing a common planet with others, to trade, organise life, coordinate activities and be in peace - or simply keeping communications open - it's only about threats and dangers. Foreigners are, at best, a nuisance, and otherwise a danger.
This century's threats are at least as dangerous as and in some ways more complex than those we have confronted in the past. They come from weapons that can kill on a mass scale and from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism. They come from rogue states allied to terrorists and from rising powers that could challenge both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy. They come from weak states that cannot control their territory or provide for their people. And they come from a warming planet that will spur new diseases, spawn more devastating natural disasters, and catalyze deadly conflicts.
Even the development of previously poor countries is seen as a threat ("challenging both America and the international foundation of liberal democracy")
The Middle East - especially nasty, evil Iran - is a threat:
...we contend with growing threats in the region -- a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah...
...dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria...
... Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression ...
Nuclear proliferation is a threat. Terrorism is a threat.
...Terrorists need not build a nuclear weapon from scratch; they need only steal or buy a weapon or the material to assemble one...
What a sad, scary world you Americans inhabit. Threatened by everybody. Hated by more. Killed by ... your president's decisions. Maybe that's a lesson Obama might want to learn. Obama has many words for the US soldiers killed in Iraq. Not a single one about Iraqis killed because of the US occupation. That's a pretty shocking oversight for someone trying to bring foreign policy on a sounder basis.
But no, he wants more military toys to play with.
The US needs a bigger, better army - to use it
Hiw whole text is about the use of military tools. He criticizes Bush for focusing too much on military solutions, but that's all he discusses. How to make the Us military bigger, stronger, more effective, and how to use it all around the world.
...To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace...
...We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country [JaP: what threat???] and our vital interests...
...We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines...
...I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened...
...I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these [nuclear] weapons ...
...Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table...
...We should pursue an integrated strategy that reinforces our troops in Afghanistan and works to remove the limitations placed by some NATO allies on their forces....
...To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military...
...I will rally our NATO [JaP: a purely military organisation, and the only time Europe is mentioned] allies to contribute more troops to collective security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization capabilities...
...We cannot expect Americans to support placing our men and women in harm's way if we cannot show that we will use force wisely and judiciously [JaP - because we WILL use it]
There's almost no topic without a mention for the need for military capacity, military options, military alliances. OK, maybe global warming does not military intervention, but that's about it.
Sure, he says that it should be used wisely, proposing an updated version of the Powell doctrine ("I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need"), but the unavoidable background is that military force will require to be used.
Oh, and as to Iraq, "we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."
That's pretty weasely wording. Where will the troops that "train Iraqi qecurity forces" be located? Over the horizon? He's not committing to anything specific in that speech. All options are on the table, as some like to say a bit too much.
The world needs American leadership
You'd expect that a speech about foreign policy would be about, at some point acknowledging that other countries might have different worries, and different priorities, and that a smart foreign policy would at least try to understand these (if not necessarily to accomodate them) to see how American goals can be advanced in the smartest way.
Nope. The only thing the world wants, according to Obama, is more American leadership. Actually, this is not correct. There is one country whose interests are taken into account (no bonus points for guessing which one it is):
Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. (...) Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability.
[Note how non-Israelis can either be 'committed to peace' or to be isolated. Either they accomodate Israeli interests, or they are enemies not to be talked to. A great definition of diplomacy if I ever saw one]
Sure, Obama writes that "We can help build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity: strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, honest police forces, free presses, vibrant civil societies." and that "the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need."
That sounds great, but as the only tools he proposes (apart from a few billion dollars in conditional aid) are a bigger, stronger military and "aggressive diplomacy", it's hard to see how that's actually going to happen.
:: ::
Again, I'm sorry to say this, as I know it will bring me grief from many of you, but Obama sounds just like a more competent version of Bush. Out of Iraq, without torture, sure, but obsessed by terrorism without wondering why it exists, sticking to a pro-Israel position on the Israel-Palestine situation, bellicose towards a defiant Iran without acknowledging past and present aggression against that country, stunningly silent on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, seeing past allies like Europe and Japan purely as adjunct military forces that will fall back in line behind US policies as soon as Bush is gone, barely any mention of the value of international law and voluntary, cooperative treaties, completely ignoring trade and investment issues and global financial imbalances, ignoring resource conflicts (and barely mentioning global warming) and, above everything else, convinced that America's values still exist and are taken seriously around the world, and that all foreigners (except for the evil ones that need to be crushed) are just waiting for a sane administration to follow Washington's dictates once again.
It's as if the USA stepped into the world in 2009, as if nothing had happened in earlier years, and as if US actions, long past or more recent, had not been, rightly or wrongly, associated with today's "problems."
Oh sure, Europe's weak and cowardly leaders will fall over themselves to welcome a new, vaguely reasonable, president, and for a while everybody will pretend that things are back as they were, and great. But Obama will still find out, possibly painfully, that the rest of the world does not trust America anymore (for those that ever did), and that the rest of the world has its own priorities and interests, right or wrong, and that they are unlikely to make any efforts to accomodate America's.
The failure to acknowledge that others might want something different without necessarily being "enemies" or "adversaries", and that foreign relations entail dialogue and compromise, not orders and bullying, is stunning, and not a little bit worrying, seen from outside of the USA.
