Wednesday Feb 27, 2008

Center Field: Walk in the footsteps of JFK

Posted by Gil Troy
Comments: 12
BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Decrease text sizeDecrease text size
Increase text sizeIncrease text size

Clarifying Barack Obama's stance on Israel is secondary to figuring out how he understands the world. As the Obama Phenomenama grows, many who are not completely starry-eyed fear his foreign policy may be too starry-eyed. The 46-year-old senator's foreign policy can best be summarized in two words: "Leave Iraq."

Echoing the 1960s' get-out-of-Vietnam movement, this approach risks perpetuating the delusions of the Clinton 1990s he usually rejects, ignoring the ugly realities facing post-9/11 America.

As a former community organizer, Obama cares most about domestic issues. His experience overseas is limited - beyond his oft-distorted Indonesian sojourn when young. Like most Ivy League-educated idealistic Americans, he assumes compromises can be found for every foreign conflict, while viewing "evil" as a right-wing Republican spectre not a force in today's world. And considering how high he has soared with his charisma and eloquence, he naturally assumes he can handle any world leader, one on one.

:

- Rattling the Cage: Islamophobia, Obamophobia

The transcripts of his recent speeches and his Obama '08 Web site indicate he and most Democrats prefer ignoring the world beyond America's borders. He even turns most references to Iraq into a domestic critique, lamenting that the money wasted could rebuild America. Such neo-isolationism offers cheap populist applause lines not serious policy analysis. George W. Bush's staggering budget deficits will swallow up any Iraqi war savings.

EVEN MORE sobering, Obama most frequently mentions 9/11 by complaining about using it "to scare up votes." This posture blasts President George W. Bush without engaging the Islamist terrorist challenge. In fact, Obama's world rarely links the words "Islam" or "Islamist" with terrorism. In his few major foreign policy addresses during 2007 he preferred affirming the 1.3 billion Muslims' peaceful intentions rather than tackling the challenge the rabid minority of Islamist jihadists pose. In fairness, Hillary Clinton's campaign also downplays the terrorist threat as an ideological challenge, mentioning "terrorists" or "extremists" without acknowledging Islam's centrality in their identities.

By contrast, Senator John McCain emphasizes the fight against what he calls "global terrorism and Islamist extremism." On his Web site, in the section "Election 2008: What's at Stake?" the first answer warns, in boldface: "America faces a dangerous, relentless enemy in the War against Islamic Extremists."

McCain has other flaws but he recognizes that terrorism cannot be stopped without confronting its underlying ideology. This divide is less about personalities and more about the Republican-Democrat split following Bush's polarizing approach to fighting terrorism. Rather than building on the national consensus forged in the fires of September 11, Bush allowed the war on terror to become a partisan flashpoint. In fairness, Democrats are also guilty, frequently allowing their hatred of Bush to blind them to the Islamist threat.

"The villains are no longer the terrorists," New York's Democratic Congressman Jerrold Nadler claimed at a news conference in 2007. "The villains live in the White House."

IF ELECTED president, Barack Obama will have to govern as a muscular moderate not a spineless centrist. He will have to show that behind his fine words and high ideals lies a savvy leader who can fight Islamist terror, Iran's nuclear-driven genocidal aims, North Korea's saber-rattling, Venezuela's anti-Americanism. He will have to repudiate the Clinton administration's delusional holiday from history.

He will have to learn from his hero John Kennedy, a Cold Warrior with no illusions about Soviet aggression. At his best, Kennedy understood how to export American values through programs like the Peace Corps while confronting the Soviets when they snuck missiles into Cuba. President Bush recognizes the seriousness of the Islamist threat. His failures to export American ideals or eliminate these serious existential threats, cannot be repaired with a naïve worldview.

PRESIDENCIES are full of surprises. Campaigns churn out superficial applause lines not detailed plans candidates follow if elected. But the dangers facing America and all Western democracies, combined with his thin foreign policy resume, make it incumbent on Obama to work harder articulating a sophisticated, realistic foreign policy vision.  Michelle Obama's admission that only her husband's success has made her proud of America, makes it even more important for Barack Obama to show he is a tough, proud, patriot  who will govern in the assertive but inspirational foreign policy tradition of liberal Democrats such as Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy.

Obama should deliver some speeches advocating "tough-minded diplomacy" while addressing America's external challenges more regularly when campaigning. He should remind fellow Bush critics: "Just because the president misrepresents our enemies does not mean we do not have them." He should reassure his fellow Americans that he knows "The terrorists are at war with us" and "the threat is real." He must reaffirm Americans' historic understanding that "we cannot win a war unless we maintain the high ground" and that we need not make "a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we demand."

And yes, he should boldly proclaim that "Iran's President Ahmadinejad's regime is a threat to all of us," that America has "a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel," that "when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself," and that America needs "to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down." Wouldn't it be great, if he sprinkled some Obama rhetorical magic around, saying "We will author our own story," rather than being defined by our enemies.

Actually, all these quotations came from speeches Obama delivered in 2007. Obama has written the right lyrics to a strong, effective foreign policy song. Will he showcase them when campaigning? And if he becomes president will he turn them from beautiful words to guiding principles, from political postures to effective policies?

The writer is professor of history at McGill University. He is the author of  Why I Am a Zionist: Israel, Jewish Identity and the Challenges of Today. His book Leading from the Center: Why Moderates Make the Best Presidents will be published in the spring.

BOOKMARK or SHARE: technorati digg del.icio.us reddit newsvine facebook What's this?
Print  |  
Comments: Post your own comment
1  |   Gene Germany, Thursday Feb 28, 2008

It would be great if Barack Obama would perform the items in the column, but, I would not advise anyone to count on this happening.

From his voting record to his speechs to get the votes I have found nothing that solid. He seems to vote as Present on the majority of the issues, speaks about change without giving a clear road to make change happen, says he wants to negoitiate with foreign leaders who wish to see America destroyed, has foreign affair advisors who are soft. Clearly he is intelligent, but, intelligence alone does not make a leader.

2  |   Michael from NYC, Friday Feb 29, 2008

Only Barack Obama can restore the international credibility that the United States needs so badly — which would help Israel.

[ Link to page ] >

3  |   Richard from Massachusetts, Saturday Mar 01, 2008

Barak Obama is a work in progress as a potential president. That is why he is so unsatisfying sometimes. The hardheaded debate of the real world will only occur when he opposes John McCain, who will surely take the foreign policy debate to Obama. Then we will hear what Obama has to say and see how realistic and brave his worldvision is. Thank you for your comments, more helpful than most of what I hear and read here.

4  |   Clive Bowman/ Australia, Saturday Mar 01, 2008

Obama has a 100% voting record on israel. this is a much better record than shimon peres and ehud barak have. Now what do you have to say?

5  |   G. Miner, Saturday Mar 01, 2008

I think it should be noted that the right wing idealogues are using support for Israel as a method to distort and undermine Obama's candidacy. This makes Israel a "pawn in their game." Is the goal to perpetuate conflict or to find solutions that we can live with? Obama has and will stand for human rights. He is not some kind of dreamer, but a tough competitor with a soul.

6  |   Angela.....USA, Sunday Mar 02, 2008

Hoping and praying G-d will turn the tide. Obama is not what the US needs. This election is sad. I almost wish Bush could hang around.

7  |   Gary Gregor,Oregon, USA, Monday Mar 03, 2008

Democrats are neither guilty nor blind, we are waiting for a president who has eyes open.

8  |   spanky, Monday Mar 03, 2008

You seem very adament in your use of buzz-words. I think this deters from your argument-- for instance, what exactly is a "muscular moderate" as opposed to a "spineless centrist"-- these just seem like illiterative mumbo-jumbo.

9  |   Adrian, Seattle, USA, Tuesday Mar 04, 2008

Ha! Angela wishes the Bush 'n Cheney show would play a little longer! Yes, let's prolong the nightmare! We need more "realists" and "pragmatists" in the U.S. and Israel like these two deluded disasters. Look how successful they've been! The real "holiday from history" has occurred under their blood-stained tenure. It's time to use both carrot *and* stick with the angry, unruly Islamic world, a relationship tactic most of us learn in our personal lives sometime around our teenage years. Unfortunately for Israel, recent leaders in both the U.S. and Israel are stubbornly immature and have proven incapable of leadership. Change is overdue, and will come. The only question is whether it will be Hillary or Barack. I'm praying for Barack, because his judgment, intellect, and personal integrity are all first-rate. Israel will be best served by a grounded yet visionary inspirer of others with a personal history of straddling class and cultural differences. Go Obama.

10  |   SWADE BOSTON, MA USA, Tuesday Mar 04, 2008

Check out the article in TIME magazine about experience and US presidents. You would be surprised how some amazing presidents had little experience. A perfect example is FDR, who led the US through the Depression and the majority of WWII.

As an American, I feel need to trust our government again. The Bush administration has eroded that. I believe Obama can heal that mistrust. As far as foreign policy and terrorism, he can not do any worse than President Bush. That man rivals Nixon as far as poor presidents go. I have every confidence in Obama.

11  |   Al Tannis, Wednesday Mar 05, 2008

The next US President must address Israel's anti-Americanism. Israel's brutal treatment of innocent Palestinians is indeed anti-American. America continues to pay for Israel's arrogance, prejudice and abuses. You undermined Arafat by failing to support his fledgling government. Yet your call for free elections brought Hamas to power. I blame America's spineless political leaders and the Pro-Israel Lobby in Washington. In the US, any public statement critical of Israel is considered anti-Semitic. It is time for everything to change. That goes for Israel’s shameful ways as well.

12  |   A. Goldstein, Thursday Mar 06, 2008

To #10 re. FDR: yes he led us through WWII and the Depression and for that he's recognized as one of our great Presidents. But it took Pearl Harbor to get us into WWII, two years after Hitlers blitz of Poland. By this time FDR had been in office 9 years!!! Surely enough time for a bright man to have overcome his earlier inexperience and naivite. Perhaps with a clearer understanding of Hitlers true intentions and an earlier strong response to the rearming of Germany, millions of lives could have been saved. Your reference to FDR really only proves the point you are trying to refute.

Add your comment remaining characters
Name and Location *

NOTE: Comments are moderated and will not appear on this blog, until they have been reviewed and deemed appropriate for posting.

For more information, please see our
Readers' Submission Policy.

E-mail * (will NOT be published)
Your Blog/Website
--------------------------------
* All fields are required

About this blog

Center Field McGill history professor Gil Troy - a passionate moderate - looks at the American presidency, American history, Zionism, Judaism and Israel today.

Search this blog

Archives
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs

Most Popular

  1. Israel no longer nation for Jewish people
    Posted in Orthodox Opinions by Rabbi Seth Farber
    Sunday Jun 28, 2009
  2. The UN kangaroo "investigation" of Israeli "war crimes"
    Posted in Double Standard Watch by Alan Dershowitz
    Thursday Jul 02, 2009
  3. Netanyahu government exposed
    Posted in Building Bridges by Yariv Oppenheimer
    Monday Jun 29, 2009
  4. Michael Jackson and the Jews
    Posted in Guest Blog by Rabbi Eric Yoffie
    Tuesday Jun 30, 2009
  5. Renewable energy and the war on terror
    Posted in Heart-Earned Wisdom by Seth Mandell
    Thursday Jul 02, 2009

Top Rated Posts

Recent Comments

Maskil, Johannesburg, South Africa: An excellent piece by Prof. Gil Troy! In addition to the steps he outlines, we should all call on our federations and organisations channelling funds to Israel to audit their grants and ensure that not one dollar flows to the communities and yeshivot behind this violence. I believe mainstream (not specifically Orthodox) Jewish donations are also unwittingly swelling their coffers. @Chaya Gilburt et al, while I respect your right to not drive your vehicle on Shabbath, imposing your level of observance on those around you or an entire city puts you firmly in the camp of the Taliban.
Elias USA: It bothers me that you were such at a loss for words,that you reached down into the gutter of Islamo-fascism to describe fellow jews !
aaron: Why the need for this categorization of religious zionists, together with modern orthodox on one side and haredim on the other? Last I checked, there were many violent protests and violent acts undertaken by radical settlers in the religious zionist camp and many charedim who are against any form of violence. Violence orchestrated by any Jew should be denounced without condemning an entire group. I'm Modern Orthodox and fully agree with the charedi argument (just not the method chosen by some). I would also never consider Rachel Azaria a "hero" for her acceptance of chilul shabbos.