The President’s address from the Oval Office was without question the biggest foreign policy and national security news from the Administration last week. The speech marking the “end” of the Iraq War was, by accounts from the Right and the Left a hodge-podge of political messaging and presidential-sounding rhetoric that failed to impress. Maureen Dowd confined her pithy comments to trashing the president’s interior decorator.

On the three top national security issues he mentioned—Iraq, Afghanistan, and defense—the President said almost nothing new of substance to suggest how he will handle these issues in the future. President Obama’s speech, ostensibly focused on Iraq, actually gave short shrift to the war in Iraq and failed to articulate a vision of Iraq’s future, his own Iraq policy, or America’s role in the world.

In large measure the speech was predictable, reflecting the tenets of what clearly can be called the “Obama Doctrine.” The signature elements of this doctrine appear to be: (1)

Downplaying American sovereignty: The Administration is pursuing an ambitious agenda on international treaties; (2) Soft-pedaling American power: The belief that the United States over-utilized hard power in Iraq and Afghanistan has shaken President Obama’s confidence in the application of hard power at all. Instead, the President intends to use soft power so as to appear more equal at the negotiating table; (3) A more restrained America: President Obama has made no secret of his ambivalence toward American military power; and (4) A more humble America: Since his first month in office, President Obama has embarked on a whirlwind Apology Tour casting himself as the redemptive vessel for the entirety of America’s past sins.

Meanwhile, on the homefront, the Arizona immigration law made news again when the White House submitted its “Report of the United States of America” to the U.N. Human Rights Council (HRC), a body that includes such human rights exemplars as Cuba, Russia, and Saudi Arabia. In the report, the Obama Administration attacks Arizona’s recent immigration enforcement law and portrays its lawsuit against that state as a defense of human rights. This was a blatantly political act. It is no violation of human rights to enforce border security and basic immigration requirements.

In the end it was another week when the White House did little to distinguish itself in its efforts to keep the nation free, safe, and secure. The grade for the week has to be “D” for not too darn good.

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

James Jay Carafano PhD
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., is a leading expert in defense affaires, intelligence, military operations and strategy, and homeland security at the Heritage Foundation.