By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 7th, 2010
This post is the second in a series. Read the first part here.
 President Obama’s “Address to the Nation on the End of Combat Operations in Iraq,” was consistent with his first public speech expressing his opposition to the war. He stood by the same principles, as he was fulfilling his responsibility as head of state, President for the entire nation and not only those who support him and his partisan position. To paraphrase one of his standard lines, he was not speaking as President of the Blue States or the Red States, but as President of the United States of America. The night of the address and in the days that followed, this most basic quality of his speech was overlooked. Instead, there were misleading interpretations, from Obama’s critics and his supporters, revealing a fundamental problem in our public life.
The Partisan Interpretations
From his partisan opposition, the criticism was strong. <<Obama should have declared victory,>> Senator John McCain and his interviewer Sean Hannity, agreed. (video) He should have given President Bush full credit for the victory. He should have apologized for his opposition to the surge. Lindsey Graham concurred and was particularly critical that Obama did not acknowledge the terrorists’ defeat and the need to extend our momentum in Afghanistan. (video) The emphasis on withdrawal instead of victory was the fundamental problem with the President’s speech. “It’s not about when we leave in Afghanistan. It’s about what we leave behind.” Charles Krauthammer, in the instant analysis following the speech on Fox News, observed that the speech was “both flat and odd.” Flat, because it did not celebrate the victory, but rather emphasized the withdrawal almost as a lamentation. Odd, because of the way he linked his topics, from Iraq to Afghanistan to, most disturbing for Krauthammer, tacking on an “economic pep talk.” There should have been a coherent speech about our missions abroad. Instead there was a speech by a man who is only interested in his domestic agenda. (video) And from his partisan supporters there was also serious criticism, mirroring the rage on the right. <<Obama should have declared defeat,>> Frank . . .
Read more: The End of the Iraq War
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, September 6th, 2010
This post is one in a series.
This week President Obama gave an important speech in the Oval office announcing the end of combat operations in Iraq. In October 2002, before the war was declared, he distinguished himself as one of the few political leaders to express clear opposition to the Iraq war. There is an important connection between his words and his actions, then, which I will consider in today’s post, and now, which I will consider in following posts.
The standard way to account for the connection is through cynical interpretation, explaining the texts of these speeches by referring to their context. Much is lost in such cynical interpretation–here, the two speeches are Deliberately Considered.
The Context
 On October 2, 2002, Obama was a relatively obscure politician, a State Senator considering a run for the United States Senate. He had some significant movers and shakers in Chicago eyeing him, realizing his promise. One of them, Bettylu Saltzman, who was organizing the anti-war demonstration, asked him to take part. His political advisors calculated the costs and benefits, seeing a real problem if he sought to run in a state wide race. As an African American, he might solidify his support among white liberals, fortifying the black – white coalition base of a potential run, but he may have appealed to them in any case, and he clearly would lose conservative Democratic support and the support of many independents, who at that time were overwhelmingly supporting the President and his impending war. Nonetheless, since he actually did think that war would be a big mistake, Obama decided to give the speech, notable for its moderation in his opposition to the war: “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war” was the recurring theme. (See David Remnick, The Bridge).
The moderation of the speech served his immediate purposes and it later helped his candidacy in the Democratic Presidential Primaries. On this point, David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political consultant, has bemoaned the fact that there was no decent video of the speech. Obama opposed the war, but tried to . . .
Read more: Obama on Iraq: Then and Now
By Jeffrey C. Goldfarb, August 23rd, 2010 The recent violent conflict over the blockade of Gaza enforced by Israel and the attempt of humanitarian organizations and political movements aligned against Israel to break the blockade reminds me of the fundamental nature of conflict. Amos Oz once summed up the situation as he understands it:
“[I]t is high time that honest people outside the region .. conceive of [the Palestinian Israeli conflict] as a tragedy and not as some ‘Wild – West Show,’ containing good guys and bad guys. Tragedies can be resolved in one of two ways: there is the Shakespearean resolution and there is the Chekhovian one. At the end of the Shakespeare tragedy, the stage is strewn with dead bodies, and maybe there’s some justice hovering high above. A Chekhov tragedy, on the other hand, ends with everybody disillusioned, embittered, heartbroken, disappointed, absolutely shattered, but still alive. And I want a Chekhovian resolution, not a Shakespearean one, for the Israeli – Palestinian tragedy.”
I completely agree. A persecuted people, after centuries of oppression and exclusion in Europe, culminating in genocide, find a place for themselves in what they perceive to be their ancient homeland. A peaceful people are forced off their land, displaced, homeless, subjected to second class citizenship. As Israelis and Palestinians fight against each other in their pursuit of justice, justice is denied. The majority on both sides, at least at times, have even agreed on what they perceive as a just solution, a two state solution, with Jerusalem as the capital of two nations, but getting there from here has made the solution elusive, if not impossible. Repeated failure has led to despair and aggression. On both sides, majorities are convinced that the other side is not serious about a just resolution, not serious about peace. Against these majorities, some try to keep alternatives alive. Their activities remind me of small things I had observed in the U.S. and in East and Central Europe.
A most compelling example of people who work against the common sense about the other is The Parents Circle, a Palestinian Israeli organization of “bereaved families for peace.” I first met them at their Israeli headquarters outside of Tel Aviv when a student . . .
Read more: Looking at Gaza, Remembering Tragedy, Looking for Hope in Small Things.
|
Blogroll
On the Left
On the Right
|