President Obama’s commencement address at West Point on Wednesday offers a chance for the administration to recharge its national security vision at a time when much of its international agenda seems stalled and critics, including some of us sympathetic to the administration, have raised concerns. Mr. Obama is not likely to move the needle with the foreign policy commentariat. But at times of uncertainty, many still look to the American president to outline a set of ideas about how to lead in an era of global change. What matters most is whether the speech motivates actions by other countries and whether members of Congress work with the administration on its national security agenda. The contours of the speech aren’t likely to surprise. President Obama outlined much of his foreign policy agenda in his State of the Union address. He is likely to reaffirm counterterrorism and intelligence reforms that he sketched out last year. Nearly 12 years ago, then-President George W. Bush gave a speech at West Point that set the post-9/11 “war on terror” framework that has dominated much of the past decade. Mr. Bush made a bold argument against deterrence and containment, concepts that had guided U.S. foreign policy for decades, saying that such an approach meant “nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.” Mr. Bush’s address became the doctrine of preventive war that led to overreach and disastrous blunders in Iraq and beyond. Mr. Obama’s West Point speech may try to serve as a bookend to Mr. Bush’s 2002 address. One of the guiding themes of his presidency was best outlined while he was still battling for the Democratic nomination in early 2008: “I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place.” Today, Mr. Obama can point to many accomplishments: killing Osama Bin Laden, ending the U.S. combat role in Iraq, putting many U.S. terrorist adversaries on the run. But his hopes of ending the “war on terror” remain incomplete. To achieve its gains, his administration relied on many of the tools and tactics his predecessor used, and his counterterrorism and intelligence reforms are stalled. What’s more, the challenges posed by terrorist extremists have morphed–with a surge of radical Islamists in Syria’s civil war, Egypt, Yemen, Libya, and beyond. In resetting his foreign-policy agenda, Mr. Obama’s challenge is not so much how well he articulates his vision but in implementation. Hyper-partisanship and dysfunction reign in Washington. In such an environment, it’s hard for any president to advance his foreign-policy agenda. And, unfortunately, the political costs of using national security as a partisan wedge issue have declined. Overseas, the “new chapter of international cooperation” Mr. Obama hoped for in his first year in office remains elusive. Speeches can do only so much. The real test will come in rallying support abroad and in Congress to implement his vision–which requires the administration to take active steps to build support for the refreshed foreign-policy agenda the president offers. It might consider putting forth a game plan for winning support for the TransPacific Partnership trade agreement that builds a bipartisan framework for global engagement. Success there is essential to Mr. Obama’s overall strategy in Asia and could build a new bipartisan framework for counterterrorism reforms, addressing Guantanamo Bay, and other key items on his agenda. Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. ALSO IN THINK TANK: What Will Obama Say at West Point? Pros and Cons of Obama’s Foreign Policy Get more from Capitol Hill, first thing in the morning, by signing up for the Capital Journal Daybreak newsletter: on./CapitalJournalSignup |
|
|
