Obama's "Right War:" A Political Document, Too

In spite of everything, Dems know they need to (a) act tough (b) talk tough) and (b) be tough on terror -- AT&B is the watchword. The press still writes about counterterrorism as if it is a trademark Republican wedge issue and seems collectively surprised when Democrats offer aggressive proposals that go against the grain. Voters themselves give Democrats more breathing room, but Dem consultants remain very worried about how the Republicans have mastered the symbolism and language of terror politics.

Judging by the early returns -- "Obama As Jack Bauer?" (NBC) -- "Bold" (ABC) -- the press is receiving Obama's speech exactly as the campaign intended. Aides point reporters to the Pakistan lines. Why? They're the toughest, most provocative parts. They are harder than one might expect from Obama; they certainly do not reinforce the stereotype that he's all platitudes and indecivisve. They stand out.

Judging by the excerpts, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani would feel comfortable delivering about half the speech. John McCain would accept most of it. Remember, even when Obama delivered his anti-Iraq war speech in 2003, he was careful to say that he did not oppose all wars, "just stupid ones." (That a Democrat would have to declare he wasn't opposed to warfare entirely was a sign of how 9/11 and Iraq so distorted the politics of national security).

Let's give Obama the benefit of the doubt. If this speech comports with his principles, Obama endorses pre-emptive military action if U.S. interests are severely and legitimately threatened -- a concept that will not endear him to certain factions of his party but one that is certainly, intuitively embraced by the voters Obama wants to reach.

Obama likes either-or propositions, and his counterrorism effectively merges a law enforcement paradigm with a miliary paradigm. He elevates diplomacy and partnerships but makes it clear that the U.S. is the ultimate arbiter of its own interests.

Obama's problem is that he has no discernable track record or direct experience with national security conflicts. Watch to see how this high-octane speech is received by other Democrats, and whether any of them has the guts to say, yeah, nice words, but why would you, as president, be better at this than someone who knows how government works?

More later...

Presented by

Marc Ambinder is an Atlantic contributing editor. He is also a senior contributor at Defense One, a contributing editor at GQ, and a regular contributor at The Week.

Join the Discussion

After you comment, click Post. If you’re not already logged in you will be asked to log in or register with Disqus.

Please note that The Atlantic's account system is separate from our commenting system. To log in or register with The Atlantic, use the Sign In button at the top of every page.

blog comments powered by Disqus


Photos of New York City, in Motion

A filmmaker animated hundreds of still photographs to create this Big Apple flip book


The Absurd Psychology of Restaurant Menus

Would people eat healthier if celery was called "cool celery?"


This Japanese Inn Has Been Open For 1,300 Years

It's one of the oldest family businesses in the world.


What Happens Inside a Dying Mind?

Science cannot fully explain near-death experiences.

More in Politics

Just In