A Further Perspective
Obama Security and Insecurity
Inching toward the right choices -- will he get Iran right tonight?
In his first year in office, President Obama has revealed some terrible instincts on national security. It's clear that, at a gut level, he is not entirely comfortable with American hegemony. Last June in Cairo he declared that "any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." Given that the current world order rests on the military supremacy of the United States -- the guarantor of peace everywhere from Europe to Korea -- that sentiment is a bit alarming to hear coming out of an American president's mouth.
In spite of those instincts, though, Obama has also shown an ability to arrive at reasonable national security conclusions, albeit slowly and reluctantly. The most obvious example is the decision to embrace a personnel-intensive counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. The Bush administration conducted a review in its final months that recommended such a strategy, and the incoming administration declined to accept it, instead demanding its own review. After General Stanley McChrystal recommended a similar strategy in the summer of 2009, the administration took months tweaking the specifics; former Vice President Dick Cheney memorably slammed the administration for "dithering" during this period. In the end, though, Obama more or less got the answer right. He may be reluctant to exercise power, but he is not unwilling to do so.
We saw this pattern play out faster after the attempted terror attack on Christmas Day. Obama's first instinct was not to treat this as the act of war that it was, but rather to minimize it. For several days he let subordinates handle all White House statements about the incident; he himself went golfing. His Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, airily declared that "the system worked," as if the job of her department is not to prevent attacks but merely to respond to them efficiently. When Obama finally did speak, he characterized bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab as an "isolated extremist," despite the evidence of his connections to the Yemeni terrorist group Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
As the days went on and intelligence analysts pieced together the events leading up to the incident, though, Obama's tune changed. "When a suspected terrorist is able to board a plane with explosives on Christmas Day, the system has failed in a potentially disastrous way," he said, implicitly repudiated Napolitano. "This was not a failure to collect intelligence," he added. "It was a failure to integrate and understand the intelligence that we already have." Attempts to close this security hole are in the works, and Obama has halted transfer of prisoners from Guantanamo Bay to Yemen. Joint U.S.-British counterterrorism operations have been stepped up in the wake of the attack. Again, the administration arrived at a prudently assertive policy despite its initial reticence.
ON IRAN, OBAMA HAS been characteristically reluctant to speak assertively about American values. When the protests following the stolen Iranian election started on June 13, the White House took nearly a week to issue a weak statement that "the world is watching." This reflected a concern among many foreign policy that the Iranian opposition would be ill-served by full-throated American support. This concern was always overstated, and any doubt that the protesters in the streets of Iran would welcome the support of the United States should have been lain to rest in November when they were filmed chanting "Obama, are you with us or against us?"
After the late-December round of protests, Obama's rhetoric on Iran improved. He called for "the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran," and more importantly said that he is "confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice."
It is this last point that should be emphasized further. At the end of 2009 the Iranian regime let another artificial deadline pass on arms-control negotiations. While some wonder if opposition leaders would be any better than the current regime on the nuclear issue, they could hardly be any worse. (Besides, an Iran with nuclear weapons that isn't controlled by fanatics would be less problematic than one that is.) The success of the opposition movement in Iran would be a huge boost to American national security as well as to the security of the region.
Tonight's State of the Union address would be an ideal opportunity for Obama to give the opposition a salutary rhetorical boost. He should bring up Iran in the speech, and he should build off his December statement and underscore that we are rooting for the opposition and expecting them to succeed. Natan Sharansky has described the "great brilliant moment" when he and other dissidents in the Gulag heard that Ronald Reagan had declared the Soviet Union an evil empire, and erupted into cheers. Iranian dissidents deserve to feel the same kind of support, and Americans deserve to know that Obama is willing, however reluctantly, to assert our national interest.
About the Author
John Tabin is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator online.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (37) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
More Articles by John Tabin
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/27/obama-security-and-insecurity
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Madison vs. Obamacare
- Let's Return to the Gold Standard
- Evolve or Die
- Digital Subscription (Save 78%)
- Buy a single issue (Save 50%)
- Send Spectator as a gift
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
K3en (Old Texican)| 1.27.10 @ 11:10AM
Mr. Tabin,
The very most we can hope for...are( is?) empty words.
Jim O'Brien| 1.27.10 @ 1:08PM
Every day that Obama is in office, we are in greater danger of a new 9/11 here in the U.S. By giving terrorists the rights of U.S. citizens, he is simply emboldening the terrorists. They see it as weakness, and it invites them to strike again. Obama and his buddy Holder have focused on blaming President Bush, presumably for the fact that no terrorist attacks happened here from 9/11/01 until he left office. Obama, Holder, Napolitano, et. al. are too dumb to see the handwriting on the wall, even after the Fort Hood terrorist attack and the Christmas Day attempted bombing of the Northwest plane. It's time for Congress to step up to the plate to toughen our defenses against terrorism, if they have any hope of being re-elected. State governments should enact anti-terrorism laws of their own, complete with the death penalty for terrorist activities of any kind. Death by hanging!
Alan Brooks| 1.27.10 @ 5:49PM
"After the late-December round of protests, Obama's rhetoric on Iran improved. He called for "the immediate release of all who have been unjustly detained within Iran," and more importantly said that he is "confident that history will be on the side of those who seek justice."
Obama was (is?) playing it safe. He doesn't want to appear to be meddling. Natch (as if it needs to be reiterated).
Pingback| 1.27.10 @ 1:46PM
The American Spectator : Obama Security and Insecurity links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
morris | 1.27.10 @ 1:55PM
The smartest, alternative to eliminate genocide in Iran , resolve the real threat of nuclear in control of few fanatic mullahs who speak with God trough special HOTLINE every day or any moment they wishes , is to root out the regime trough supporting opposition. Regime is collapsing , it need a bit push not $ . Period.
Franklin| 1.27.10 @ 1:59PM
Little o may do the right thing, but only after being forced to. I will believe he has changed when I hear him say "Islamic Jihad Terrorist".
Obama MUST:
1) treat the Ft. Hood "Islamic Jihad Terrorist" as such.
2) treat the UndyBomber "Islamic Jihad Terrorist" as such and have him turned over to the military for trial.
3) drop the 'criminal' treatment of any persons in Gitmo and let the military try them.
4) not close Gitmo.
5) support - loudly and firmly - the Iranian people who are protesting the regime.
6) support Israel's right to defend herself.
7) condemn - loudly and firmly - any attacks on Israel.
8) repent of his decision to turn his back on Poland allow the previous plans to continue.
9) allow TSA agents to profile behavior and get them proper training (from El Al).
Maybe then I will consider my support of this president's foreign policy.
Alan Brooks| 1.27.10 @ 10:18PM
"al' Saibides always went for the jugular"-- Geo. Patton
Pingback| 1.27.10 @ 2:19PM
The American Spectator : Obama Security and Insecurity American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.27.10 @ 2:21PM
The American Spectator : Obama Security and Insecurity capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 1.27.10 @ 4:13PM
Conservatives may have some good criticisms of Obama on foreign policy. However, their criticisms of his handling of Iran have been extremely weak.
Tabin writes above: "On Iran, Obama been characteristically reluctant to speak assertively about American values. "
Well, what Tabin does not tell you is that "American values" in the very recent history include overthrowing a democratically elected government in Iran.
For us, 1953 may seem like a long time ago. I assure you, it is YESTERDAY in Iran, and the fury that drove the Islamic Revolution in 1978 got much of its energy from the coup that had installed a fascist dictator who governed by means of death-squads.
Tabin and his friends on the right don't seem to know much about present day Iran either. The protestors you see in Iran today are NOT crying out for an American style democracy. Most FAVOR Iran getting a nuclear weapon; most favor the continued power of the mullahs. These protestors seek relatively mild reforms.
Which is all to the good.
However, ANY sense in Iran or in the Middle East that these protests are being sponsored or provoked by Washington -- or worse, Langley -- would be tremendously counter-productive. Such an impression would empower the current regime and call into question the authenticity of the protests.
Iranians are very proud and nationalistic. They do NOT want reforms imposed on them from the USA or Britain. That sort of thing led to one of the darkest times in their history.
Nothing UNITES the people of Iran -- the government, mullahs, and the people -- more than the anger they have over US meddling in their internal affairs.
Obama knows this and is doing precisely the best thing he could possibly do to help those protestors: he's staying the hell out of their business.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.27.10 @ 4:54PM
Well darn it Lib....I knew you had it in you. Very well stated.
I am ok with letting the Iranians deal with their own internal mess. My problems with them are their international support of terrorism. Man, I wish I knew the formula for curtailing that.
Alan Brooks| 1.27.10 @ 10:16PM
"Man, I wish I knew the formula for curtailing that."
Encourage Israel to hit several hundred targets in Iran, so we don't have to get involved. Liberal Reader can thus sleep at night.
"Al' Sabiades [phonetic sp.] always went for the jugular"-- Geo. Patton
Pingback| 1.27.10 @ 4:55PM
The American Spectator : Obama Security and Insecurity | Drakz Free Online Service links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Liberal Reader| 1.27.10 @ 5:43PM
Ken --
Agreed. And I'm not apologizing for Iran. The current regime in Iran is THE leading state sponsor of terrorism in the world. This has terrible consequences for Israel -- our best friend in the region -- and for many other parts of the world as well.
I hope the reformers protesting -- should they prevail -- curb this sponsorship. It's an awful thing, and the US and the rest of the world community has every right to thwart it.
dingmei| 1.28.10 @ 3:58AM
What an inspiring article you wrote! I totally like the useful children glasses info shared in the article.
Great resources of kids sunglasses! Thank you for sharing this with us.
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 7:43AM
The American Spectator : Obama Security and Insecurity | Iran Today links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Converse| 8.12.11 @ 3:00AM
is good