Tom says regarding Obama, that "He's a contradictory man" which is quite true but is it relevant? FDR's deviousness and contradictions made Obama's look trivial in comparison yet he was probably our greatest President in both war and peace. Winston Churchill was a walking and talking volcano of contradictions but like his friend and ally FDR he remained constantly loyal to a few important fundamental ideas about freedom and liberty.

Politicians are always contradictory because they must feed the beast of popular opinion in order to remain effective. Any politician who thinks he can stake out positions without fear of contradiction is foolish, unrealistic and without intellectual fluidity and political skill.

Regarding Obama’s recent speeches at West Point and Norway to his credit he did not pander to either audience. And let it be understood that both were audiences which felt entitled to be pandered to. Good for him.

"It should not come as a surprise. America is now a one-party state. The one party is the Establishment party, which is also the war party. Unless you are willing to cheer permanent war for permanent peace, you cannot be a member of the Establishment."

William S Lind

http://lewrockwell.com/lind/lind162.html

I didn't mean contradictory to be a criticism. It is a very American trait--just ask Walt Whitman.

As for Moonofa's quibble, yes you are being trivial.

Best,
Tom

Yes, Tom, but your "couple of weeks" comment should be carved in stone, just like the July 2011 withdrawal date.

Fair is fair.

I thought his comments about Iran and North Korea were predictable given the inherent peace-making qualities of his efforts in non-proliferation and cutting down on stock piles.

Where I thought he was far more hawkish was with what he called an "ambivalent" European people. He presented the case for MORE intervention with his talk of "just wars" while simultaneously delivering an unapologetic and triumphalist history of the United States' military intervention and contribution to "global security" - a term I think most Europeans find dubious.

The response from the progressive left and European capitals would have been uniformly predictable and undoubtably used the word, 'cowboy.'

Hard to imagine candidate Obama making this speech. If he had I might have voted for him. The cold realization that evil exists and must be confronted is a welcome revelation from this president.

Where he appeared ambivalent and lacked confidence.

Thought this was a much better performance; not necessarily the message, but the conviction the man showed.

What I like to see in my CINC.

...because it is after the spam of all spam.

But having read the Oslo speech now, and listened to the WP speech then...I have come to the conclusion that maybe this Obama character is a pretty smart dude. (I thought that before but never really voiced it).

Here's my assessment. By all rights the previous administration lacked (to be generous) any kind of foresight. They revelled in their 'following their gut' and all that cowboy bullshit.

But coming from a military background myself, I have had 'backward planning' instilled into me from birth. You have to be 'fustest with the mostest' - which is a good quote from a bad man.

I think that these two speeches were highly thought out and meant as the one-two punch that they were. And given that fact, I think we may be able to make the leap that part of Obama's so called 'dithering' was to gather information (smart) and waste some time in anticipation of the Oslo speech. He needed the Oslo speech more than he needed the WP one. The WP was prelude, and its audience was largely a disenchanted American constituency who isn't going to act one way or another that will influence the war in Afghanistan. Our people simply don't care enough (we have to worry about Tiger for chrissake).

The Oslo speech is more important because at both ends he has to convince Europe that our goals in Afghanistan are noble...and he has to get some sort of rejuvenation of the European effort in Afghanistan. He does that by proving to the Euros that he really is deserving of the Peace prize because he is thoughtful about the paradoxes - and he really isn't Bush (who was never thoughtful about much of anything).

Planning and foresight and backward planning and an integrated effort are things we simply ain't seen in 8+ years. All the dithering had a purpose. Consider me further intrigued.

Good for you, but I suspect after electing a Dem to the presidency and having a Dem Congress - and still the boss says go forth and conquer....there isn't much likelihood of changing the plan. Oh you'll see some token resistance in Congress from the far left, but then again most people in the US thought Obama WAS far left.

I wish you well in your endeavor, while I polish up on my Pashto and Dari.

Having listened to President Obama's Oslo speech twice, I found it fairly nuanced in terms of his personal anguish over nonviolence and the necessity as President to take his Commander In Chief duties seriously.

It has been a long time that any world leader, much less an US President, has given such a thoughtful speech. Most will only commit to "Peace is good" and then only at this time year.