The Wall Street Journal editors suggest Barack Obama take his own speech seriously. They write:
[T]he significant debate is not over whether and when the U.S. will withdraw. It’s over whether the U.S. will win. In his Berlin speech, Mr. Obama was at his most forceful when he insisted that “this is the moment when we must defeat terror,” adding that “the threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it.” This is well-said and true. But it squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq — and whatever calamities may follow — is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests. It squares oddly, too, with Mr. Obama’s broader promise to “stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, the voter in Zimbabwe” and virtually every other global cause.
The editors also make the point that popularity isn’t what it’s cracked up to be:
It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, his message was: “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Press accounts characterized the line as “provocative”; the Soviets called it “war-mongering”; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell. Reagan’s speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship. Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter — “people,” that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November.
It seems essential that one’s foreign policy goals (e.g. freedom, defeat of terror, prevention of genocide) must be reasonably related to the means you are willing to employ to attain them. “Soft power” isn’t going to get Obama to the lofty ends he seeks. And his rejection of hard power and aversion to drawing clear lines is going to make it that much more difficult to attain his goals. As Michael Rubin put it:
Obama’s words are inspirational, but if anything is to be learned from the Bush administration, it is that leadership must run deeper than rhetoric. Berlin’s freedom was won with blood and treasure. It was not secured with withdrawals or unilateral disarmament. . . Western Europe exists in a bubble of stability and affluence, unable to fathom how dangerous extremist ideology in Tehran and Pyongyang can be. Multilateral organizations are not the answer; at best, they are ineffective soap boxes, at worst cesspools of venality. Rose petals and well-digging have never stopped bombs, racism or genocide. A strong military has.
But one thing we know: Obama’s goals and ambitions for international unity and peace put George W. Bush’s Second Inagurual Address to shame. For those who thought Bush’s efforts to “remake” the world were fraught with peril, they should be forewarned: Obama has big plans. It’s the will and realistic means to attain those plans in the face of determined enemies and resistant allies which he is missing.
