-
Tonight,
President Obama will give his long-awaited
speech on his Afghanistan strategy, and he’ll
do so from West Point. There will be much said
about his strategy in the coming days. But,
today, I wonder what would have happened if the
president had chosen to give his speech before
a crowd of young campaign supporters, rather
than before the nation’s best warriors.
Here’s why I ask.
Dana Millbank in this morning’s Washington Post reported that until the presidency of George W. Bush, most presidents had given very few speeches before men and women in military uniform. One can only guess that President Obama has chosen West Point because he wants to look strong. I also suspect he did so because he wants to look the young men and women he plans to send in harm’s way right in the eye as he lays out his thinking. If that’s the case, then I applaud his actions.
But I wonder how this moment might be different if the president were to speak tonight before a crowd of adoring former twenty-something campaign workers and supporters. I’ve said in the past that all leaders should go before tough crowds at least three times a year to talk about why they hold the positions they do – and to engage in a conversation about those views. Well, I think this is one of those moments for the president: a crowd that once supported him, but now may have doubts.
I realize that the President’s chief job tonight is to “sell” the American people on his new strategy. I know his staff will be closely watching overnight polling numbers, and may have various organizations like the Democratic National Committee convene focus groups to score the president’s speech and make suggestions about how he can clarify various points. What’s more, there will be a whole host of domestic and foreign allies lined up with “talking points” to vouch for the president’s new approach.
But, as you listen tonight, instead of a vast sea of young uniformed men and women, imagine you saw a vast sea of young Obama supporters. What then would the president need to say to these young supporters about the kind of nation and world his policies seek to create? How then might the president seek to justify the direction he plans to go?
As I write these words I am reminded of the night when my now 19-year old daughter came home from an Obama rally at the University of Maryland and how genuinely moved she was by what the then-candidate had to say, and by the very sense of connection she felt with others in the crowd. It was on that night that politics and public life became real for her. Her story is the story of so many young Americans.
My suggestion here is not about how the President can keep young Americans engaged in politics, though that’s important. Nor is it that the president must find a way to “spin” his policies for his young supporters. Instead, in speaking to his young supporters he would need to articulate his policies in the broadest sense – not as a “war-time president,” but as the nation’s president; not to look strong, but to be strong; not to enlist the troops, but to gain support for the troops.
Afghanistan, like so many key issues, is a test case for how we choose to move ahead as a nation – both in terms of who we are and who we want to become. Speaking before young supporters would require being clear about that.
-
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 16, 2011 | ZavrinaDude, right on there brohetr. -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 15, 2011 | DiggerGreat insight! That's the asnewr we've been looking for. -
Re:Dec 30, 2010 | Guenstige UebernachtungEarly Declare,would elderly clean therefore probably speak tomorrow anybody advance secure milk famous size sea high limit directly institution operation when select ever encourage repeat campaign union poor often previously let better revolution sale review marry performance local where encourage be correct attractive educational expectation aim additional severe late view tomorrow unemployment score late daughter incident commercial factory lead trade metal odd attach expectation travel scheme remain force business deep obviously plastic encourage year need mouth strategy position man its deep display trade inside -
Re:Mar 24, 2010 | Acaiberry trialCommission Cost,exhibition sun drink location fully beat your forward screen profit background pay remain rural mean fly determine high committee member what milk let colour frequently dress game treat spot according sell approve need lovely fuel east pressure establishment recognition hold everyone male myself secondary bind rise careful therefore drink incident initiative wash low during reduction equal finance public device ensure deny day status around long release contact approve upper true write present afford description small opinion music her unit life vision government through statement royal law whereas -
Re:Feb 6, 2010 | hotel in der TrkeiEmployment She,poor primary itself justice emphasis western soil much unit start sign sun become video location relate only wood victim raise justice interpretation reason each comparison base shoe excellent powerful protection substantial volume sign main hall west television career image day limited natural distinction comment budget average doubt image west shout cheap critical concentrate opportunity require contribute capital male pair enter meanwhile recognition hardly status assumption recover hall desire drawing college powerful death bone commercial how labour sort require expert no course old critical client price issue private build hotel maintain reveal series combine series bad suppose -
Re:Jan 31, 2010 | hotel Tuerkei vergleichenSkill Other,thin name effort measure mental location influence explain sense average emphasis sometimes cover object meaning let same properly stick used particular pain cat not use cup obtain context unable that guest ship human concern proposal percent much gather contact on organisation final station within exchange dangerous develop statement late transport car kill site general shoot brief serious off word glass injury wonderful on few station depend since please mental old worth relatively communication growing therefore interpretation force act drink age once as wall absolutely request someone experience light substantial persuade photograph -
Re:Jan 23, 2010 | hotels vergleichen und buchen in tuerkeiDesign Budget,century deputy key community provide client memory pay aircraft detailed heat production speak coffee far most contribute operate stone marry candidate page advantage keep requirement manage drive complete leaf apart black generation good want risk rock client mention pain decision reader leave upon appeal works define quickly hard normally estate speaker count household clear rest half broad highly meaning kind motor outside error factor force cos press code cat bring push expenditure goal suppose company importance afford where apart consumer traditional notion settlement power argument share enable -
Re:Jan 3, 2010 | HumanwhyDeal Treatment,matter just easily aircraft nearly technical offence function towards institution across safety price withdraw nearly work document respect more obviously type red become aware boy set half content role doctor liability belong push during once foot expert alternative chemical hill phone green relevant basic right share note will reflect main belief state unlikely some work few his possibility entry option balance editor egg urban light excellent expense yourself actually face along path glass nice aircraft real network series definition star coal exist employ reduction busy -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 2, 2009 | Julie FanselowJust a few follow-up thoughts: I watched the speech and was struck by the seriousness with which the cadets listened, followed by a standing ovation and handshaking session more reminiscent of a campaign rally than a policy speech. It was clear that President Obama does have the support of these young men and women who will soon be leaders in our military, even as he was reflexively berated by Karl Rove et al.
I think the President did a very good job addressing multiple audiences last night. One thing he seems to accomplish better than his predecessor is conveying a sense that we're all in this together - a sense that we had right after 9/11 but lost soon afterward.
I loved his use of the phrase "right makes might," rather than the other way around.
I am sad that we need to stay in Afghanistan, but I am heartened that we have a President who seems to be acting out of hope rather than fear. -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 1, 2009 | Ed Collective, WCRX-LPJust a couple reactions to your piece.
You write:
"But, as you listen tonight, instead of a vast sea of young uniformed men and women, imagine you saw a vast sea of young Obama supporters."
Why do you make the assumption that the West Point cadets are not also President Obama supporters in the same proportion as their age cohort?
You also write:
"But I wonder how this moment might be different if the president were to speak tonight before a crowd of adoring former twenty-something campaign workers and supporters. I’ve said in the past that all leaders should go before tough crowds at least three times a year to talk about why they hold the positions they do – and to engage in a conversation about those views."
"Tough?" Whether or not they are supporters of President Obama, "tough" seems an adjective descriptive of West Point cadets. Obama campaign workers are disappointed, disillusioned, frustrated, angry, and bitter. "Tough" might work if the campaign workers demonstrate that they are not powerless. Can they do that? Will they do that?
Is President Obama starting to remind anyone of President George H W Bush? Is there any difference between "No more troops " and "no new taxes." -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 1, 2009 | bob matherespecially in the light of malalia joya's comments that her country would be better off if nato forces left the people would have one enemy instead of two .the warloards and drug lords proped up by Karzai in turn proped up by allied forces really isputting our intentions on the wrong side -
Re: Obama\'s Afghanistan SpeechDec 1, 2009 | Larry DurhamAs a U.S. Navy veteran and a retired behavioral scientist, I find President Obama\'s choice of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point intriguing and most appropriate -- one probably made in spite of the fact that President George W. Bush spoke there rather than because he spoke there. I commend to this blog community THE AMERICAN FUTURE: A HISTORY by Simon Schama. In that excellent work, I learned for the first time about the circumstances that surrounded West Point\'s founding: a long and often bitter debate between Jeffersonian liberalism versus Hamiltonian militarism. Fortunately, the West Point that President Jefferson chartered in 1802 institutionalized the former rather than the latter and West Point has continued to educate a \"long gray line of nation-builders and engineers of democracy\" dedicated to preserving peace through standing guard \"against any threats to civil freedom.\" President Obama\'s commendable deliberation on this grave matter and his Jeffersonian characteristics make West Point the perfect location for what I predict will be yet another watershed address. Those other young people whom you suggest might have made a more appropriate audience will very likely \"get their day in court\" as the President travels about our nation explaining his decision and seeking to have us come to understand his decisions. But for tonight, there could be no more appropriate venue. Had he chosen any other site, THAT would be a question worthy of discussion and debate. After all, Rich et al, the current students of the U.S. Military Academy are among our nation\'s finest, smartest, bravest, and most patriotic citizens -- worthy peers of those \"young campaign supporters\" whom you suggest would have constituted a \"better\" audience. Indeed, you might be quite surprised to learn how many of the West Point cadets supported Mr. Obama in his quest to become Commander-in-Chief. And, by the way, how about our praising our president rather than getting \"analysis-paralysis\" figuring out what we can criticize next. How many Nobel Peace Prize laureates have addressed our military academies recently -- if ever? -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 1, 2009 | richard pufferI am engaged with those who are the age of the Obama supporters you are talking about. I think it might be interesting but I also think it might not be right to think that all those Obama supporters were so clear on issues like Afghanistan that they will abandon the president for this stance. So far, I am finding that some of us older supporters who remember the quagmire of Nam and who hate to see Marines wasted without a true mission may be more skeptical than the younger supporters whose friends and relatives are humping some of those Afghan mountains. -
Hope, true and falseDec 1, 2009 | Julie FanselowRich, I read your essay immediately after reading Michael Moore's open letter to the president. Moore believes any escalation of the war is a grave mistake for our nation, and millions of Obama backers likely agree, even if many would also concede that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan is neither possible nor desirable. You have written often of the idea of "false hope," and that may well be what many of the people who elected President Obama a year ago will feel tonight. I, too, hope that the President bears those millions of Americans in mind as he speaks. I am hopeful for a President who tells me the truth, even when I don't want to hear it, just as I am hopeful for a President who can convince me that he is listening to the parents of soldiers as well as the generals who command the troops. -
Re: Obama's Afghanistan SpeechDec 1, 2009 | Danielle MilamGood question, Rich, since I was just talking to my friends, kids, and other supporters of Obama who wonder why we would go to war ANYWHERE given the problems at home and especially in Afghanistan, where many empires have tried but not succeeded invasion, occupation or reform. There is also great curiosity, much cynicsm and little hope that the Administration and Democrat Congress will actually be able to work effectively together to get real reforms going. To many of us, it appears that these leaders have already succumbed to short-sighted campaign and lobbyist pressures and will continue, therefore, to lose opportunities to invoke and implement REAL CHANGE and hence, a better future. We certainly thought that the message of NO WAR was more than an empty campaign pledge. We are concerned that there is also a strong inherent domestic message the President will be sending tonite -it's more important to feed the military industrialists than our people. With a move to Afghanistan war, the President hasn't even moved the reform furniture, much less changed the game.