Speeches (071709) by J. F. Kelly, Jr

A commentary by J. F. Kelly, Jr.

As we all know, Barack Obama won the presidency as the candidate of hope and change. We are apparently still stuck in the “hope” phase because actual change is proving difficult in spite of good intentions. What change we do begin to see, at least on the domestic front, looks more expensive than we can afford, given the economic mess we’re in.

On the foreign policy side, not much has changed at all. The threat of nuclear proliferation worsens. Iran races toward the day when it will possess the great equalizer, if something isn’t done to prevent it, something, that is, that actually works. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned, “Time is running out”. Time has already run out in the case of North Korea which is now practicing delivery techniques.

We know that the Obama administration is committed to a policy of engagement with our would-be adversaries. By engagement is meant a sort of diplomatic reaching out as opposed to the more traditional military meaning. We will reach out to our enemies in concert with our friends and allies, within the framework of the United Nations and with due respect for international law. We will negotiate, moreover, with whoever is in charge, regardless of international conduct, abuse of power or popularity among subjects. (Well, perhaps we’ll make an exception in the case of Honduras. Can’t have the army overthrowing an elected president even if that’s what the Hondurans want and it would benefit U.S. interests).

A willingness to engage adversaries and to work with allies in the framework of the UN and international law all sounds very righteous but should not be confused with actually doing something about the problems we face. That would require a plan, including a course of action for when the speechmaking and slogans fail to modify the behavior that we deem unacceptable. All that diplomatic engagement stuff is technique or method, not a plan. If Secretary Clinton is correct and time is running out, what is the plan?

Public opinion of President Obama remains high, especially among the media, and while support for his policies has waned, that is largely because of the economic mess he inherited. The reasons are obvious. He is charming and charismatic and he gives a great speech and interview. These qualities promote confidence and win votes. He is constantly in the media, giving speeches or interviews, and giving the impression that he is hard at work on these issues. He is hard at work to be sure, but on speechmaking, not problem solving. Where are the actual strategies to deal with the actual security risks we face? Speeches, slogans and principles are not enough. He was elected president to lead and defend us, not just to keep us apprised of the problems.

When I served as a member of a county task force for the prevention of drug and alcohol abuse and president of its business council, we spent a lot of time talking about the drug problems but precious little solving them. It occurred to me eventually that some members actually thought that by just talking about the problems they were actually making a sufficient contribution toward solving them. But talk is cheap. Actions matter.

Americans should be under no illusions that Mr. Obama and his negotiators, however eloquent, can talk their way out of the major security threats we face. Speeches, slogans and generalities may inspire followers and play well on the evening news but they do not dissuade adversaries. Power and the credible promise to use it when necessary do.

Thus far, on the international side at least, the Obama administration has been all hat and no cattle, as they might say in Texas. It is getting us nowhere. Meanwhile, we are actually reducing funding for missile defense even as we are moving missile defense assets to the Hawaii area to defend against possible North Korea launches. We rely on UN sanctions which in the past have proved a waste of time which Ms. Clinton says is running out. We decline to board and inspect a North Korean freighter on the high seas suspected of carrying prohibited nuclear materials because of some vague and misplaced concern over jurisdiction and international law. We pledge to bring international terrorists “to justice” and worry about their rights, involving our civilian court system in matters that should be totally under the jurisdiction of the president who, unlike the judges, was elected to defend us.

The American people have a right to know what the Obama administrion will actually do to defend them if the talk, speeches and sanctions continue to fail and time does actually run out. Perhaps it already has.

Copyright 2009 by J. F. Kelly, Jr.