For those who missed it, the full text is here. I finally managed to find time to read it in full, and I think Matt Yglesias has it exactly right. Obama's remarks on Pakistan got most of the press, but they weren't what mattered most in the speech.
More interesting is that Obama, unlike some of the reporters who covered the speech, refused to frame his determination to fight al-Qaida as a contrast with his dovish views on Iraq. Rather, he recalled that in the fall of 2002 he "said I could not support 'a dumb war, a rash war' in Iraq. I worried about a 'US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences' in the heart of the Muslim world. I pleaded that we 'finish the fight with [Osama] bin Laden and al-Qaida.'"
Today, he says that "by refusing the end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want, and what the Congress voted to give then in 2002: a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." Opposition to the war in Iraq, then and now, in other words, is part and parcel of a commitment to a serious struggle against al-Qaida.This is precisely right, and it's precisely Obama's ability to move the conversation in this direction that's his campaign's most underappreciated asset. It's not just that Clinton took a different position on the authorization vote four and a half years ago. Rather, Obama, having established more space between his views and those of the Republicans can, in effect, punch much harder, accusing conservatives of radically misconceiving the problem.
This, in turn, allows him to argue forcefully against continuing the war in Iraq without a hint of defensiveness. "The first step," he said, "must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Obama's move to reframe the entire fight accomplishes two goals in a single move. First, it shifts our strategic focus back towards al-Qaida where it actually belongs, and second, it shifts the political debate towards a much more rational - and for the Democrats, winnable - set of issues. Bashing Bush and his inept handling of the war may get some people fired up, but I strongly suspect it won't be enough to win in 2008. Whomever is nominated is going to need to actually outline and chart a new course. Obama's done that here, even if most people haven't yet noticed.
But hey, its still early, and this is a huge step in the right direction. You don't change the debate with one speech on one day. You do it by staying on message week after month after year. Stay tuned...
UPDATE: This is really too funny for words. Right-wing bloggers are apparently up in arms about Obama's speech. Their complaint? He's advocating a reckless, overly militaristic foreign policy.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
