Memorial Day: Obama and Cheney on National Security (May 21, 2009), part 1

    This past week, President Barack Obama and Vice President delivered speeches on the same day and on the same theme of national security.  For the text of Obama's speech, see here.  For the text of Cheney's speech, see here.
    In this post, I comment on Obama's speech.  Emphases are mine unless otherwise indicated.  Quotations are indented.

Unfortunately, faced with an uncertain threat, our government made a series of hasty decisions. And I believe that those decisions were motivated by a sincere desire to protect the American people. But I also believe that – too often – our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us – Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens – fell silent.

Clearly, Obama disagrees with Bush's approach to the Islamist terror that threatened and threatens our country.  That is his right.  Yet, I note here a lack of humility.  Obama does not recognize that different judgments can reasonably be made.  For him, Bush acted from fear and ideological predispositions.

 

For reasons that I will explain, the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable – a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass. And that is why I took several steps upon taking office to better protect the American people.

"An ad hoc legal approach"--war often requires such an approach.
"Failed to rely on our legal traditions..." -- that's quite a condemnation.
"failed to use our values as a compass"--wow.
"better protect the American people."--For Obama, reduced vigilance increases security, as he will go on to explain.

I know some have argued that brutal methods like water-boarding were necessary to keep us safe. I could not disagree more. As Commander-in-Chief, I see the intelligence, I bear responsibility for keeping this country safe, and I reject the assertion that these are the most effective means of interrogation. What’s more, they undermine the rule of law. They alienate us in the world. They serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists, and increase the will of our enemies to fight us, while decreasing the will of others to work with America. They risk the lives of our troops by making it less likely that others will surrender to them in battle, and more likely that Americans will be mistreated if they are captured. In short, they did not advance our war and counter-terrorism efforts – they undermined them, and that is why I ended them once and for all.

"the most effective means of interrogation." -- I don't think that the justification for the use of enhanced means of interrogation is that they are "the most effective" but rather that they are effective means of interrogation.
"undermine the rule of law" -- that is true if they are illegal, which Obama does not bother to establish.
"alienate us in the world."  -- Here, Obama shows his true colors.  The jury of world opinion is determinative.
"a recruitment tool for terrorists" -- Does Obama believe that, absent water-boarding, the al-Qaedas of the world will cease their jihad?
"they did not advance our war...efforts" -- is that really so? It would be interesting to see what intelligence was derived from them.
"once and for all" -- talk about tying one's hands.

We must leave these methods where they belong – in the past. They are not who we are. They are not America.

"these methods...are not America" -- talk about a condemnation of his predecessors.  To what ends?

Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter-terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause. Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.

So the record is clear: rather than keep us safer, the prison at Guantanamo has weakened American national security.

"...Guantamo...created more terrorists..." -- Obama appears to see America as having all the agency and all the responsibility for the war in which it finds itself.  If there are more terrorists, it is American agency that spawned them.
"...has weakened American national security"  -- based on what data?  This is a surprising assertion.

And we will be ill-served by some of the fear-mongering that emerges whenever we discuss this issue. Listening to the recent debate, I’ve heard words that are calculated to scare people rather than educate them; words that have more to do with politics than protecting our country.

"fear-mongering" -- Does Obama mean that either you agree with him or you are fear-monger? 
"words that...scare people rather educate them" -- To assert that there is reason to be afraid and on-guard may scare and also educate.  Obama's dispassionate appraisal of a world full, in his estimation, of only reasonable differences,  increases the anxiety of this reader as it hopes to educate him.

But if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.

"decisions from within a climate of fear" -- certainly, such decisions lead to mistakes.  That is an unfortunate but inevitable fact of waging war.  However, better many smaller mistakes than the colossal one of underestimating the enmity directed at our country.

...whenever we cannot release certain information to the public for valid national security reasons, I will insist that there is oversight of my actions – by Congress or by the courts.

Because in our system of checks and balances, someone must always watch over the watchers – especially when it comes to sensitive information.

...each year we will voluntarily report to Congress when we have invoked the [State Secrets -- ed.] privilege and why, because there must be proper oversight of our actions.

"oversight...by Congress or by the courts."  -- To the extent required by the Constitution, of course.  However, Obama's speech implies something else: the subjugation of the executive to the legislative and judicial branches.  Not a division of powers, but the replacement of executive power with legislative and judicial power.  Here may be a president who is uncomfortable with presidential authority--and hence, does not want to use it to its fullest.
"someone must always watch over the watchers" -- which, for Obama, means that the legislative and judicial branch must watch over the executive.  Does he believe it works the other way as well?  I am not convinced.
"voluntarily report to Congress" --Why?  Report as required, yes; report voluntarily, why?  Does he distrust his own office? 

Every now and then, there are those who think that America’s safety and success requires us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building [the National Archives Museum -- ed.]. We hear such voices today. But the American people have resisted that temptation. And though we have made our share of mistakes and course corrections, we have held fast to the principles that have been the source of our strength, and a beacon to the world.

"there are those who...walk away from the sacred principles" -- Who are Obama's straw men?  Another condemnation of people of good will who preceded him.   "Either you agree with me," he seems to say, "or you reject the values upon which America was built."
"a beacon to the world." -- A noble vocation.  But not one that should ever be seen as impinging on America's capacity to defend itself.