Michael Goodwin: Obama's Peace of History
[Michael Goodwin is a Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist for the New York Daily News.]
There was much to like in President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, including admitting his achieve- ments are "slight" and oth ers are more deserving. Candor becomes him.
Other welcome passages defended the "just war" in Afghanistan and sang the praises of America as a peacemaker in ways that contradict his misbegotten apologies.
Whether these sentiments are one-offs or herald a new and improved Obama remains to be seen.
For me, the most important part of the speech came in the one paragraph where he invoked two Republican predecessors as models for international engagement. It's got to be driving the lefties nuts, both in Europe-istan and at home.
"In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, [Richard] Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies," Obama said. And later: "Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroikanot only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe."
The examples are glib, but intriguing if Obama intends to practice what he preaches. Nixon and Reagan were able to engage the communist powers after first earning reputations as fierce anti-communists. Because they were committed Cold Warriors, they could make lasting peace.
For Obama, the equivalent means his goal of integrating Muslim nations into the global community will not succeed until he proves he is willing to defeat Islamic terrorism.
As a result, he has gone about the policy mostly backward, suggesting he believes it is possible to have peace without victory.
He fails to recognize that Palestinian antipathy toward Israel is the cause of that stalemate. On Iran, it's not clear if he will actually prevent the mad mullahs from getting the bomb.
Even his escalation in Afghanistan provokes doubts because he set an 18-month deadline and avoids using the word "win" or "victory." There is no war on terror in his White House.
History says his way doesn't bring peace, only more and bigger wars...
Read entire article at New York Post
There was much to like in President Obama's Nobel Peace Prize speech, including admitting his achieve- ments are "slight" and oth ers are more deserving. Candor becomes him.
Other welcome passages defended the "just war" in Afghanistan and sang the praises of America as a peacemaker in ways that contradict his misbegotten apologies.
Whether these sentiments are one-offs or herald a new and improved Obama remains to be seen.
For me, the most important part of the speech came in the one paragraph where he invoked two Republican predecessors as models for international engagement. It's got to be driving the lefties nuts, both in Europe-istan and at home.
"In light of the Cultural Revolution's horrors, [Richard] Nixon's meeting with Mao appeared inexcusable -- and yet it surely helped set China on a path where millions of its citizens have been lifted from poverty and connected to open societies," Obama said. And later: "Ronald Reagan's efforts on arms control and embrace of perestroikanot only improved relations with the Soviet Union, but empowered dissidents throughout Eastern Europe."
The examples are glib, but intriguing if Obama intends to practice what he preaches. Nixon and Reagan were able to engage the communist powers after first earning reputations as fierce anti-communists. Because they were committed Cold Warriors, they could make lasting peace.
For Obama, the equivalent means his goal of integrating Muslim nations into the global community will not succeed until he proves he is willing to defeat Islamic terrorism.
As a result, he has gone about the policy mostly backward, suggesting he believes it is possible to have peace without victory.
He fails to recognize that Palestinian antipathy toward Israel is the cause of that stalemate. On Iran, it's not clear if he will actually prevent the mad mullahs from getting the bomb.
Even his escalation in Afghanistan provokes doubts because he set an 18-month deadline and avoids using the word "win" or "victory." There is no war on terror in his White House.
History says his way doesn't bring peace, only more and bigger wars...