Barack Obama is waging a strategic effort this week to shore up his credentials: between his impending trip to Europe and the Middle East, Monday's op-ed on withdrawing from Iraq, a new TV ad touting his bi-partisan bill to lock down loose nuclear weapons, and now Tuesday's speech on national security in Washington, DC, Obama seems to be telling those who doubt his ability to lead on the world stage, "Yes I can."
Even the podium at his national security address said it. Sitting just below the candidate's chest, in the familiar font of Obama's campaign paraphernalia, a placard read, "Judgment to lead."
"Judgment" was Obama's rejoinder to Clinton's "experience" in the primaries; and the messaging of the last few days suggests "judgment" might also be a defense against the septuagenarian McCain, although it's not the campaign's strongest suit. Rather, Obama seems to be floating the idea of "strategy" as the way to distinguish his thinking from his opponent's. It's an esoteric argument. In essence, strategy concerns thinking about how one will approach the game as a whole; tactics involve the individual decisions that move the pieces in the desired direction.
Obama is a strategic thinker. He famously out-maneuvered Hillary and her top Democratic Party advisers to win the primaries, following a strategy no one at the time guessed could win, focusing on all fifty states, running hard in the caucus contests, seeing beyond Super Tuesday, raising vast sums from small donors on the web. Obama is also the author of a bestselling and crtically acclaimed book, no small strategic victory. Writing a book requires the author to imagine the logical sequence of events and ideas to get from the first page to the last. The exact words or scenes are the result of tactical decisions. The arc of the story is its strategy.
The arc of Obama's foreign policy strategy is to go from focusing primarily on Iraq to spreading our attention to the rest of the world -- and thus expanding our influence, security, and prosperity. It's like his fifty-state campaign strategy, spread to all four corners.
To get there, Obama suggests five points:
1) End the war in Iraq responsibly
2) End the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, especially in Iran and Pakistan
3) Secure nuclear materials and weapons from rogue states
4) End the tyranny of oil
5) Re-build our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century
I can already hear the clamoring: How are we going to end the war in Iraq? End the tyranny of oil? What will we replace it with?
These are tactical questions. Obama is in a Big Thinker moment, comparing himself to George Marshall after World War II. To paraphrase the candidate, the Marshall Plan responded to the United States' need to contain the threat of communism while expanding freedom's frontier. Likewise, Obama identifies the challenge of the current moment -- post 9/11, post-George W. Bush -- as the need to restore our might and moral sway.
Obama is defining where we are and where we need to go, with a few rough guide posts along the way; a first step. A leader, as he sees it, needs to establish the big picture persuasively as a starting point. Note his encouraging words to soldiers: "...on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war." In other words, what our brave men and women in uniform need is a strategy!
I may be that many people, especially those who deal with the mechanics of getting stuff done -- engineers, businesspeople, former first ladies who run for president, and especially soldiers, former or otherwise -- will be frustrated with the lack of specific tactics articulated in Obama's platform.
My brother, a soldier in Iraq, was "unimpressed and even a little turned off" with the Democratic candidate's plan to leave Iraq -- it completely overlooked whether Iraqi security forces would be ready, how long it takes to redeploy not just combat brigades but assets, and the process for establishing a stable political environment in Baghdad.
Details!
...are where the devil is. If the Republicans are going to put up a good defense in November, they must show either that tactics matter -- not only for themselves, but insofar as they influence strategy -- or challenge the Democratic strategy. Obama will not get bogged down in the hows, but continue to soar high in the whats and whys. That soaring strategizing might be strengthened in the mind of critics by a list of potential cabinet selections that includes the names of strong tacticians and evidence that a president Obama will really listen to them.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Details make for boring speeches. If you want details read them online. They are on his web site.
Experience only matters if you learn from it. McCain apparently hasn't learned from his.
In order to reassure us all, I hope that Obama can soon start telegraphing who his brains trust will be. One would expect him to preside over the biggest stampede of the best and the brightest to Washington from Harvard, Chicago, and Wall St., since JFK, though chastened, we might hope, by the disaster of Vietnam which JFK's geniuses visited on the country. But here Obama's own wonderful caution and moderation should keep us from going off the deep end. Above all, Obama needs another Robert Rubin, the architect of everything that government could contribute to the prosperity of the Clinton boom years, whatever Obama's more economically illiterate enthusiasts on the innocent left might say about him.
Iraq - a war of tribes will occur there and nothing can be done about it.
The US cannot occupy Iraq and stop the violence between the tribes.
One option - GET OUT OF IRAQ,
We are powerless to make the tribes stop bickering.
We are powerless to rebuild Iraq.
We are powerless in Iraq because we cannot fight an endless war and keep troops there as peacekeepers forever.
Get a life folks, even the US loses wars that cannot be won.
VIETNAM proved we are powerless in OTHER countries.
Remember to vote all.
:-)
Pray for our soldiers.
Obama's broader view of National Security is more than just merely a political tactic.
The safety of rank & file America involves (a) security within our borders, (b) fighting a somewhat invisible enemy "where he lives" and securing the channels of movement in-between.
Domestically, it means protecting ports, water supplies, nuclear power plants, bridges, rail transport, power grid, cyber space, malls and urban centers. It also means strengthening our competitiveness by (a) better educating our workforce, (b) removing the burden of health care funding from our businesses and (c) revisiting our trade agreements to keep the playing field level.
Internationally, it means building stronger bridges with our allies, strengthening human intel, opening lines of communications with friend and foe alike and making the deployment of our military resources more flexible.
Both domestically and internationally, it also means strengthening the credibility of government to win back not only the hearts and minds people worldwide, but also the hearts and minds of our own people.
As Einstein once said: "Everything is relative." (And as I say: "We're all relatives").
Does anyone realize the magnitude that ending the war in Iraq will do for our country?
First if all we won't have to borrow from China. This will increase the dollar's valuation. And if the dollar becomes stronger oil prices can drop from 10-30%. Once people start to realize that the price of oil is dropping, people will start to spend on goods and services thus stimulating growth in the economy. A growing economy will strengthen the dollar further. And when the price of oil has started to drop even further, speculators will latch on to this trend and bid down the price of oil.
There you go. How to solve our economy in a nutshell. Of course this is somewhat a perfect scenario on how things might happen, but no one will really know until we end the war in Iraq.
Don't you think it is a bit ironic that McCain keeps harping on Obama's lack of experience, but Obama kicks his ass when it comes to 21st century technology? He is up to date, lucid, and with it. I totally respect my elders; however I would argue that having a contemporary leader is absolutely necessary in this era of merging technologies.
Obama is the man of experience in this scenario.
Part 2
Are details important to strategy or and leader? You bettcha--as you said the details need to be brought UP into the decisions when setting strategy. Bush's inability to do this is exactly why his strategic decision to democratize Iraq with the same strategy used in Japan and Germany, was so flawed. It worked in Japan and Germany because those nations were already defeated and simultaneously still homogenous. With Iraq, we had a country that was not militarily defeated in the same way, had diverse fighting factions and doesn't believe in the separation of church and state to boot.
I have been calling for more details from BO since day one and see this as a big problem. But because I am a dem and I agree with dems overall strategy I will vote for BO.
If you want details just go to his website. There is a lot about O-bama just by visiting his site and reading about it.
Part 1
HRC knew BO's Achilles heel was lack of details and she fought him on and would have won if she started attacking him on them early. It is also why her supporters were so ticked at the media for not bringing his details out. This is why HRC
--used "Solutions" (details) as her mantra opposed to Bo's big picture Change and Hope
--nailed BO in debates (where the details are)
--tried to get him into Lincoln/Douglas debates (an even more fierce venue for details)
--provided details in her platform creation of a poverty czar, and tried to steer conversation of the details of her healthcare plan, among other things.
If McCain figures this out it could damage BO but the question is will the voters will listen and if so, will they care?
You say HRC "would have won if she started attacking BO earlier on his lack of details", right?
Well, that sounds a lot to me like she didn't have a "strategy" and therefore she lost!
Or, she didn't have the right strategy until too late.
The details are already in place, they just don't come out so much in speeches, with good reason. Details are dependent upon specifics--as the author said, Obama's withdrawal plan, which actually DOES go into "what to do if" and deals with potential problems, is better put forth to the public as an overal strategy than as specific details. This is mainly because the MSM is too stupid (and too many Americans are just as much so) to grasp that presenting one tactical plan and then updating to another is a necessary response to changes "on the ground".
There are plenty of details available, it's just pointless to air most of them when reality will determine the precise path and how its cut. As it should, but a candidate who puts forth tactics they then alter is more likely to be seen as untrustworthy, flip-flopping, or a straight-up liar--like Bush, saying he would work on bipartisanship and then having the most partisan leadership ever.
Even the larger details must adapt so much that Obama's wise to leave them in his website but not flesh them out on the stump.
Good judgment is more important than experience when it comes to foreign policy.
Nobody is qualified to be president based on experience because no one running has ever done the job before.
Obama has shown he has good judgment. I trust him to handle whatever challenges come up.
You're just getting this now? I wish I had all my posts during the beginning of the primary when this was so obvious to all those that didn't look at BO through rose colored glasses.
The point is that all masters excel on all THREE levels. BIG picture (strategy), MEDIUM (logistics) and SMALL range (details).
Clinton, Reganm JFK, Lincoln etc. were masters of all three levels. Bush (who I am not a fan), was good with Big and medium range but had no ability for the details--thus this mess in the war. HRC just okay on all three levels but staggeringly brilliant on the details.
Obama is ALL big picture, has no experience on medium rangs (logistics) and doesn't have any details.
The question is, does it matter to anyone? It does to me, because I am sick of the Bush's strategy for war with no oversight on the disgusting mess that we have left here. However, I am still voting for him because he is better than McCain.
You're completely wrong, about everyone but Lincoln. That aside...
Have you not looked into Obama's history? He organized, planned, drummed up support for, and enacted changes at every level--strategy, logistics, and details--for YEARS in several different venues. He has been staggeringly successful on all those leves when it comes to making people happy with the results and getting things done effectively. For you to not know this suggests a dearth of research, or perhaps a bias that prevents you from seeing his experience.
How do you know what level he was involved in strategy, logistics and detaild? You don't. You're exaggerating.
And he didn't do all this community work for years. If you read the article behind the notorious New Yorker cartoon, which is the most detailed display of his political experience, you will see that he spent brief times working on surface levels as he rose quickly.
I think you have a dearth of research, or perhaps a bias that prevents you from seeing his real experience.
You know I intentionally decided not to debunk the the constant retort I hear from his supporters of "go to his website" because I didn't have the room. Why isn't "go to his website" enough? Because anyone can write out their policy on a website, the point is he needs to focus on details to prove he deliver on the logistics and the details? He is being held to a different standard than other candidates because the burden of proof is on him to show he can get the most difficult position on the planet done. The other candidates do have proven experience and therefore aren't scrutinized as much.
To repeat, I am voting for him and he is going to win, no doubt, but details are important and I'd like to see him be pressed to give them now before he gets into the Whitehouse? Why? Because we need to tell him what we want him to improve on while he is still trying to win our votes as he is more likely to listen now. Like I said, he is going to win hands down and I support him.
If that's all true, how did he manage to beat 6 other contenders for the Democratic nomination? Someone must have been excelling on all three level to pull that off because it was an astonishing win.
The big picture sells, especially when he ties emotion to it. It's the first rule of advertising--elicit emotion in your sale. It's classic marketing, stay big picture, and ties your consumer into the FEELING behind the product, but it doesn't mean your product is any good.
Like I said, I support him because of the alternative.
As an informed voter, I will vote for the candidate who consistently demonstrates the use of sound judgement on matters affecting the quality of life and safety of ALL Americans, wthout regard to the LENGTH OF TIME HE HAS BEEN IN THE WORKFORCE, ESPECIALLY IN WASHINGTON! The QUALITY of one's experience is worth more to me than the QUANTITY of experience. In addition, the candidate who is smart enough to surround himself with INTELLIGENT, COMIMTTED, HIGH-INTEGRITY STAFF who are able to follow his lead and implement his vision will get my vote. Where there is no vision the people perish. I have suffered enough at the gas pumps while the oil companies get richer and richer (hugh profits every quarter), at the grocery store, at the pharmacy/doctors' offices, utility companies, as well as in other areas of my life.
Right on. Purity of intent counts too, for me.
Very interesting. I like the slogan "Judgment to Lead." That articulates a major difference in a nutshell.
I also like the comparison of Obama's 50-state strategy in the primary and general to his worldcentric approach toward foreign policy. I had not thought about that.
Kelly Nuxoll got it right when she observes Obama"s political stratagem as big picture driven. In that status, Obama has sufficiently inoculated himself against adversarial attacks from his competition. For instance, on Iraq, McCain is claiming that he showed better judgment than Obama for supporting surge, which he opposed. Obama"s response is that it was a strategic blunder to have invaded Iraq in the first place and the surge was one of the tactical means for making lemonade out of lime. Furthermore, his proposed plans on how to withdraw troops from Iraq through the combination of aggressive diplomacy and partnering with Iraqi"s neighbors were not tried and hence it could not be adjudged as case in point for error of intellectual judgment. It also nullifies the accusation of precipitous withdrawal since Obama has insisted from day one that "we must be as careful getting out as we were careless going in".
O can also argue that the Generals recommended invading with surge strength from the very beginning and BushCo refused to listen.... McCain agreed saying it would be a cakewalk and that we didn't need to send in such an overwhelming force.
We see how well that worked out...
So, in reality... the so called "surge" was simply returning to the recommendations of the first group of generals.
"...Taliban and Al-Qaeda, especially in Iran..."
Will someone please tell the press that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are not in Iran and to quit reading from McCain's play book? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda are Sunni. Iran is quite predominantly Shia. The two don't mix well. They don't play well with each other. People in Al-Qaeda have said, paraphrasing here, that Shia are dogs (which aren't man's best friend in Muslim countries) and that they would like to destroy them, referring, I believe, at the time to Iran.
Ms. Nuxoll,
Thanks for this Post; I think you nailed it. I have long thought that that's where he is coming from. But many people miss the point - deliberately or otherwise. I would really love to see him explain that in one of his master speeches. He may be starting to do that, but I would love to see him explain his frame of reference more than he has up to now.
The fact he has not, is part of the reason, I think, why he has been accused of flip-flopping - such a dreadful term. He is way ahead of (above?) the pack. I just wish there was some way he could get that across, i.e. that he starts with the 30,000 ft. view - the big picture, without being painted as being "high and mighty". Finally, needless to say, he is right in his approach - you have to start with Strategy.
From day one, Obama said that voters should watch the way he runs his campaign to get an idea as to how he would lead the country into the 21st century. The campaingn has been a strategies... The problem is, too many folks have listened to him but have not HEARD him. What he has been saying has been filtered through the lens of individuals' own expectations or perspectives. Too many people have been trying to "define" Obama themselves while he has tried to define himself. Now they are starting to listen and HEAR what he is saying. I believe that's the reason some folks are saying that he has "changed" his position on issues, when in effect he has been saying the same thing along, but more refined as actual (non-poltical) circumstances warrant.
Loading comments…
Posted July 15, 2008 | 05:47 PM (EST)