President Obama's Libya Speech and America's Global Responsibility

We're finalizing the topics for our upcoming Forum season, and the subject of the US role in global affairs keeps appearing - in conversations, on the results of our season ballot and in the emails we receive. The issue is divisive in a much less intelligible way than most; in a political landscape galvanized by bi-partisanship, U.S. foreign policy seems to be a wild-card that claims both conservatives and liberals on both sides of the debate.

In last night's speech concerning Libya, President Obama attempted - and mostly succeeded - in avoiding bi-partisan politics altogether, deciding to approach the issue from a purely humanitarian standpoint. His argument tread lightly on the issue of national and global positioning (the "need to protect our interests") and heavily on the moral responsibilities of the world's most powerful nation. He was also very careful not to allow too many correlations between this campaign and the two wars he inherited, citing UN sanctions and global partnerships, as well as making clear that this campaign is one of defending innocent civilians - not implementing regime change - to distance himself from GW's more vigilante approach. Clearly, President Obama wants to posit America as a defender and cautious promoter of liberty, and not the careless, heavy hand of freedom.

The question, then, becomes one of the fundamental duty of powerful, free nations of the world in protecting civilians and holding the world to a strict moral code.

Here's what a few past Forum panelists have to say about Obama's speech:

Andrew Sullivan (A Conversation Between Bill Moyers and Andrew Sullivan, 2006)

"It wasn't Obama's finest oratory; but it was a very careful threading of a very small needle. That requires steady hands and calmer nerves than I possess. But this president emerges once again as a consolidator and adjuster of the past, not a revolutionary force for the future. And one hopes that the notion that he is not a subscriber to American exceptionalism is no longer seriously entertained. He clearly believes in that exceptionalism - and now will live with its onerous responsibilities."

Bob Woodward (A World of Change, 2010)

“The president has a mammoth management problem, there is deep unhappiness – as there should be – about do we know what’s going on in these countries. The intelligence agencies are scrambling because they cover the leaders and not the revolutionaries or rebels involved in this upheaval.”

Stephen Carter (The End of Civility?, 2010)

"Over the long run, the world is unlikely to be able to handle the responsibility President Obama has handed it. This in turn leads to the unspoken moral issue with which we might one day have to deal: What should we do when the world thinks we are wrong?"

Is it America's responsibility to act as the global catalyst for moral outrage and action? Should we turn to isolationism and focus on our own problems? Is there a middle ground?

What do YOU think?

Obama's Call for Civility Resonates Here

Last night, President Obama made a speech in Tucson, eulogizing those who lost their lives in the shooting there over the weekend and calling for a new tone of "civil and honest public discourse [to] help us face up to our challenges as a nation..."

The speech was powerful because it was more than a memorial, but a call for a better America.

The speech resonated with us. This week we've talked together about how to process the tragedy. But we've also harbored hope, and the President's speech reminded us that we are right to do that. We believe deeply in his insistence we should use this occasion: "to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together." He reminded us that "for all our imperfections, we are full of decency and goodness, and that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us."

The Connecticut Forum believes that we are all in this together, and that when we can come together - even in disagreement - we can challenge assumptions, build bridges in our community and make the world just a little bit better. We've founded our organization on those beliefs and will continue to make them a part of what we do every day. We want to use President Obama's speech as a way to remember, yes, but also as a way to regroup and look forward.

Watch Obama's entire speech:


Or view a full text transcipt here.

The World Reacts to Obama's Afghanistan Plan

AP Photo

Last night the world tuned in to watch President Obama formally announce that an additional 30,000 troops will be sent to aid in the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.

"I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan...I do not make this decision lightly. I make this decision because I am convinced that our security is at stake."

The President's decision has been highly anticipated following Bob Woodward's article in The Washington Post on September 21, 2009 that exposed the details of a confidential 66-page report in which top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan General Stanley McChrystal suggests that if more troops are not sent overseas, U.S. Military efforts "will likely result in failure."


Check out this collection of responses and opinions about President Obama's announcement from past Connecticut Forum panelists:


Matthew Dowd

"Bottom line: Good speech, lots of eloquence, little lasting political effect. Nine months ago nearly two-thirds of the country approved of President Obama's handling of Afghanistan. Today, a majority of the country disapproves. This speech will make little difference in that measure, in the president's overall approval rating or in the public's will to keep fighting this war. " more

Arianna Huffington

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Mo Rocca

(Via Twitter) "Obama to send 30,002 troops to Afghanistan (congrats, Tareq and Michaele Salahi! This time you're invited.)"


Thomas Friedman

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Thomas Friedman
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Richard Holbrooke

“I feel very strongly that Afghanistan is the ultimate test of Nato and the western alliance.” Arguing that the consequences of failure would be far worse than those suffered by the US following its withdrawal from Vietnam. more

Andrew Sullivan

"I think this strategy is doomed. But then I think any strategy that does not pledge to colonize Afghanistan, pour trillions of dollars into it and stay for a century is doomed. So why do I end up this morning feeling rather similar to my colleague, Jim Fallows, who simply sighs: 'Well, I hope he's right"?" more

Newt Gingrich




Michael Moore

"President Obama, it's time to come home. Ask your neighbors in Chicago and the parents of the young men and women doing the fighting and dying if they want more billions and more troops sent to Afghanistan. Do you think they will say, "No, we don't need health care, we don't need jobs, we don't need homes. You go on ahead, Mr. President, and send our wealth and our sons and daughters overseas, 'cause we don't need them, either." more

How Queer...

By Pat Rossiter YOUTH Forum Program Manager

Five of my friends, when I served in the military in 2000-2004, left the service on, what we affectionately referred to as a “rainbow chit.” A chit is a naval term to denote a piece of official paperwork. A rainbow is the spectrum of colors gays see the world in. (Sorry straight people for your beige walls and gray suits.) Put them together and you have a get-out-of-jail-free card.

The “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law has been in place for over fifteen years and in that time, according to the Service member’s Legal Defense Network, 12,500 service members have been released. 800 of those were mission critical specialists, including pilots, intelligence analysts and linguists. I and my friends, were linguists.

When the first of my friends went, he had been one of several in a string of linguists to leave from The Defense Language Institute in Monterey, CA. (Tough duty right?) In response, the navy Command called a muster and we 450 students and staff gathered in a large auditorium. Our Command Master Chief strode out on to the stage. He was large and could be imposing.

He started by saying he was very disappointed in some or other hijinks that had gone on. In truth, his audience was almost entirely 18 or 19 year olds with all the hormones, energy and enthusiasm as every other college freshman, with the added benefit of lots of disposable income and EASY access to alcohol. We studied hard. We partied harder.

After this, he went on to what he really wanted to address: “fagging out” of the navy. I sat cautiously, trying not to be too interested and not too disinterested in what he was saying. It went something like, “By now, you’ve all heard about certain parties leaving the command. Don’t think it hasn’t occurred to us that some of you may try and take advantage of this situation. Let me put it this way, if you come into my office claiming to be gay, you’d better be prepared to prove it.”

In the silence of the room full of people, there was one loud guffaw.

I desperately tried to muffle my laugh as the CMC glared down at me and 898 eyes bore into the back of my head. I’m sure I’m not the only one that played out a pornographic scene in their mind at the words, “prove it.” (OK, maybe I was.) In any case, I do know that I did find the whole situation much funnier that most everybody else there.

To the young queer service members, DADT was like the Sword of Damocles, dangling over their head for the moment at which they would say the wrong thing, drop the wrong pronoun, name the wrong bar, be caught looking. They lived in fear of sharing too much about themselves.

Meanwhile, for the Command, there was another fear: that the young queer service members would out themselves. It did not take me long to figure out that the military, like so much else in the world, revolves around money. The training of a linguist is extraordinarily expensive. It costs roughly $100,000 for someone to attend the language school for one year. That’s an awful lot of cash to flush down the toilet because Seaman Stains walks into the Command Master Chief’s office and says, “I’m a homo and I want out.”

I had another friend in the Air Force who, upon delivering his letter stating his proclivity to musical theatre and Prada shoes, was begged by a Colonel to take it back. My friend is a Chinese linguist and they are not only in short supply but take forever to train new ones. By bringing the DADT law to bear, he was putting this Colonel’s Command’s operational ability in jeopardy. One Chinese linguist can make all the difference.

President Obama made the repeal of DADT a plank in his platform while campaigning last year. We are still embroiled on two major fronts. The Army is now accepting 42 year old, felony offending, high-functioning mental deficients into its ranks to meet recruiting quotas, yet the Pentagon is STILL fighting to keep DADT. Our partners in Iraq, the British Military accepts gay service members. Israel and 23 other nations allow openly gay service members and they seem to still be able to fight. Dozens of former military leaders including John Shalikashvili , Retired Army General and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have come out for repeal of DADT.

Most important though is this: I served with another friend who was (how do I put this delicately?) queer as a three dollar bill. Like, swish-swish-swish-goes-the-crinoline gay. He used to bring a pink “Princess” coffee mug to class with him and while it was slightly maddening to the most Gung-ho types, no one, in truth, cared. He was a really great linguist. And, if the military is nothing else, it is a meritocracy. You advance based on how well you do your job.

The argument in the Pentagon has always been this: Out homosexuals will damage morale and unit cohesion. As a gay service member who spent four years having to lie to my colleagues, edit nearly every conversation and curtail relationships with them so that I could be with other gay men and women, that argument isn’t merely wrong, but completely contrary to the truth. Morale and unit cohesion are built on honesty and that simply isn’t possible in today’s military.

So, I say to Mr. Obama, it is time for all the gay servicemen and women to be honest with their comrades. It is time for partners to attend unit functions. It is time for proud gay patriots to be honored by their country. It is time for DADT to go away.