My impression is that he's learning as he goes as the practicalities of power pile up on his desk. Opportunist under pressure, not hawk.

(NB: when he got in I said to a friend that more civilians will die under his watch than Bush's... cos of all the talk, mixed messages and lack of clarity.)

I took home the same message from the speech as the Telegraph opinionist Toby Harnden. In one sense, it was an entirely unremarkable speech given a year-old American presidency at the present time. Longstanding American interests and policies have to be underlined no matter what face utters the policies. That's what I meant by the Ship of State. It's a very heavy and stately sea-vessel that doesn't turn on a dime.

The other thing I had earlier asked SOLOists to consider was that the sheer moral power of the American verities is to be wielded. It's an additional oomph factor in seeing that American values are respected by the rest of the world in principle and in practice. The US usually stands behind its Commander-in-chief. The power of America is both martial and moral, and when it speaks its interests the world has to listen.

In this case, Obama showed American teeth, in both senses. Even Sarah Palin gave thumbs up. The idea that I had wanted considered was whether an Obama presidency would tend to increase the power of the American punch given his allure to America's allies and friends. At the time, Obama was here deemed slightly less awful than Pol Pot, so my point was obscure. Given the trust and the standing this man has in the world right now, I argue American enjoys an increase in its power as a state. However an Objectivist may wince at Obama, reality is reality, and this man will command that ship of state until at least January 2013, wisely or foolishly, wildly or calmly, radically or conventionally.

Harnden's take:

The Obama who turned up was not just a Bush but also a Ronald Reagan, a John F. Kennedy and a Franklin D. Roosevelt - in short, an American president who articulated enduring American principles, values and interests.

WSS

"Most of his speech would have prompted little comment if it had been uttered by George W. Bush.

In fact, if the 43rd American president had accepted a peace prize by mounting a muscular defence of "just wars" and declaring that he had sent troops who "will kill" and "be killed" to a "distant land", then he would have been denounced for his bloodthirsty effrontery...

In the meantime, he should be given credit for having matured in office - and recognised that he is an American rather than a Scandinavian president."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

That's how the Liberal media described it as his War and Peace speech. Claiming the first part was about war and second peace.

They must have been listening to a different speech (I heard it on the radio).

The first part was a bit self-deprecating and woolly. The main bulk was Hawkish and the last part was philosophical.

There was also a question posed by the Liberal media afterwards of "is there such a thing as a 'just war'?"

Anyway, it is interesting to note that Obama got a free-pass for a speech that if George W. Bush had delivered in his second term would have been ripped apart over. They would have claimed this speech shows his arrogance and stupidity!

The speech has been criticised in a very superficial way for not mentioning Global Warming enough, there were only three sentences:

"It is also why the world must come together to confront climate change. There is little scientific dispute that if we do nothing, we will face more drought, famine and mass displacement that will fuel more conflict for decades. For this reason, it is not merely scientists and activists who call for swift and forceful action it is military leaders in my country and others who understand that our common security hangs in the balance."

Weird that Obama defers to his Military leaders on the topic of 'climate change'????? Bizarre statement.

Anyway, the person of Obama is never attacked, even when he gives speeches like this and supposedly snubs the prize-givers.

If Obama has had a bump on the head and woken up believing he is in fact George W. Bush, it is funny that the Liberal media is still willing to get down on their hands and knees and kiss his black 'lily'.

Strange days!!!

...was what Rand referred to as a package deal. Actually, a reverse package deal. A sop to both his base and middle America. He means neither. Poser.

It's been a while since a sitting President has landed a Peace Prize. I think, Marcus, that Obama's speech was the kind of speech a President in his place has to make, given his policies and the facts that US troops are in Afghanistan and Iraq. I mean, the speech is almost dictated by history. If another President had won the prize, the speech would have had to cover all the bases of long-standing American policy and long-standing American ideals. In a major address like this, the deliverer has to hit all the notes, has to address multiple constituencies, not least the constituency at home. Any President has to be able to talk war as well as peace, when the circumstances merit. (that's why, I thought George Bush did a very good performance as a war leader in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He delivered the lines that had to be said, and said them convincingly and gravely).

If you are surprised and maybe gratified at the hawkishness of the Peace Speech, and if you don't quite accept that Obama is constrained by polity and reality, you can at least be happy that the strong words find a ripe audience. As I noted earlier, the positive opinions of the US in the world have gotten back up near to historical levels after the Bush years. Who knows if the speech will make much difference amongst the NATO/Coalition states. I will be quite impressed if Obama and Clinton can scratch up more than a few thousand troops for the Afghan war surge, or if Obama can convince the Canadians not to withdraw on the Harper schedule.

WSS