President Obama's State of the Nation: As Good as The West Wing?

Two days after the Presidential election, John Matlin ("Publius") posted an advance copy of Barack Obama's "State of the Union" message. Even though the Tuesday speech to Congress was labelled as "State of the Nation", John wasn't far off the mark with sentences like "Americans have faced dark days before. Using our ingenuity, know-how, willingness to work and sheer strength of character, we have won through."

Here is his assessment of the "real" State of the Nation statement by President Obama:

In one of those peculiarities of political protocol, Obama’s speech on Tuesday night to a joint session of Congress was “a Presidential address”, not a State of the Union message. Leaving aside the technical argument for constitutional lawyers --- did the President fulfil his obligations under Article II, Section 3 to “give to the Congress information of the State of the Union”? --- the better analogy might be that Obama gave the American equivalent of the Queen’s Speech to the British Parliament. This was an ambitious legislative programme, but it had little or no detail.

Sometimes observers of US Presidential politics allow themselves flights of fancy. In discussions of who is the best post-World War II Presidents, or indeed any president since 1865, Franklin D. Roosevelt invariably comes top. Since the 1990s, however, the name of Josiah Bartlet has always been high in the rankings. For those unfamiliar with US politics or culture, Bartlet was never one of the 43 men in the White House, but he did play the President on TV in The West Wing.

Both CNN and the New York Times have claimed that Obama’s speech harked back to the days of FDR and Lyndon Johnson, but it had many elements of vintage Jed Bartlet. Martin Sheen, Bartlet's alter ego, might have coached Obama in style and delivery --- at no time did Obama look like he was not in control of this American set-piece drama. Further, Obama’s suggestion that during the next decade, a cure for cancer will be found is, virtually, a direct lift from Series 3 of The West Wing. The only difference is that, at the last minute, President Bartlet decided it was step too far, even for him or scriptwriter Aaron Sorkin.

There is nothing wrong in an administration seeking a cure for cancer. It is a brilliant initiative. After all, one in three people in the West will suffer from the disease at some time in their lives. However, should not Obama have disclosed what resources he will put towards the goal?

Equally important, there are research institutes all over the world who are focused on bringing about the same result. Why not make it an aim for all such institutes to work together? Obama knows the subject is complex and there will be no single cure for all cancers. A combined effort might bring about speedier and less expensive solutions.

Obama pulled no punches in his speech. He proposed an activist government and busy legislative programme, presumably in an effort to position himself as a national leader in the face of continued Republican opposition. He directed much of his venom at the banks and bankers. However, his bromide about not spending a dollar of tax money on bankers was hollow. Bankers will be paid for their work, whether Obama likes it or not.

Obama brought vital issues of the budget deficits, dependence on foreign oil, global warming, the rising cost of healthcare, and the decline in education forward as matters of urgency, both for his administration and the American people. It is proper for him to do so. Previous administrations, dating back to Reagan, have in many respects either caused the problems or behaved like ostriches.

As usual, the devil will be in the detail. Some of the answers to questions of policy detail will be provided in the administration’s budget proposals published. It will be valuable to compare those proposals with Obama’s vision for America.

The Obama Plan in Iraq: Today's Speech

President Obama will announce the "withdrawal" timetable today in a speech at Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. He'll announce that all combat troops will be out of Iraq within 19 months.

That is not news. What we will be looking for is, first, an indication of how quickly within the 19 months troops will be withdrawn: the spin from the US military is that few of the soldiers will come out of Iraq before national elections in December 2009.

More importantly, we'll be searching for an announcement of how many US troops, as "support" units, will be based in Iraq after the end of 2010. While media such as CNN have been distracted by the "19-month" headline, Congressional leaders such as the top Democrat in the Senate, Harry Reid, are raising questions about the long-term US presence in Iraq.

Text: President Obama's Budget

President Obama's budget document, setting out US Federal Government spending of more than $3 trillion in the next fiscal year:

Fy10 Overview

Publish at Scribd or explore others: Periodicals & Report budget Barack Obama

Just to Repeat: 50,000 US Troops in Iraq....Indefinitely

Have just read Marc Lynch's excellent reaction at Foreign Policy website: "Such a plan could dangerously muddle what needs to be a clear signal of a commitment to withdrawal and probably not work the way it's been presented."

Risking immodestly, we'd like to re-post what we wrote yesterday:

Here’s the stinger, though: 50,000 US troops will remain in Iraq after the “withdrawal”, classified as “residual” forces for training and support of Iraqi security units, intelligence operations, and even possible airstrikes by unmanned aircraft.

And here's The New York Times today:

Even after August 2010, as many as 50,000 of the 142,000 troops now in Iraq would remain, including some combat units reassigned as “Advisory Training Brigades” or “Advisory Assistance Brigades,” the administration and Pentagon officials said.

And forgive us if we ask if "support" is military-speak for "more things change, more they stay the same":

Officers warned that even as overall troop levels dropped, there would be fresh American units deploying to Iraq, both to replace those whose tours end and to reshape the force into one better suited for training and advising Iraqis. While most of the troops remaining after August 2010 would be in support roles, some would still be serving in combat as they conducted counterterrorism missions.

UPDATED: Mr Obama's War: Show Me the Money....

Update: Read closely, because this may be much worse than we reported. According to CNN, Obama is seeking $200 billion in supplementary money for the rest of Fiscal Year 2009: $75.5 billion to cover the cost of additional troop deployments and $130 billion in general funds. That is in addition to the $65 billion authorised by Congress for the first half of Fiscal Year 2009. So the grand total, if this is true, is a $265 billion top-up to the $534 billion Pentagon budget --- an effective 50% increase in expenditure.

Bloomberg reports, "President Barack Obama will seek $75.5 billion more for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through the end of this fiscal year, according to three people familiar with the request." That makes a total "supplement" of $130 billion in addition to the $534 billion defense budget being sent to Congress today.

Just to recap: the supplementary funds --- $65 billion has already been approved by Congress --- about one-sixth of the $790 economic stimulus package that was signed by Obama this week after heated and sometimes bitter debate over the "pork" in the funding request.

Somehow I don't think Obama's request for war money will get the same kind of criticism. Indeed, if there's any sniping about it, it will be that the request is too low. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants even more money, and the President's total is at the "low end" of the Pentagon's credit-card application for an additional $130 to $140 billion.

Maybe more importantly, I'm betting that no one in Congress --- and possibly no one in the media --- joins the dots between this request and the little matter of the Federal budget deficit. You know, the one which will easily top $1 trillion next year.

So, for all those who think the real contest for national strength is economic rather than military: Sit Down. Shut Up. And the next time that Tom Friedman warbles in the New York Times about how China and India (whom I don't think are diverting quite so much into fighting wars rather than economic development) and some other country that we used to dominate is "taking over", just Look Away.