Daniel W. Drezner

Deconstructing the foreign policy implications of the inaugural address

Over at Democracy Arsenal, former speechwriter Heather Hurlburt offers her reading of the foreign policy tea leaves in Obama’s inaugural address.  It’s worth checking out.  My take away point (which matches Kevin Drum’s) is the contrast between Obama’s approach to states that disagree with American foreign policy rogue states and to terrorist groups. Here’s what he said ...

Over at Democracy Arsenal, former speechwriter Heather Hurlburt offers her reading of the foreign policy tea leaves in Obama’s inaugural address.  It’s worth checking out. 

My take away point (which matches Kevin Drum’s) is the contrast between Obama’s approach to states that disagree with American foreign policy rogue states and to terrorist groups. Here’s what he said about the latter: 

[F]or those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken — you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. 

As both Heather and noted foreign policy wonk Jon Stewart point out, that part sounds familiar. 

As to the former, the message was somewhat different:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. 

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. 

Now, this is a different tone.  With terrorists, Obama shows no signs of compromise.  With states, however, the tone of the speech shifts to one of sadness couched with an offer of reconciliation.  It is decidedly not confrontational, nor does it suggest any kind of aggressive American action. 

Whether these governments will accept such a tentative olive branch — or at least agree to let bygones be bygones — remains an open question.  Though I have no doubt my commenters can provide provisional answers. 

Over at Democracy Arsenal, former speechwriter Heather Hurlburt offers her reading of the foreign policy tea leaves in Obama’s inaugural address.  It’s worth checking out. 

My take away point (which matches Kevin Drum’s) is the contrast between Obama’s approach to states that disagree with American foreign policy rogue states and to terrorist groups. Here’s what he said about the latter: 

[F]or those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken — you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you. 

As both Heather and noted foreign policy wonk Jon Stewart point out, that part sounds familiar. 

As to the former, the message was somewhat different:

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict, or blame their society’s ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy. 

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist. 

Now, this is a different tone.  With terrorists, Obama shows no signs of compromise.  With states, however, the tone of the speech shifts to one of sadness couched with an offer of reconciliation.  It is decidedly not confrontational, nor does it suggest any kind of aggressive American action. 

Whether these governments will accept such a tentative olive branch — or at least agree to let bygones be bygones — remains an open question.  Though I have no doubt my commenters can provide provisional answers. 

Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at Tufts University’s Fletcher School. He blogged regularly for Foreign Policy from 2009 to 2014. Twitter: @dandrezner

More from Foreign Policy

The Taliban delegation leaves the hotel after meeting with representatives of Russia, China, the United States, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Qatar in Moscow on March 19.

China and the Taliban Begin Their Romance

Beijing has its eyes set on using Afghanistan as a strategic corridor once U.S. troops are out of the way.

An Afghan security member pours gasoline over a pile of seized drugs and alcoholic drinks

The Taliban Are Breaking Bad

Meth is even more profitable than heroin—and is turbocharging the insurgency.

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya addresses the U.N. Security Council from her office in Vilnius, Lithuania, on Sept. 4, 2020.

Belarus’s Unlikely New Leader

Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya didn’t set out to challenge a brutal dictatorship.

Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid

What the Taliban Takeover Means for India

Kabul’s swift collapse leaves New Delhi with significant security concerns.