Obama’s Iraq speech redux: how did the troops feel he did?
President Obama’s speech a few weeks ago on Iraq left me a bit queasy. I had urged him to make a strong case for why 50,000 American soldiers should remain in the line of fire in Iraq. I wanted him to be as compelling in speaking to the soldiers who remained as I expected him ...
President Obama's speech a few weeks ago on Iraq left me a bit queasy. I had urged him to make a strong case for why 50,000 American soldiers should remain in the line of fire in Iraq. I wanted him to be as compelling in speaking to the soldiers who remained as I expected him to be in speaking about the soldiers who left. And in my opinion, his speech did not hit that mark as well as it could have.
President Obama’s speech a few weeks ago on Iraq left me a bit queasy. I had urged him to make a strong case for why 50,000 American soldiers should remain in the line of fire in Iraq. I wanted him to be as compelling in speaking to the soldiers who remained as I expected him to be in speaking about the soldiers who left. And in my opinion, his speech did not hit that mark as well as it could have.
My concern was that without a stronger line of communication between the commander-in-chief and the troops in the field, we would start to see reports about disconnect and alienation. And so we have. Now a single article quoting one or two disgruntled grunts is hardly an indicator of a budding mutiny. But it could be an indicator of a more widely held sense that the president is losing interest in what the troops are doing over there. The consensus interpretation of Obama’s speech — fairly or unfairly — was that his call for America to turn the page was a signal that he would be turning his attention elsewhere. That may play well with Obama’s political base, but as the Reuters account suggests, it may not play as well to the troops in the field.
Media accounts are also playing up the instances of combat that have occurred since Obama announced that the combat mission was completed. Over time, that disconnect will become increasingly awkward to explain to the American people. But it is the task of explaining the situation to the troops that is the more pressing concern, and I hope Obama’s handlers are alert to the issue.
Peter D. Feaver is a professor of political science and public policy at Duke University, where he directs the Program in American Grand Strategy.
More from Foreign Policy
At Long Last, the Foreign Service Gets the Netflix Treatment
Keri Russell gets Drexel furniture but no Senate confirmation hearing.
How Macron Is Blocking EU Strategy on Russia and China
As a strategic consensus emerges in Europe, France is in the way.
What the Bush-Obama China Memos Reveal
Newly declassified documents contain important lessons for U.S. China policy.
Russia’s Boom Business Goes Bust
Moscow’s arms exports have fallen to levels not seen since the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
