Your feedback is important to us!
We invite all our readers to share with us their views and comments about this article.
Disclaimer: Comments submitted by third parties on this site are the sole responsibility of the individual(s) whose content is submitted. The Daily Star accepts no responsibility for the content of comment(s), including, without limitation, any error, omission or inaccuracy therein. Please note that your email address will NOT appear on the site.
Alert: If you are facing problems with posting comments, please note that you must verify your email with Disqus prior to posting a comment. follow this link to make sure your account meets the requirements. (http://bit.ly/vDisqus)
Though Obama may be right, the speech did little to mollify critics who have accused him of passivity and weakness, particularly regarding Syria and Ukraine.There is no reason to believe that Obama was being disingenuous about his objectives.While vowing to use force when America's vital interests are at stake and rejecting pessimistic projections of national decline, Obama has – unlike his predecessor, George W. Bush – relied more heavily on diplomacy than force. Nor did those who now disparage Obama's measured response to Russian President Vladimir Putin's recent annexation of Ukrainian territory call Bush an isolationist for his weak response to Putin's invasion of Georgia in 2008 .In fact, in the 20th century, U.S. presidents who pursued transformational foreign policies were neither more effective nor more ethical.Obama's foreign policy mistakes, by contrast, have had only modest repercussions.Like Eisenhower, he steered the U.S. through multiple crises, overseeing one of the more successful periods of U.S. foreign policy in the last half-century.Of course, some of the criticism of Obama's speech was valid. To be constructive, the debate about Obama's foreign policy must account for 20th-century U.S. history.
American soft power in the Trump age
Rules of the cyber road
for America and Russia
Is the ‘populist’ tide retreating?
A split U.S. society
FOLLOW THIS ARTICLE