Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Reveal Navigation

Reality Check: Yes, President Obama Is a Hawk Reality Check: Yes, President Obama Is a Hawk Reality Check: Yes, President Obama Is a Hawk Reality Check: Yes, Presi...

share
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Not a member? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

The Trail: 2012 Presidential News from the Field / OPINION

Reality Check: Yes, President Obama Is a Hawk

May 3, 2012
Hawk (noun): A person who favors military force or action in order to carry out foreign policy. -- The American Heritage Dictionary



Latest Politics Posts:
Loading feed...

In a New York Times article titled "A Delicate New Balance on National Security," White House correspondent Peter Baker unintentionally demonstrates why it's problematic to describe a candidate's foreign policy by presenting the rhetoric put forth by the man and his partisan opponents.

Says the article:

 
One moment he boasts about taking out America's No. 1 enemy, and the next he vows to bring home troops from an unpopular war. For President Obama, the days leading up to his re-election kickoff have been spent straddling the precarious line between hawk and dove, and possibly redefining his party for years to come.

Obama may be worried about the perception that he is dove. He may need to respond to Republicans who say that he has "a fundamentally weak approach to rivals and rogue states like Iran, North Korea and Russia," as Baker puts it. But let's not lose sight of his actual record.

Obama isn't straddling a line between hawk and dove.

He is a hawk.

It's terrifying that isn't clear to everyone, because it suggests the neoconservative desire for even more foreign wars is skewing the way that Americans conceive of hawkishness and dovishness. It suggests we're defining "warmonger" down.

Here are the facts:

  • Obama escalated the war in Afghanistan, adding tens of thousands of troops at a cost of many billions of dollars.
  • He committed American forces to a war in Libya, though he had neither approval from Congress nor reason to think events there threatened national security.
  • He ordered 250 drone strikes that killed at least 1,400 people in Pakistan.
  • He ordered the raid into Pakistan that killed Osama bin Laden.
  • He expanded the definition of the War on Terrorism and asserted his worldwide power to indefinitely detain anyone he deems a terrorist.
  • He expanded drone attacks into Somalia.
  • He ordered a raid on pirates in Somalia.
  • He deployed military squads to fight the drug war throughout Latin America.
  • He expanded the drone war in Yemen, going so far as to give the CIA permission to kill people even when it doesn't know their identities so long as they're suspected of ties to terrorism.
  • He's implied that he'd go to war with Iran rather than permitting them to get nuclear weapons.

In summary, President Obama escalated a major war and sent tens of thousands more troops to fight it, even as he joined in regime change in a different country, ordered drone strikes in at least three others, and sent commandos into Pakistan, a list of aggressive actions that isn't even exhaustive.

It's perverse for that record to be rendered, in America's newspaper of record, as Obama "straddling the precarious line between hawk and dove." In fact, he is a hawk. Republicans are misrepresenting his record and positions, and some progressives are doing the same because they are rightly embarrassed by the gulf between his campaign promises and the record he's amassed. 

Get us in your feed.
More The Trail: 2012 Presidential News from the Field
 
Comments
comments powered by Disqus