Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
Brian Katulis | Washington Post Opinions
President Obama’s State of the Union address focused mostly on domestic issues. Yet how Obama talked about his foreign policy agenda underscores a crisis of purpose about U.S. engagement in the world.
To advance his national security agenda in the next three years, Obama should offer a more cohesive strategic argument for global engagement, one that more clearly articulates the values informing his policies. Economic challenges at home, including slow job growth, have made many Americans more selective about which global problems they think the United States should take on. A Pew poll released last month found that most Americans think we should mind our own business internationally.
It won’t be sufficient for the administration to state how the president intends to approach particular national security questions: He needs to articulate why they matter and what’s at stake. Obama has done this before; his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech made a compelling moral and strategic argument for U.S. engagement in the world.
To be sure, Obama outlined sound and pragmatic positions Tuesday on most of the leading foreign policy questions of the day. He made a measured case for more time to pursue nuclear talks with Iran without overselling the prospects for success. He also sketched out how his administration is addressing questions about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance and drone strikes while remaining vigilant to the threats posed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates.
Middle East Policy has been one of the world’s most cited publications on the region since its inception in 1982, and our Breaking Analysis series makes high-quality, diverse analysis available to a broader audience.
Partner with the Council
We appreciate any support towards the Middle East Policy Council to help educate Americans on the political, economic and cultural issues that affect U.S. interests in the Middle East.
One of the most frequently cited journals on the Middle East in the field of international affairs, Middle East Policy has been engaging thoughtful minds for more than 40 years with high-quality, diverse analysis on the region.
Brian Katulis | Washington Post Opinions
President Obama’s State of the Union address focused mostly on domestic issues. Yet how Obama talked about his foreign policy agenda underscores a crisis of purpose about U.S. engagement in the world.
To advance his national security agenda in the next three years, Obama should offer a more cohesive strategic argument for global engagement, one that more clearly articulates the values informing his policies. Economic challenges at home, including slow job growth, have made many Americans more selective about which global problems they think the United States should take on. A Pew poll released last month found that most Americans think we should mind our own business internationally.
It won’t be sufficient for the administration to state how the president intends to approach particular national security questions: He needs to articulate why they matter and what’s at stake. Obama has done this before; his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech made a compelling moral and strategic argument for U.S. engagement in the world.
To be sure, Obama outlined sound and pragmatic positions Tuesday on most of the leading foreign policy questions of the day. He made a measured case for more time to pursue nuclear talks with Iran without overselling the prospects for success. He also sketched out how his administration is addressing questions about National Security Agency (NSA) surveillance and drone strikes while remaining vigilant to the threats posed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates.