The New York Times editorial board examines President Obama's national security speech and stresses the importance of ending the current state of perpetual war:
President Obama’s speech on Thursday was the most important statement on counterterrorism policy since the 2001 attacks, a momentous turning point in post-9/11 America. For the first time, a president stated clearly and unequivocally that the state of perpetual warfare that began nearly 12 years ago is unsustainable for a democracy and must come to an end in the not-too-distant future. [...] As frustratingly late as it was — much of what Mr. Obama said should have been said years ago — there is no underestimating the importance of that statement. Mr. Obama and his predecessor, President George W. Bush, used the state of war that began with the authorization to invade Afghanistan and go after Al Qaeda and others who planned the Sept. 11 attacks to justify extraordinary acts like indefinite detention without charges and the targeted killing of terrorist suspects.
While there are some, particularly the more hawkish Congressional Republicans, who say this war should essentially last forever, Mr. Obama told the world that the United States must return to a state in which counterterrorism is handled, as it always was before 2001, primarily by law enforcement and the intelligence agencies. That shift is essential to preserving the democratic system and rule of law for which the United States is fighting, and for repairing its badly damaged global image.
The Detroit Free Press editorial board chimes in too:
In an address remarkable for both its candor and its humility, President Barack Obama sought Thursday to limit the scope of his predecessor’s global war on terror, pivoting from a full-court campaign of military pre-emption to a new era of proportionality and political engagement. [...]
This page and others who criticized the Bush administration for overstepping its authority have expressed disappointment at the degree to which Obama has aped and even exacerbated the sins of his predecessor. That the president has followed this path with the tacit approval of lawmakers in both parties is no excuse; as Obama himself admitted Thursday, many Bush-era practices long ago outlived their usefulness. [...]
A single speech will scarcely bring about the sea change Obama seeks. But the shift in focus and tactics that he outlined Thursday is both worthwhile and long overdue, and America’s long-term efforts to contain terrorism can only be enhanced by its swift implementation.
More on this story below the fold.
At US News and World Report, Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the National Security Network, adds:
Barack Obama the thoughtful law professor and long-range strategist is alive and well. When have we last heard a president argue not just with a heckler but with himself, laying out the pros and cons of several counterterrorism practices that have come to define his presidency? When did we last hear a president offer the public options on how to respond to a national security concern – increased oversight for targeted killings – and critique them both?
The Washington Post:
FOUR YEARS almost to the day since outlining a vision of how to fight terrorism, President Obama traveled Thursday to the National Defense University to deliver a self-evaluation, course correction and proposed way forward. The speech offered some valuable explanations of administration action and opened the door to constructive negotiation with Congress, while leaving unanswered some key questions. [...]
Four years wiser — and, he argues, with the world in a very different place — Mr. Obama wants to try again on some fronts while rethinking some of the assumptions in place since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. He renewed his vow to close Guantanamo, urging Congress to stop making the work more difficult. There are measures Mr. Obama can take, even without congressional approval, to repatriate some of the 166 prisoners still in the Cuban prison, and his promise to step up that effort was welcome.
Peter Singer, director of the Center for 21st Century and Intelligence at the Brookings Institution:
Beyond all the internal policy questions — such as what the CIA should control versus what the Pentagon controls — he has a broader task. He must lay out the overdue case for regularizing, so to speak, our counter-terrorism strategy itself, from the means to the ends. This will require touching on thorny issues such as how to bring more transparency to the ugly task of a targeted killings campaign, how to create more interaction with Congress — which both wants and avoids oversight — and, finally, how to find a path out of the Gitmo conundrum.
Beginning this kind of discussion has been described by some as just a way to change the topic in the midst of other would-be scandals dominating the news cycle. But let's be crystal clear: The president is making a big bet by speaking out on issues on which he still enjoys fairly broad public support.
[...] In short, sometimes a speech is more than just a speech. By finally speaking out on some of the key issues that have grown to define his place in foreign policy history, Obama has his chance, finally, to set the terms of the debate and steer it toward more positive ends.