I have already reported on what David Brooks had to say about the speech. Brooks commented right out of the box, and he wants more military action. The Brookings Institution ran a compilation of pundit pontifications. Again, these were fast breaking judgments, and most of the pundits quoted thought that the President's speech was lacking. It was "likely to raise additional concerns...," in the words of Thomas Wright.
Trudy Rubin, who writes for the Philadelphia Inquirer, took more time to contemplate the failures of the President's approach to national security. Since Rubin had more time to think about the topic, you might expect her analysis to be more far-reaching and acute. Not so, as it turns out. Rubin questions the President's "ability to lead," from Syria to the Ukraine, and offers this observation:
Let's start with terrorism, which Obama identified at West Point as the prime threat to Americans. His main proposal is a new fund to train partner countries from South Asia to the Sahel to fight their own terrorist battles. However, we already do that. Much more is needed. By more, I don't mean war.
“To say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution,” he told the cadets. “Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”