ia successful trip this morning means it will be ready to go. for more news updates throughout the day head to www.aljazeera.com. have a great day. >> the president told west point's graduating class that america must continue to lead the world. spelling out the obama foreign policy, it is the inside story. >> hello, i'm ray suarez. sometimes it's hard to remember that they're talking talking

about the the same guy. his critics say he's weak-kneed. the president's defenders say he ran getting the u.s. out of iraq and information. did one and is well on his way to the second. he promised he would be far more selective about the use of american military power in the world, and there are no american casualties from syria, libya or the black sea. there have been no military airstrikes on iran's suspected nuclear program, and iran has come to the negotiating table. his speech to graduates at the military academy of west point rests on two main pillars, the united states remains the indispensable nation, and there is not a military solution to every problem. >> the question we face, the question each of you will face

is not whether america will lead but how we will lead. not only to secure our peace and prosperity, but across the globe. >> reporter: president obama told thousand was a cadets dressed in uniform that america must always lead and military is backbone of that leadership. >> u.s. military action cannot be the only or even primary component of our leadership in every instance. just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail. >> reporter: thou the united states forces are out of iraq and the military commitment in afghanistan will end by the end of 2016, the president emphasi emphasized the lessons of 9/11 remains with us.

>> i believe we must shift our counterterism strategy drawing on the successes and shortcomi shortcomings in iraq and afghanistan to effectively partner where terrorists seek a foot hold. >> reporter: he will ask congress for $5 billion to create a counter terrorism partnership fund. support peace keeping in somalia and libya and assist french operations in mali. >> now we need to make sure that those nations who provide peace keepers that they can actually keep the peace. we'll deepen our investment in countries that support these peace-keeping missions. having other nations maintain order in their own neighborhoods lessens the need for us to put troops in harm's way. it's a smart investment.

it's the right way to lead. >> reporter: mr. obama's speech brought distracter on the right and left saying that it comes with squishy lines and with little effect. some would like to see an airstrike against syria after bashar al-assad gassed civilians last year and crossed the president's own red lines. >> i made a decision that we should not put american troops in the middle of this increasingly sectarian war. i believe that is the right decision. >> reporter: others complain that a lack of potent military support has let the situation boil out of control to assad 's benefit. the president said he'll run for re-election next month. and distracters to russian president vladimir putin and ukraine, and obama's repeated warnings are not an effective

deterrent. president obama strongly rejected that notion. >> our ability to shape world opinion helped to isolate russia right away. the world immediately condemned russian action, and this served as a cut away to russian propaganda and russian troops on the border and armed militias in ski masks. but standing with our allies on behalf of international wor order, has give the ukrainian people to choose their future. without us firing a shot. >> reporter: the president's speech at west point a trip next week to g-7 meetings, and a visit to poland are all meant to bolster ties to europe as well as change the narrative and move public opinion to his direction as it pertains to foreign policy.

>> if 20 or 30 years now historians speculate on an obama doctrine, was the west point speech it's template? selective use of force, corporation with allies, non-military means for settling conflict until there is no other way to go. that's our focus this time on "inside story." joining us for that conversation here in washington, john bradshaw, director of the national security network. and christian whiten, president of the hamilton foundation. he served in the george w. bush state department, and professor of american school of international service, and the author of "the end of american world order." john bradshaw, let me start with you, looking at the speech, hearing the president laying out and explaining it today, was it a departure or a reiteration? >> i think it was time for the president to try to draw together a lot of things that have been done in foreign policy

that he has not gotten credit for. he was taking a lot of hits, a lot of criticism from conservatives in congress, and it was time to explain more his approach. i don't think it's a great departure. it does explain in detail exactly what circumstances will require the use of force and when we will use diplomacy. in that sense i think it was useful in helping people understand what the administration was doing, but it did not really depart where they have been over the last few years. >> so a refinement, then? >> refinement is one way to put at it. a better articulation of what they're trying to do. >> christian whiten, what did you make of it? was it all of the peace? was it things that the president has said before, or did it take you some place new? >> no, i think it's a common thing you see in year six of a presidency which is a search for a legacy in trying to stitch together things that have been done heretofore even though they were not part of a strategy.

that i would say is one of the big problems of this speech that differed from other presidential addresses at west point or other speeches that were billed at big policy speeches where he didn't talk about the threats to the world today. was russia being unhelpful and west africa, things like that. but no clear delynn nation of what the tools are to craft them. >> what are the big threats that were left out of the president's speech? >> i would say the big ones are iran and it's nuclear program, but also it's political sub version throughout the middle east. and china with its aggression against all of its maritime neighbors and cyber aggression against the u.s. and these the islamist ideal that wants to unify mosque and state and an mates all terrorists, whether they're shiab or al-qaeda.

>> professor, i don't want to put you in position for speaking to the other 7 billion people on the planet, but you do think about that as part of your economic specialty. how does that speech look like from outside of the united states? >> i think there will be disappointment and disagreement. let me say what i think the disagreement is going to be about. i think the selective use of force will be very useful, and as john said it's nothing new. but the media based on the white house leaks had set up an expectation that there would be a rebought here. we really didn't see a rebought here. the president says very uniformly that the united states must, all this lead in the world. because if it didn't, no one else would. i think a lot of people diswe with that.

the chinese, the indians, the south africans would disagree with that. they would like to see the united states--nobody objects that the u.s. lead. but they cannot lead. people would object to that. it requires forces. we've seen in many cases where the u.s. could not lead. so i think of people that u.s. will lead in some areas, and let others lead in other areas. including like india and china. we didn't say that. to say that if we don't lead nobody else will, i think that comes down to an arrogant-- >> well, he was talking about the future of the united states military. but is there a country as prepared as the united states is to make a difference anywhere on

planet earth where there is a problem. >> yes, leadership doesn't have to be in every area. so soon china will be the number one economy in the world. there are countries, including american allies, which are merely providing leadership like australia on environment, climate change. india creating multiry level constitutions. i think 9 thing for the u.s. to do is to help lead. >> i'm not in favor of trying to do everything ourselves. what we should do is lead where we have key national interests. you see in asia what it looks

like without u.s. leadership and without a navy we keep talking about and a profit to asia that is happening. meanwhile beijing can see what is happening with our military , and everyone is scared including countries that you would not automatically assume would want the u.s. around like vietnam. you're seeing a bit in the middle east, and when there is a withdraw of u.s. leadership, it's not always a good outcome because you have people cutting deals with the bad actors in the region. case in point that have is some of the erratic behavior we've seen from had hamid karzai. >> wasn't he also making the point that sometimes it is the united states, because it isn't anybody else? >> exactly. i think he was talking about a new kind of american leadership. i think it would be great and the president administration would love to see some of these other countries that were

mentioned stepping up whether it's india, brazil , or some of these other countries to take a role on the world stage. but they're not interested in doing that. we need to pull those countries together, and one being mutual and shared responsibility without the u.s. playing a leading role. we saw that with ukraine and russia. the u.s. had to push the e.u. and others to take actions, sanctions,, and economic actions that have pushed the russian economy on its heel. >> we'll take a short break and when we come back we'll talk about whether this statement of american principles is more of the times when you talk to rank

and file americans rather than foreign policy intellectuals. this is inside story.

our

>> some of the fiercest fighting since the battle in ukraine began. >> violence shows signs of spreading further. hello there, you're watching al jazeera live from london. also coming up. helicopters attacks and street fighting in bengahzi as forces loyal to a former