Obama's Neoconservative Foreign Policy Agenda

[metalluk]

A couple of days following Barack Obama's highly publicized speech relating to racial issues in America, the Democratic candidate gave a much less heralded speech outlining his foreign policy ideas. Very little public discussion of the content of the speech has occurred, reflecting the public's general disinterest in substantive policy issues and its preference for the kind of titillation afforded by accusations, scandals, racial and gender conflicts, and gaffes that spice up the campaign season. This is unfortunate because Obama's Iraq speech sets out in relatively sharp relief the likely contours of what his foreign policies would be. It should be, but has not been, a matter of deep concern for American liberals. What the document reveals is a fundamental continuation of the neoconservative agenda, though with up-dated and refined strategic elements.

The essence of the neoconservative agenda, implemented by the Bush administration, was an expansion of American influence and hegemony throughout the world and, in particular, into the strategically important and oil-rich Middle East, by military and political means. By all appearances, the basic argument of the neoconservatives has apparently carried the day. Now, in 2008, the foreign policy agenda of the supposedly most liberal of the remaining presidential candidates is built around the premise of further expansion of America influence and control. Their proposal only promises to impose American influence more fully and effectively than the Bush administration was able to do. It is a continuation of the same aggressive posture that has resulted in America being viewed by many people around the world as one of the two nations that pose the greatest threat to world peace.

The agenda proposed by the Obama team has gone largely unchallenged, though not due to any disguise on their part. They have been genuinely forthcoming about their foreign policy perspective. The fault lies with the American public and, especially, the part of the liberal community that has failed to engage with the substance of Obama's proposed policies. Perhaps the liberals constituency has been lulled into complacency by the comforting idea that Barack Obama represents the anti-war viewpoint, but is it really so?

At first glance, the answer seems to be "yes." Obama was the only one of the three remaining presidential candidates to oppose the invasion of Iraq. As an Illinois State Senator at the time, he gave a speech at an anti-war rally in 2002, opposing war in Iraq. In his Iraq policy statement, Obama states emphatically, early on, "When I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war." Then, he adds, "It is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer." So far so good, from a liberal perspective!

But, is it really so? Obama's plan calls for removing 1-2 combat brigades each month, which will lead to the removal of "all of them" within sixteen months. He then adds, "We will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy." Considering that the current relative stability in Iraq (in comparison to last summer) required a "surge" in troops to be accomplished, how is it that a small contingent of embassy guards and a counter-terrorism force will be able to maintain stability in the future?

The Obama team's argument is that the withdrawal of American forces will "put pressure on Iraq's leaders to take responsibility for their future." "We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation." Is that really going to happen? Earlier in the document, Obama refers to the well-publicized report on the status of Iraq provided to Congress last year by General Petraeus. Obama states, "The Iraqis are not achieving the political progress needed to end their civil war." The differences between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are fundamental and intractable. All three groups would rather fight than reconcile. Shiites, who are in the majority and who control the southeastern portion of Iraq where the majority of the richest oil fields are found, have no interest in sharing oil revenues with their long-time, mortal enemies, the Sunnis. The Sunnis have no interest in being an impoverished minority within a Shiite-dominated nation, and the highest aspiration of the Kurds is independence (which Turkey will oppose tooth-and-nail). The idea that impending withdrawal of American troops is going to stimulate "reconciliation" is naïve or disingenuous. Withdrawal of American forces will serve to intensify preparations among the three main ethnic groups in Iraq for an inevitable civil war.

Americans need to understand that Obama's plan with respect to Iraq neither disengages us entirely nor continues a level of commitment that can maintain stability. It amounts to an effort to maintain our involvement and influence in Iraq on-the-cheap, so that the resources currently being expended to maintain our presence in Iraq can be redeployed into a combination of new military initiatives and domestic investments. Obama acknowledges that "we will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met," so if violence erupts, as it inevitably will, we will have to reinsert the requisite forces. The phrase "commanders on the ground" (in Iraq) baldly contradicts the earlier assertion that he will "end this war," beginning on Day One. The cost savings in relation to cutting back on troop commitments in Iraq will therefore only be as great as circumstances allow. If and when civil war erupts, as seems likely, or al Qaeda reasserts itself, we will have to build up the forces once again because the commitment to managing the stability of Iraq has remained in force, just as the neoconservatives intended. The Obama plan is predicated on a "national reconciliation" in Iraq that is just not going to happen.

Meanwhile, the Obama team's plan calls for stepping up the commitment in Afghanistan and in the mountainous region along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan from which the leadership of al Qaeda is thought to operate. The plan calls for two additional brigades in Afghanistan, which would come from redeployment of a relatively small percentage of the troops withdrawn from Iraq. These two brigades would supposedly provide for "training Afghan security forces, more joint NATO operations with the Afghan Army, and a national police training plan." These same two brigades, or perhaps other unspecified forces, would also create a new "central front" in the war against terror along the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These are troubling words. A "front" usually implies a large, standing military force at the forefront of a war zone. One hopes that the Obama team actually meant something else entirely, perhaps a new "theater of operations," but it's hard to know for certain.

Obama also proposes to increase non-military assistance to Afghanistan, in part to "counter the opium trade by supporting alternative livelihoods for Afghan farmers."
We have already failed once at implementing such a policy, in Colombia, in South America. What alternative crop does he propose that will provide farmers with the kind of income they can derive from their fields of poppies. The war lords who run the opium industry in Afghanistan and who are nominally allied with the NATO forces against the Taliban certainly aren't going to cooperate in such efforts. The fact is that we are allied with the devil in Afghanistan fighting against another devil. Obama's plan, far from ending the war in the Middle East, expands those commitments from Iraq, through Afghanistan, to Pakistan and Iran. So, once again, the neoconservative approach to world affairs has carried the day. The Democratic alternative is merely an alternative set of tactics. Obama proposes increasing the size of America's military by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. Common sense should alert the public to the obvious likelihood that an increase in the size of America's military forces indicates an expectation that their deployment will be increasing as well.

Speaking of tactics, there is much to be commended in Obama's foreign policy plan in that respect. On paper, at least, they are committed to supplementing their military initiatives with intensified use of targeted foreign aide, vigorous diplomacy, rebuilding and modernizing America's security agencies, and recommitting to such core American values as the rule of law, respect for habeas corpus, and respect for civil liberties. These are all welcome strategic initiatives from a liberal perspective. Yet, the intention to increase diplomatic engagement is meaningless if not accompanied by a demonstration of understanding of the legitimate aspirations of those with grievances against America. In that respect, the foreign policy proposals of the Obama team are seriously deficient and unpromising.

I urge every person of liberal persuasion to read for themselves Obama's foreign policy speech. Then, try reading it again as though you were a leader in Iran, China, North Korea, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, or, even, a leader or citizen living in one of our allied European nations. It's an exercise in understanding how both foes and friends will react. Ask yourself whether a reading of this document would increases or decrease your fear of America's aggressive efforts to dominate the world stage. Ask yourself whether a reading of this document would increase your willingness to enter into diplomatic discussions with America.

Instead of an olive branch, Chinese leaders will see provocative language about "the human rights and religious freedom of the people of Tibet" as well as American fears in relation to economic competition with China. Iranian leaders will find an aggressive posture of ever tightening sanctions and isolation, which America then hopes to trade for Iran's abandonment of their nuclear program. Would you give in to that kind of pressure considering that America's talk about need for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose nuclear material around the world is not accompanied by any willingness on the part of America and the other current nuclear nations to scale back their own nuclear arsenals? It is quite natural for countries like North Korea and Iran to view this nuclear imbalance as one component of America's effort to dominate world affairs.

In the race speech given the same week, Obama stated that the problems in the Middle East were not rooted "primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel" and, instead, "emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam." How does this kind of one-sided view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict invite diplomatic engagement? Then, in the foreign policy speech, Obama again chooses language (presumably aimed at gaining support from Jewish voters in America) bound to alienate even moderate Islamic people when he says, "Instead of the new Middle East we were promised, Hamas runs Gaza, Hizbollah flags fly from the rooftops in Sadr City, and Iran is handing out money left and right in southern Lebanon." Why has he lumped together Hamas and Hizbollah as though they were equivalent in their opposition to negotiation with Israel? When were Americans ever promised a Middle East in which Palestinian flags fly nowhere? Is that what Obama is promising? Why wouldn't moderate Muslims interpret this kind of language as a declaration of renewed determination in America to suppress their legitimate aspirations? Later in the document, Obama derides "politics based on fear and division" but what are his foreign policies if not a renewal of the neoconservative intent to isolate and repress, by all means possible, all those nations and peoples with interests that conflict with those of the United States?

In another paragraph near the end of the document, Obama decries the current administration's policy of "unending war and unilateral action." Certainly, these are words comforting to the ears of liberals. But is what Obama intends really so different? His vision calls not only for a continuation of commitment in Iraq, though on-the-cheap, which may or may not prove possible, together with a deepening of our commitments in Afghanistan and a widening of our commitments to the border region of Pakistan. With respect to Iran, he offers only one piece of assurance for liberals, as compared to the present administration's bombing threat. Obama promises that he'll engage in diplomacy before going to war with Iran. Otherwise, his position parallels that of the Bush administration.

On the issue of unilateral action, the words at the end of the document are twice refuted by earlier remarks. Part of his justification for increasing our troop commitment in Afghanistan by two brigades is "to leverage greater assistance – with fewer restrictions – from our NATO allies." The phrase "fewer restrictions" implies the ability to engage in unilateral military initiatives. Then, elsewhere, Obama holds out the possibility of anti-terrorist military actions in Pakistan, with or without the concurrence of the leader of that sovereign nation and ally.

What is perhaps most alarming about the foreign policy document emanating from the Obama team is that it supposedly represents the liberal perspective in America. When the dominant views emanating from both ends of the political spectrum in America are spun from the same silk – the neoconservative goal of further extending American control and hegemony over world affairs – there will remain no organized voice of opposition in America to call into question the fundamental assumptions of neoconservatism or to reign in the most blatant excesses of its implementation. A country without a genuinely liberal opposition, an opposition that places the well-being of humanity above the desire of a nation to extent its power and influence over other peoples, is a dangerous nation indeed.

[Sensitivity]

1. Guess you missed the G-D Amer, Chickens Come Home, talks of his mentor

[metalluk]

8. No, I read some of Wright's views and

contrary to 90% of Americans, I wish Obama had absorbed more of Wright's views rather than less.

I respect Wright's views, other than his propensity for incendiary language. Obviously, Wright could not succeed as a politician, but as a spokesperson for the racial and equity concerns of black people and as a long-time religious leader in his community, the man succeeded admirably in his own domain.

I'm sure that Rev. Wright must cringe when he sees some of the sentences in the foreign policy documents coming out of the Obama campaign group, such as the steadfast defense of Israel and dissing of Palestinian concerns.

[JoFerret]

2. Still digesting that

Quick thought: Obama may have to be Mr. Tough Guy to prove his credentials.

And that bodes ill for typical foreign folk in bombing zones

[NJSecularist]

3. Umm....

"But, is it really so? Obama's plan calls for removing 1-2 combat brigades each month, which will lead to the removal of "all of them" within sixteen months. He then adds, "We will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy." Considering that the current relative stability in Iraq (in comparison to last summer) required a "surge" in troops to be accomplished, how is it that a small contingent of embassy guards and a counter-terrorism force will be able to maintain stability in the future?"

Obama is specifically saying that our job - when most of our troops are withdrawn - is not to ensure the stability of Iraq. That will be the job of the Iraqi military forces. He is saying that we will leave a certain amount of troops there whose main job will be to guard our embassy, defend our diplomats, and attempt to defeat Al Qeada. Not to maintain the stability of Iraq. That will be the job of the Iraqi military which we have attempted to train over the past few years.

[metalluk]

9. Really?

"We will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met."

[Drachasor]

4. For all the flaws that you can argue are there, it is better than Hillary's or McCain's plans

Certainly true from the Progressive perspective. I find it odd that you criticize him for valuing human rights and dignity.

On Iraq, he has said he will pay attention to what is going on to help ensure Iraq remains stable. He is not committed to a 16 month withdrawal if it ends in a ruined Iraq. That's reasonable AND responsible.

Oh, and lack of diplomacy tactics before war was the main problem of the Bush administration in this area. Naturally, diplomacy will most likely work -- if it doesn't, then what do you propose doing instead of a military solution? I think there are good arguments for trying to keep less stable/friendly nations from getting nukes, if possible.

As for Israel, I don't see much different in his plan than the situation before W.

[metalluk]

10. Please clarify!

"I find it odd that you criticize him for valuing human rights and dignity."

Please indicate what I said specifically that leads you to that conclusion.

"He is not committed to a 16 month withdrawal if it ends in a ruined Iraq. That's reasonable AND responsible."

I agree that an immediate pullout of troops would be disastrous. I was making two main points in relation to the scaling down of troop commitments in Iraq. (1) Obama will not truly be "ending" the War in Iraq. The commitment to maintaining stability will still be in place. Troops will remain behind. (2) That being the case, if the troop level left behind proves inadequate to maintain stability, we will be right back in there. He is simply hoping that we can continue to achieve the objective of a stable Iraq (which was the objective established by Bush and the neocons) with fewer troops. Stability is a pipe dream. In the end, he will either have to reinsert troops or give up on the objective of stability.

"I think there are good arguments for trying to keep less stable/friendly nations from getting nukes, if possible."

Of course. And our efforts would meet with more cooperation if WE showed willingness to reduce our nuclear arsenal at the same time. Remember, from the point of view of many other countries, WE are one of those less friendly nations.

[Drachasor]

44. Your facts are lousy, and your arguments don't jive with Obama's official stance on these issues!

From his website:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#nuclear
On Nuclear weapons:
"Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global."

So in fact he does want to reduce OUR nuclear weapons.

On the military:
"The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats."

He recognizes it is overextended. Increasing the numbers of troops can be done WHILE reducing the number on front lines. If your military is overextended, both can be done at once.


On terrorism:
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/remarks_of_senator_obama_the_w_1.php
"One component of this integrated approach will be new Mobile Development Teams that bring together personnel from the State Department, the Pentagon, and USAID. These teams will work with civil society and local governments to make an immediate impact in peoples' lives, and to turn the tide against extremism. Where people are most vulnerable, where the light of hope has grown dark, and where we are in a position to make a real difference in advancing security and opportunity -- that is where these teams will go."


So pretty much all of your worries are unfounded.

(As for the rest, look at his trade policies. He's an advocate of Fair Trade, which means YES, there'd be certain human rights expectations in our trade treaties, but that's a good thing. It's a carrot and stick approach to diplomacy that has shown to be effective in the past).

[metalluk]

60. So, his speech last week was NOT factual?

You seem to be arguing that information from his website is gospel but what he stated in his Iraq speech last week were "lousy' facts.

"Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it."

A laudable statement but it contrasts with his speech last week in which he talks only about nuclear nonproliferation (limiting the spread of nuclear technology to OTHER countries) but says nothing about scaling back the American arsenal. There is a difference between "lip-service" and actionable priorities. It is fair to assume that what the Obama team chooses to emphasize in a major campaign speech on foreign policy reflects their priorities. The United States has 9,900 nuclear warheads 5,700 of which are fully operational and ready to go. There are eight other nuclear powers currently but 96% of all nuclear warheads are found in just two countries, Russia and the USA. Despite already having enough nuclear warheads to destroy the entire world many times over, the U.S. government last year proposed building the first new nuclear warheads in two decades (Scient. Amer., Nov 2007).

"The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats."

Now try evaluating that statement critically. The U.S. military is indeed over-extended at present because of the war in Iraq, but if very nearly all of those troops are going to be brought home within sixteen months,, why would the military still be over-extended? In point of fact, one would anticipate that approximately sixteen brigades of soldiers would be idly scratching their butts at places like Fort Dix. If, in fact, the Obama team intends to end the war in Iraq, the logical conclusion would be that there would be a need to demobilize a substantial number of troops. If instead, they see a need to further increase troop levels by 90,000 plus troops, doesn't that suggest that they anticipate an increasing level of deployment of U.S. forces. You need to learn to analyze what you read rather than taking it all at face value.

[Drachasor]

68. You're being silly, just because he didn't mention every aspect of his platform...

does not mean those aren't aspects of his platform. Again, you are reading your own baseless fears into this. I find it ridiculous that you are blaming Obama for the current administration's desire to build more nukes, as if somehow he is culpable for the idiotic desires of Bush & Co.

As for the troops, most of our current troops are badly overworked. They've been on far too many tours of duty and deserve some rest. Training more troops would enable more of them to rest, and allow us to put fresh feet on the ground in Afghanistan, while allowing indicating to our enemies that we still have military flexibility if they did something. I don't think it would be appropriate to ask such people to leave the military, therefore training more troops is a good option. I wouldn't be surprised if he also wanted to put troops on the ground in Darfur to stop the genocide, honestly -- that's a lot more likely than your worries.

[metalluk]

71. I don't agree.

What a candidate chooses to emphasize in a speech is significant, especially when the same pattern emerges across several different strategic arenas: China, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel-Palestine, etc. In each of these cases, the policy speech set an aggressive posture, exhibiting no recognition of the legitimate grievances of other nations, and served to establish a tone that will inhibit diplomatic efforts.

As for your argument about troop levels, it is patently ridiculous. When wars come to an end, nations engage in demobilization. They do not take the opportunity at war's end to increase further their military forces.

Or, perhaps they are concerned that the troops returning from Iraq will not have enough mess mates to make up the requisite number of poker games. Ninety-two thousand new troops should fill out the card tables nicely.

[Drachasor]

75. Given your standard, I assume you think Hillary is just as bad

[Bonobo]

5. Your essay ignores one important thing.

A political environment exists today, a sort of status-quo, "common sense" belief that we need to "be strong and vigilant in the war against the enemies that would do us harm." Yes? ANd that involves projecting strength as has come to be expected of the commander in chief. One war per president generally.

This particular meme is one that is OWNED by the Republican party. It is what has resulted in our defeat in elections for 50 years.

Obama cannot, in one fell swoop, reverse ALL of the doctrines that have been put into place vis a vis Defense Policy and expect to win a Primary let alone prevail in a General Election against an opponent like McCain.

In other words, do you think Obama could do anything less than state that he will have an aggressive defense policy? If he adopted a Foreign Policy platform like Kucinich, do you think it is even POSSIBLE that he would ever be elected?

So, in your brilliant essay, you never addressed the fact that candidates have to live and breathe in a poisonous political environment of gotchas everywhere trying to get devour them.

To ignore political reality would be the sign of a fool.

[metalluk]

11. A response.

"we need to "be strong and vigilant in the war against the enemies that would do us harm."

Yes, and you are repeating a piece of the Rumsfeld doctrine: "weakness is provocative." I happen to agree with both you and Rumsfeld in that respect. However, your point is only a half-truth, the other half being "belligerence is also provocative." The only approach to world affairs that can work in the long run is combining "strength" and "fairness." Strength without fairness is what we call "bullying." Neither palestine nor Iran nor North Korean is going to give in to strength alone. They will merely redouble their efforts to resist being bullied by America. If, however, we accompany strength with signs of understanding for the legitimate grievances of competing nations, progress can be made. Nothing in the Obama speech last week showed that kind of understanding of the legitimate part of the concerns of Islamic nations, North Korea, or China.

"In other words, do you think Obama could do anything less than state that he will have an aggressive defense policy? If he adopted a Foreign Policy platform like Kucinich, do you think it is even POSSIBLE that he would ever be elected?"

Any candidate for the presidency must exhibit a willingness to be "strong" when America is confronted by security risks. They do not have to have an "aggressive" policy. "Strong and fair" is a policy that Americans could be made to understand. Weakness never would be acceptable, even to me. An aggressive policy leads inevitably to warfare.

Thanks for your excellent comments.

[Drachasor]

46. His essay actually ignores the stated positions of the Obama Campaign

Check out their website, his arguments stand starkly against their official positions.

[metalluk]

72. My post was based on their own words.

And we all know by now that "words matter."

A campaign website presents a laundry list of all of the positions that the team believes will appeal to voters. Some items represent what they actually plan to do; others are simply there as lip-service.

A policy speech outlines what the candidate views as priorities.

Perhaps for are arguing that we should not take Obama's speech seriously because it was simply a matter of campaign positioning.

[mmonk]

6. No sale. If you know anything about people like Samantha Power

which he had for an advisor because he read her work, you would know he isn't for unilateral invasions to seize assets.

[metalluk]

12. I am simply responding to what he himself stated

during his speech on foreign policy last week, and since "words matter," I assume that he means what he says.

[Drachasor]

47. And you ignore the context of his actually stated policies, reading in your own fears

That's no way to look at someone's stances.

[metalluk]

73. Quite the contrary.

I studied the ENTIRE speech thoroughly, reading each statement in its full context, rather than responding to out-of-context sound bytes as most Americans do.

[Sulawesi]

7. OK, let me get his, Obama is a neocon...OK, sure...couldn't you have put that in one sentence?

[metalluk]

14. Not really.

It is apparent that you are not going to think about the point regardless of whether it is stated in one sentence or many.

For other readers who are able to think open-mindedly about ideas, a single sentence would not have been sufficient because of the prevalence of the assumption that Obama is an anti-war candidate.

[rug]

13. Sixteen months? He's promising to end the war in 2009. Which is true?

:dilemma:

[metalluk]

15. Neither of the above.

The War in Iraq will not be ended in either 2009 or in sixteen months, but the latter is the current campaign promise. A closer reading of his team's latest speech on the topic, however, indicates that we'll still be committed to the same goal of stability and we'll still have to commit however many troops the ground commanders deem necessary to achieve that goal. If, by an act of Allah, the three major ethnic groups in Iraq reconcile (insert laughter here), we'll be able to accomplish our war objective with significantly fewer troops. That is what is being loosely labeled "ending the war."

[rodeodance]

16. thanks for you post

[hulka38]

17. The headline of your post is so ridiculous that I entered in the hopes that

you were attempting satire. Obama was against the Iraq war from the beginning and voted against labeling the IRG as terrorists, a likely precondition and justification for bombing and perhaps invading Iraq. If you think those are the beliefs of a neocon then you are hopelessly confused.
I am not happy with many of the foreign policies and actions of the U.S. over the last few decades. That's all the more reason to back Obama in my opinion. At this point the reality is that Obama, Clinton or McCain will be the next president. If you feel that that isn't a choice I think you are wrong. President Chomsky is unfortunately not going to happen.

[metalluk]

19. I understand

that it is difficult to assimilate information that is contrary to the prevailing assumption that Obama is an anti-war candidate.

So, don't take my word for it.

Print out a copy of his foreign policy speech from last week for yourself and read it carefully with an open mind.

Otherwise, you are in for a big surprise if and when Obama is elected.

Thanks for your post.

[hulka38]

23. I'll do that. Allow me to get some perspective of where you're coming from.

Who in elected office at the moment is not a neocon? What is your criteria? Do you believe that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11 or was that an inside job? If you believe that Al Qaeda was responsible does the CIC have the obligation to wage war with those responsible(read Bin Laden's Qaeda not necessarily the one in Iraq)?

[metalluk]

37. I'll try.

"Who in elected office at the moment is not a neocon?"

I am not sure what you have in mind by this question. "Elected office" is terribly broad. The prevailing philosophy of the Bush administration is neoconservative. If there are any individuals within the Bush administration that are not genuine neoconservatives, it would be difficult to know, since they would be obliged to conform. In Congress, I would point to our Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, a fine person and what I would call a pragmatist. He votes his conscience and his judgment, rather than uniformly adhering to the Democratic line. I don't always agree with his votes, but they are always carefully considered. Dennis Kucinich is clearly not a neoconservative by any stretch. Ted Kennedy is not neoconservative in any way. I could go on an on, but I'm not sure that I'm even addressing your question.

"Do you believe that Al Qaeda attacked the U.S. on 9/11 or was that an inside job?"

Of course I believe that al Qaeda attacked the U.S. I do not defend terrorism or al Qaeda in any way whatsoever. I do defend the worth of ordinary Islamic citizens who have been abused by (1) America sometimes propping up dictatorships and monarchies in order to guarantee access to that nation's resources, (2) the insertion of Israel by the Zionists into the Arab and Islamic world and the failure to resolve that issue in a manner that recognizes the just aspirations of the Palestinian and Israeli people, (3) the continuing exploitation of Middle East resources by American and European corporations, and (4) the blatant hypocrisy of America's policies in relation to nuclear weapons by which we claim the right to a huge stockpile while denying other countries similar rights and then use that imbalance in strike capacity as a means of exercising power over other nations. There will be no significant reduction in world tensions as long as America is determined to impose its will on other nations. We also cannot succeed from a position of weakness. The only approach that will actually reduce world tensions and warfare is the combination of "strength" and "fairness." Neither alone will ever succeed.

"the obligation to wage war with those responsible"

There is never an obligation to wage war but I am not a pacifist. There is also no obligation to never engage in war. There are just wars and unjust wars and quite a few in between, having elements of both justice and injustice. Killing hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women, and children in Iraq in order to dispose of a dictator who posed no significant threat to America was unjust. Now, having made that terrible mistake, we are morally obligated to see it through to the best conclusion that is feasible. Hunting down Bin Laden and killing him would be just, assuming that the cost in bystander lives was relatively low. World War II was just from the side of the Allies. The Civil War was just and would have been even more so had it been expressly about emancipation from the outset. The Vietnam War was both unjust and strategically unsound.

I hope that clarifies for you my perspective. America has every right to defend its security and legitimate interests. American does not have the right to exploit other nations, interfere unreasonably in their internal affairs, prop up repressive regimes, or impose its will unjustly on other nations backed up by its military superiority. Strength combined with fairness is the only path to world peace. At present, America is as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution.

[Enrique]

58. how does Obama differ from Reed on Iraq?

both, along with Clinton, seem to me to have the mainstream democratic position.

[Zodiak]

77. You asked all of the qualifying question there.

Nice job.

[Celebration]

25. The bottom line is

Who do you want to win the primary and why?

[metalluk]

39. I'll give you a straight answer

but please understand that the answer to your question is outside the scope of this particular post.

I believe that Clinton is a better candidate than Obama. I have indicated exhaustively in other posts why I believe that to be the case. My primary concern is experience. Please don't take the time to reiterate why you believe experience is not very important. I am convinced that it is. I have some additional reasons as well but am not going to impose them on you or other readers at this time.

My immediate purpose in writing this particular post was simply to alert liberal minded participants that you should not anticipate a liberal-based approach to foreign affairs from an Obama administration.

Vote for him for other reasons if you like.

[Celebration]

63. thank you, and one more thing

Do you believe that Clinton would have a "liberal-based approach" to foreign affairs?

[eridani]

18. Neocon foreign policy is required of any candidate vetted by the haves and have mores

He's in AIPAC's back pocked as well, same as Clinton.

[metalluk]

21. I'm not sure that I agree.

The neocon perspective has only been in place since Bush's first election in 2000. I see no reason why a candidate couldn't take another kind of tact, provided that it included evidence of readiness to take strong action when America's security interests are threatened.

As a side comment, let me point out the irony that George Bush Jr. adopted an approach to foreign policy that completely undid the one most positive legacy of his father's administration. George Bush Sr., for all of his other faults, elevated America's cooperative engagement with its principal allies and the U.N. to its highest level of expression in American history. Then, George Bush Jr. introduced the greatest degree of unilaterality in foreign policy in modern U.S. history. There is no reason why we can't make maximum use of our primary alliances, especially NATO, and the U.N. to work cooperatively with other nations to advance common agendas. The neocon perspective is not de rigueur.

[eridani]

48. I think your timing is off. Neocons have been around since PNAC

That was at least in the early 90s. I don't think of the first Gulf War as a positive legacy. A visible mobilization was enough to get Saddam to say (per the Russians) hey! I'm outta there! The point of the war was to prevent the Iraqis from leaving without going through a slaughter gauntlet and the destruction of Iraq's infrastructure.

[metalluk]

66. Around but not in charge 'til 2000

Neocons were around, as you say, throughout the 90's, but were largely brushed off as extremists not to be given serious attention. It was not until the Bush administration that they gained the power to proceed with their eccentric agenda. Now, incredibly, that eccentric agenda has become the accepted premise on the left as well as the right.

The legacy to which I referred was the extent of use of treaty organizations and the U.N. to ensure a degree of international legitimacy to U.S.-led endeavors. You are talking about strategic issues relating to the conduct of the war. Those are two separate issues.

I feel that there is great advantage in the U.S. working together with other nations of the world rather than acting as the Lone Ranger, because it allows the influence and perspectives of other nations to reign in the excesses of American foreign policy. Initiatives backed by several different countries are less likely, on average, to be foolhardy than are actions taken unilaterally by a single nation. You need look no further than the initiation of war in Iraq by Bush Jr. for a case in point. Very few nations in the world concurred with his judgment.

[eridani]

78. True. Intelligent imperialism gets fewer people killed than stupid imperialism

Still, I'd rather have no imperialism at all.

[mkultra]

20. didnt read the whole thing

But it seems that your founding your thesis on a couple of corrupt and questionalble assumptions that you assert as fact.


Such as:
Considering that the current relative stability in Iraq (in comparison to last summer) required a "surge" in troops to be accomplished, how is it that a small contingent of embassy guards and a counter-terrorism force will be able to maintain stability in the future?

As is often ignored by conservatives, The violent insurgency's stated purpose and verifiable achievements have been toward driving the US out of the middle east and preventing the spread of American hegemony in the middle east. It is therefore logical to assume that proven removal of troops will have the ever sought after goal of winning hearts and minds. When we prove that the US is not after their land or oil, they can unite against the internal threats instead of against us.



The differences between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds are fundamental and intractable. All three groups would rather fight than reconcile.

Broad assumption that is easily mutable if Iraq where to achieve a republic form of government.



Im sure the rest of our piece is well thought out though.

[babylonsister]

22. Stephen Zunes doesn't agree with you:

Stephen Zunes, a Foreign Policy In Focus analyst, is a professor of politics and international studies at the University of San Francisco.




Behind Obama and Clinton

Stephen Zunes | February 4, 2008
Foreign Policy In Focus
www.fpif.org


Voters on the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are rightly disappointed by the similarity of the foreign policy positions of the two remaining Democratic Party presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. However, there are still some real discernable differences to be taken into account. Indeed, given the power the United States has in the world, even minimal differences in policies can have a major difference in the lives of millions of people.

As a result, the kind of people the next president appoints to top positions in national defense, intelligence, and foreign affairs is critical. Such officials usually emerge from among a presidential candidate’s team of foreign policy advisors. So, analyzing who these two finalists for the Democratic presidential nomination have brought in to advise them on international affairs can be an important barometer for determining what kind for foreign policies they would pursue as president. For instance, in the case of the Bush administration, officials like Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle played a major role in the fateful decision to invade Iraq by convincing the president that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat and that American forces would be treated as liberators.

The leading Republican candidates have surrounded themselves with people likely to encourage the next president to follow down a similarly disastrous path. But what about Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? Who have they picked to help them deal with Iraq war and the other immensely difficult foreign policy decisions that they'll be likely to face as president?
Contrasting Teams

Senator Clinton’s foreign policy advisors tend to be veterans of President Bill Clinton’s administration, most notably former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger. Her most influential advisor - and her likely choice for Secretary of State - is Richard Holbrooke. Holbrooke served in a number of key roles in her husband’s administration, including U.S. ambassador to the UN and member of the cabinet, special emissary to the Balkans, assistant secretary of state for European and Canadian affairs, and U.S. ambassador to Germany. He also served as President Jimmy Carter’s assistant secretary of state for East Asia in propping up Marcos in the Philippines, supporting Suharto’s repression in East Timor, and backing the generals behind the Kwangju massacre in South Korea.

Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy advisers, who on average tend to be younger than those of the former first lady, include mainstream strategic analysts who have worked with previous Democratic administrations, such as former national security advisors Zbigniew Brzezinski and Anthony Lake, former assistant secretary of state Susan Rice, and former navy secretary Richard Danzig. They have also included some of the more enlightened and creative members of the Democratic Party establishment, such as Joseph Cirincione and Lawrence Korb of the Center for American Progress, and former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke. His team also includes the noted human rights scholar and international law advocate Samantha Power - author of a recent New Yorker article on U.S. manipulation of the UN in post-invasion Iraq - and other liberal academics. Some of his advisors, however, have particularly poor records on human rights and international law, such as retired General Merrill McPeak, a backer of Indonesia’s occupation of East Timor, and Dennis Ross, a supporter of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank.

more...

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4940

[metalluk]

29. Thanks for the link to a piece of biased campaign propaganda.

I don't put much credence in the glib assessments of the foreign policy advisors for the two teams. Instead, I'll response to the "Contrasting Issues" section of the article using the evidence of Obama's own language. Please note that I said nothing in my original post about Clinton's foreign policy proposals. My intent was NOT to argue that Clinton's approach is better than that of Obama but to examine the approach of the Obama team by itself in anticipation of the realistic possibility that Obama might be elected President.

"Contrasting Issues:"

"While some of Obama’s key advisors, like Larry Korb, have expressed concern at the enormous waste from excess military spending, Clinton’s advisors have been strong supporters of increased resources for the military."

I'll take at face value that Larry Korb may have expressed reservations about military spending, but the Obama team has proposed increasing troop levels by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines. As a former marine myself, I fully support a level of support for our military services that ensures that they can accomplish all the assigned missions without undue hardships (such as reducing stateside time between successive overseas tours of duty). What is surprising about this part of the Obama plan is that they claim that they will be withdrawing 1-2 brigades each month for sixteen months, only two of which are slated for redeployment in Afghanistan. I believe that there are approximately 20 brigades currently in Iraq, so, sixteen months after Obama takes office, we should have about two of those in Afghanistan, perhaps one left in Iraq, and around 15-17 back home in America. Why would the military services require 92,000 more soldiers and marines combined (roughly twenty-six new brigades) in addition to sixteen returned from Iraq, unless there is the expectation that these freed up troops will be deployed elsewhere? Apparently, the Obama team has ignored any reservations that Korb may have had.

"Obama advisors Susan Rice and Samantha Power have stressed the importance of U.S. multilateral engagement"

Obama's foreign policy speech DOES refer to building "the capacity of regional partners in conflict prevention, peacekeeping, and the reconstruction of ravaged societies." I applaud that element of their policy. It is all the more unfortunate that they then also twice suggest a willingness to proceed unilaterally when allies prove inconveniently restrictive. It's hard to have much confidence in the commitment of the Obama team to multilateral engagement when it is abandoned as soon as it proves tiresome.

"Susan Rice has emphasized how globalization has led to uneven development that has contributed to destabilization and extremism and has stressed the importance of bottom-up anti-poverty programs"

Yes, and that strength in the Obama transcript is quite evident.

Now, having read the entire article in question, I have to say that I am quite disappointed to have been pointed me in the direction of what is obviously a bit of partisan endorsement. Regardless of that author's credentials, he has shameless prostituted his objectively and professionalism for political purposes. I truly have to worry about a campaign that relies on such poorly written and biased propaganda

Although I am support Senator Clinton's nomination, I am realistic enough to recognize that her odds of success are now down to about 10%, so my intent in the current post was simply to anticipate what an Obama presidency is likely to bring in the way of foreign policy. I'm not claiming that Obama's foreign policy proposals are worse than those of either Clinton or McCain, but merely that they are extremely alarming and troublesome from a liberal perspective. Should Obama be elected, I anticipate four more years of a dangerously aggressive, neoconservative approach to foreign affairs.

[Political Heretic]

32. Umm.. *snicker*... steven zunes and FPIF have been around for years and are

generally considered to be one of the best progressive foreign policy think tanks around.

[metalluk]

43. With all due respect,

I am well qualified to recognize the difference between reflective analysis and blatant propaganda. Have you ever seen the intellectually-dishonest crap produce by the Ayn Rand Institute, a conservative think tank. Just because a writer is progressive doesn't mean they're not capable of producing garbage. Spin is spin, whether it comes from the Clinton camp, the Obama camp, or the McCain camp. Spin doesn't turn into truth just because it comes from your own group. Read the linked article yourself. If you can't recognize it as partisan propaganda then you are truly overly invested in your allegiance to your candidate.

[babylonsister]

56. Anything you don't agree with is biased; got it. Your motives are showing. nt

[metalluk]

62. No.

The article you cited was pure garbage. Any intelligent reader, with neither prior knowledge of the topic or bias, could reach that conclusion simply by examining the author's language devices and the one-sided perspective.

[sellitman]

24. Take this as a compliment...

That has all the earmarks of a professional hit piece.

Are your pay checks bouncing yet?

[metalluk]

31. Sorry to disappoint you.

I have no connection with any campaign.

Those who have read my other posts know that I am a Clinton supporter, but my purpose in writing this piece was merely to anticipate what an Obama presidency is likely to bring in the way of foreign policy.

I looked at the Obama foreign policy proposals and made no attempt to draw a contrast with either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain.

I am not implying by this piece that a vote for any one of the candidates, based on foreign policy issues alone, is clearly better than a vote for one of the other candidates. I am simply expressing my deep concern about the wisdom of the Obama team's foreign policy ideas, from a liberal perspective. It is the same old, same old.

My conclusion is simply that we are once again in deep poop if Obama is elected. That may very well be equally the case with the other two.

I very much regret that the foreign policy now offered by the left is indistinguishable from that offered by the right with respect to a genuine intention to deal constructively or fairly with those countries and peoples that have interests contrary to those of America. I regret that both the left and the right have now married themselves to the neocon objectives.

[hulka38]

45. metalluk, you've posted a lot of words in your thread

but I'm still in the dark about what your point is. We know you are a Clinton supporter (I'm not but that's cool).

"I looked at the Obama foreign policy proposals and made no attempt to draw a contrast with either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
You haven't? Why haven't you? Foreign policy seems to be a major concern to you. From your original post, calling Obama a neocon you made a pretty solid judgment about Obama. It's curious that you haven't considered Clinton's or McCain's record on this subject?

I see that you are simply expressing deep concern, and you have a lot of regret on this subject and you're not implying that one is better etc...
Why so vague? The headline on your original post is so strong and yet you seem to be tiptoeing all these words later.

You conclude that we are in deep poop if Obama is elected and we may or may not be if Clinton or McCain is. You're sure we're screwed with Obama but not necessarily with the other two. Why do you feel that way exactly?

Obama is clearly on the record as being opposed to starting major military operations in Arabia. Is that a neocon perspective to you?

[metalluk]

52. Only so many hours

"I looked at the Obama foreign policy proposals and made no attempt to draw a contrast with either Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
You haven't? Why haven't you?

There are only so many hours in a day. I'm educating myself piece meal. I'll wait until the autumn to delve into McCain's positions because I think that they are likely to evolve between now and then as he figures out how to differentiate himself from Bush, but not by too much, and how he's going to try to appeal to moderate Democrats and Independents (which he has already indicated he intends to do). In Clinton's case, I am convinced that her chances of being nominated have dwindled to about 10% (don't bother arguing the point), so it would likely be a waste of time to examine her positions in quite the same detail.

"The headline on your original post is so strong and yet you seem to be tiptoeing all these words later."

I feel strongly that American foreign policy is destructive and costs countless lives, without even producing the kinds of results that would enhance our security and respect in the world. Since it's a matter of life and death (millions of lives yearly), there is every reason to express concerns with emphasis. Obama's foreign policies will probably be no worse than those of McCain (possibly a shade better, even) but it is all the more troubling when a neoconservative approach emanates from the left rather than the right. It sends a destructive message to the world that American's aggressive pursuit of self-interest is not merely a Republican ailment but an American disease altogether.

"You conclude that we are in deep poop if Obama is elected and we may or may not be if Clinton or McCain is. You're sure we're screwed with Obama but not necessarily with the other two."

I took the time to closely examine Obama's proposals and found them severely wanting. I haven't yet put the same degree of analysis into the other two candidates, so I'm withholding comment on them until I've given one or the other or both an equal degree of examination.

"Obama is clearly on the record as being opposed to starting major military operations in Arabia. Is that a neocon perspective to you?"

Arabia? Do you mean Saudi Arabia? Why would we undertake a major military operation against an ally? But to answer your question, any expression of reluctance to engage in hostile military actions cannot by itself be interpreted as neoconservative. That doesn't alter the evidence that much of what he does propose reflects the intent to extend American influence and control by military means, supplemented by a variety of other tactics, some aggressive and some benign.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. So what do you suggest, vote Nader in 08?

[metalluk]

34. No.

I have no recommendation to make at this time regarding how you should cast your vote.

As I've said before, I will not be voting for Senator Obama for a number of different reasons. It seems unlikely that I'll have the opportunity to vote for Senator Clinton. I won't be voting for Ralph Nader. I will study other options with the same thoroughness I have applied to Obama's policy proposals as time permits and as the campaigns unfold.

As of the moment, I am only saying that the immediate future of American foreign policy looks bleak indeed.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. It looks far bleaker with McCain in office.

You could of course be right about Obama and he will simply continue the current policies. Or you could be wrong. With McCain there is no doubt what we are getting. I'll take my chances with Obama. So should you.

[metalluk]

74. I am not promoting McCain

but we don't truly know quite yet what he has to offer. I'll listen to what he has to say in the fall.

You may very well be right that McCain will prove to be unacceptable, maybe even more so than Obama.

I'll withhold judgment.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. What part of his view on the occupation of Iraq are you unclear about?

You will withhold judgement on Bomb Bomb Iran McCain, McCain of the 100 year occupation, but you have passed judgement on Obama? Sorry if I call bullshit on this. You make no sense at all.

[Emit]

27. I haven't read this, but I sense it's an attempt at a twisted copy cat post

:shrug:

[hulka38]

28. Well, he/she has a lot to respond to but I still can't gat a handle

on what he's advocating here or whether it's even an appropriate GD-P discussion.

[guruoo]

30. K&R

[Political Heretic]

33. Who do you suggest we vote for?

:shrug:

[metalluk]

38. From a foreign policy perspective alone,

you, I, and every other liberal are genuinely up shit's creek no matter whom you vote for among the remaining major party candidates. I personally believe that Clinton is the best bet on foreign policy, but I don't honestly believe that you'll have her as an option come November.

Clearly Obama is a better choice for Democrats than McCain from the point of view of domestic issues. I am not at all convinced, after studying the foreign policy proposals of the Obama team, that he is any better than either of the other two candidates from a perspective of foreign policy. It is the same neoconservative philosophy as the Bush administration dressed up in new clothes, with some nifty ideas about how to impose America's will on other countries more effectively. If you think that's a sound objective, by all means, Obama's your guy on both accounts -- foreign and domestic.

My purpose with this post is merely to draw the attention of liberals to the great likelihood that you're going to be sorely disappointed by the foreign policy perspective of the Obama team, if he is elected.

[Political Heretic]

55. So I'm going to file your post under my "no shit sherlock" category,

since I am in fact, not a complete nub.

[LordJFT]

35. what a joke, obama had the least hawkish foreign policy of any of the original candidates aside from

Kucinich and Gravel

[metalluk]

41. Have you actually read

the foreign policy proposals of the Obama team or are you making that judgment based on general impression?

I'm not going to try to convince you that your impression is mistaken.

I'll only suggest that you print yourself out a copy of Obama's speech on Iraq from last week (not the cost one, but the first one) and read it carefully for yourself.

I'm sure you have quite a few reasons for supporting Obama and that one reason more or less is not going to alter your vote. That's fine. My only point in writing this post was to alert fellow liberals to the likelihood that the benefits of an Obama presidency (whatever else those benefits might include) are not going to include a genuinely liberal-minded approach to foreign policy.

[LordJFT]

51. yes I've read some of his fp proposals, but no I haven't seen or heard his speech on Iraq yet

I think its ridiculous to claim he's a neocon because he supports unilateral action againts Bin-Laden. If you unilateral action is necessary to take Bin-Laden out I think you're delusional not to support it. Furthermore you're calling him a neocon for having a pro-Israel stance. Israel is a democratic secular country and of course we're going to support them over radical Islamic governments and organizations. If pro-Israel stances are a problem for you you should go to the green party because virtually all democrats and republicans support Israel.

[gristy]

36. Both Dem candidates get quite a bit of slack from this pacifist

They both must play with the hand they've been dealt in Iraq over the past 7 years. They both must deal with the historic disaster that is Iraq.

[metalluk]

42. Yes, that's true, but

don't you want an understanding of the approach each candidate is likely to take?

May I suggest that you print yourself out a copy of Obama's speech on Iraq from last week (the first one dealing with policy, not the cost one) and read it carefully for yourself.

I'm not saying that it will change your mind about who to vote for, but it will help you understand that it would be a mistake to anticipate that an Obama presidency is going to result in an approach to foreign policy that is any more liberal than the approach of the Bush administration. It will simply shift the focus of our military involvement, not reduce it.

[TragedyandHope]

40. The bottom line for me is

Do we want "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB Iran" or a serious commitment to diplomacy before military action?

I don't disagree with all of your analysis, but I do disagree with your conclusions on his character and intent. I have no illusions that Iraq will be miraculously solved in such a short time frame by any candidate. I have heard other writers suggest that the remaining force in Iraq will be even larger than you suggest, possibly including tens of thousands of military "advisors" and "trainers" along with an equal number of contractors.

I do not support this policy, but I am hoping that at least part of Obama's position is a compromise of posturing to be an acceptable candidate to the entrenched power-brokers in Washington and elsewhere. This can get him in the door, but he will still be stuck in a web of establishment interests. My hope is that he can make a serious effort to shift the policy emphasis to diplomatic means much more strongly than he has suggested thus far.

Improving stability and economic prosperity around the world ensures our own security, but there's more than one way to approach that goal. I hope that Obama can bring a fresh approach to the problem. I don't imagine a drastic shift is possible, but I would like to think that he has the potential to take incremental steps towards a new direction in foreign policy.

I'm not sure we can hope for much more in an electable, mainstream, centrist candidate.

[metalluk]

49. Thanks for a thoughtful post.

"Do we want "BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, BOMB Iran" or a serious commitment to diplomacy before military action?"

We agree. We both want the latter. Serious commitment to diplomacy requires not only a statement that you're willing to talk but a willingness to respect the other sides legitimate grievances. Let's suppose you and I are getting divorced (I know, that's a horrible thought, but play along). I say to you, "Look, I'll tell you right now that I'm keeping both houses and both cars, but I'll be happy to discuss a divorce settlement with you anytime." I imagine that your confidence in my willingness to engage in diplomacy would be somewhat diminished by my opening attitude. I'm glad that the Obama team expresses a willingness to engage world leaders in diplomacy, and even those from enemy nations, but the neoconservative orientation that is blatantly evident in their own policy document is going to be a major hindrance to interesting other parties in such diplomatic efforts. The document reveals zero understanding or recognition of the legitimate aspirations of nations that sometimes oppose us..

"I do disagree with your conclusions on his character and intent."

I don't honestly think I said anything that reflects on Obama's character. For the record, I believe him to be a man of principle, high intelligence, more than typical honesty (no politician can be completely honest, it's the reality of the profession), and compassion. I have absolutely nothing negative to say about his character. I certainly did reflect on his foreign policy intents, though, to be more precise, it is the intents of Obama together with his team of foreign policy advisors. I based those comments on a careful reading of their own words.

"Obama's position is a compromise of posturing to be an acceptable candidate to the entrenched power-brokers in Washington and elsewhere"

That may very well be the case. It's hard to tell how much of Obama's positions come from his own mind and how much from the advisors. In the end, though, it's the deeds that count, not where the ideas evolved.

"I hope that Obama can bring a fresh approach to the problem."

You're surely entitled to that hope. I am more cynical by nature and I take seriously what they say on paper about their intended approach.

[anonymous171]

50. Neoconservatism, at its core, doesn't really have a lot to do with the Middle East.

It's about spreading Democracy (American puppet governments) throughout the world in order to promote peace (create the American Empire.) The Middle East is just the easiest place to do that for them. Also the corporatist that joined up with their political cult like the oil that they now have access to.

[metalluk]

59. Your definition of "Neoconservatism"

Your definition: Neoconservatism is "about spreading Democracy (American puppet governments) throughout the world in order to promote peace (create the American Empire.)"

Here's my edit: Neoconservatism is about the extension of American influence and hegemony throughout the world in order to promote American security and economic welfare.

[madrchsod]

80. neo liberalism does

[jillan]

53. Adding to that, he just praised Bush Sr on his handling of foreign policy

That says it all.

Iran-contra ring a bell?

[metalluk]

61. Well, I'm sorry to disagree but

Iran-contra was Ronald Reagan's baby and Bush Sr., though a typically bad Republican president from the viewpoint of domestic issues, did have one very positive legacy to his presidency. He used the NATO alliance and the U.N. to ensure that American-led military initiatives had an international legitimacy. He set a standard of international cooperation which was then utterly destroyed by his own son's presidency. I have no problem with Obama recognizing the one positive legacy of Bush Sr.'s term in office.

[PerfectSage]

54. Then why is the NRO bashing Obama so hard?

I agree with some of your points. I disagree with you conclusion that he's the neo con candidate. You say "extending its power and influence over other peoples". I say Grand Strategy.
At least Obama is the only candidate who has a clue about Grand Strategy and winning on the moral level.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/boyd_grand_strategy.htm

Text for Iraq speech.
http://thepage.time.com/full-text-of-obamas-iraq-speech/


http://antiwar.com/radio/2008/03/20/justin-raimondo-2/

[metalluk]

65. Actually,

you are disagreeing with your own version of a conclusion from my post, not with MY conclusion.

"I disagree with you conclusion that he's the neo con candidate."

That was not my conclusion. I didn't say he was THE neocon candidate. In fact, you'll see in the last paragraph of my post that I am concerned that the foreign policy perspectives of BOTH the left and the right are now based on the neocon objectives.

"You say "extending its power and influence over other peoples". I say Grand Strategy."

As I said, the Obama team has indeed refined the tactical approach to extending American influence over other peoples and countries. If you want to apply the label "grand strategy" to that improvement in tactics, I won't quarrel with your choice of terms. The fact remains, however, that the "grand strategy" will be applied by the Obama to the advancement of what are fundamentally neocon objectives.

"Obama is the only candidate who has a clue about winning on the moral level."

Yes and no. Obama and his team have a well-developed understanding of the need to win the hearts and minds of the populaces in strategically critical countries, as a supplement to military initiatives. On, the other hand, the essential goal of his foreign policy, which continues the effort to extend American control throughout the world, is no more moral than it was when exercised by the current occupant of the White House.

[crispini]

64. Thank you for your thoughtful post!

Bookmarked for later reading.

[Mezzo]

67. the McCarthy comments are telling as well. nt

[Doctor_J]

69. Not according to most sane people

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_obama_d...

The Obama Doctrine

Barack Obama is offering the most sweeping liberal foreign-policy critique we've heard from a serious presidential contender in decades. But will voters buy it?

[metalluk]

70. Sanity is not the issue.

Very few citizens take the time to examine the issues.

Obama's words (and those of his foreign policy advisors) speak quite clearly as to his/their intents. His proposals ARE sweeping with respect to refinement of tactics. Nevertheless, the overarching goals evident in the speech from last week are clearly a continuation of neoconservative designs.

[madrchsod]

79. clinton foreign policies? no thanks

i`ve seen what some of those policies were in the 90`s and i really do`t want america to go that route again....