Read Robert Kagan's article today in the WaPo:
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500 billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to terrorism.
Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To fight terrorism.
He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."
Obama never once says that military force should be used only as a last resort. Rather, he insists that "no president should ever hesitate to use force -- unilaterally if necessary," not only "to protect ourselves . . . when we are attacked," but also to protect "our vital interests" when they are "imminently threatened." That's known as preemptive military action. It won't reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."
Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?
Conspicuously absent from Obama's discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.
Kagan says Obama is 'pure Kennedy'. The evidence is mounting. Today seems to be the first day of the geopolitical positioning. Barnett says:
..there's exactly no reason now for any centrist Democrat to prefer McCain to Obama. Ditto for Giuliani versus Obama. Ditto for Clinton versus Obama. Personally, I don't see much difference between any of the top four now on foreign policy, with just McCain coming off as most belligerent but hardly a hawk that separates himself from the pack. Strong speech by Obama that makes me feel a whole lot more comfortable with him.
Could there be a way for Obama to geopolitically triangulate his way more effectively than Edwards or Clinton? The answer to that question is very important, because between him and Richardson are the only candidates that don't sound like business as usual from the Democrats.
Obviously for most Democrats, things can't get any worse. Obama personifies the change agent. Whether you want to call him 'magic' or not, he's too new to be status quo. I think Dems will take that leap. His campaign agenda is getting heavier and deeper, I think he's making the right moves.
Recent Comments