4um: Stay-the-Course Plus; Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on Steroids

Title: Stay-the-Course Plus; Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on Steroids
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jun 4, 2007
Author: Fred Hiatt
Post Date: 2008-04-02 20:09:07 by Jethro Tull
Keywords: None
Views: 715
Comments: 52

Stay-the-Course Plus; Obama, Romney and Foreign Engagement on Steroids

You might expect the candidates in this presidential election to want to lead the nation in radically new foreign policy directions. The incumbent, after all, is widely perceived to have driven the country off a cliff. You might expect a retreat to humility and pragmatism after George Bush's wildly ambitious, and thus far stymied, freedom agenda.

You might also think, given the bitter partisan divisions in Washington, that the two parties would offer programs differing radically from each other. And you might figure that, if anyone is positioned to strike out in such new directions, it would be Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney, neither of whom is burdened by much foreign policy history on the national stage.

Now those two candidates have laid out their foreign policy visions in parallel articles, released last week prior to publication in the July/August issue of Foreign Affairs. And after you cut through some of their campaign rhetoric, here's what you find:

(1) The two candidates' programs are strikingly similar to each other.

(2) Both are strikingly similar to Bush administration policy.

(3) And both, far from retreating to isolationism in the face of Iraq and other challenges, set forth their own wildly ambitious calls for American leadership and the promotion of American values. "Boldness" is an operative word for both of them.

Obama begins: "After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew."

Romney writes: "In the aftermath of World War II and with the coming of the Cold War, members of the 'greatest generation' united America and the free world around shared values and actions that changed history. . . . Our times call for equally bold leadership."

The two differ in some respects, of course. Romney puts more emphasis on combating radical Islam and less on promoting freedom. Obama dwells more on Bush's failures and the value of diplomacy and endorses a "phased withdrawal" of U.S. troops from Iraq. But even there, the differences are not as stark as the candidates would like them to appear. Obama would maintain in Iraq enough troops "to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda."

And the similarities dwarf the differences. Both want bigger, not smaller, armed forces: Obama calls for an additional 92,000 ground troops, Romney for 100,000.

Obama calls for a doubling of foreign aid; Romney wants a Marshall Plan-like "Partnership for Prosperity and Progress" that would support schools, microcredit, the rule of law, human rights, health care and the free market in Islamic states.

Romney says that "the jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation," as real as the threat that was posed by Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union, and he promises an appropriately sized response. Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar."

Both want to revamp domestic bureaucracies, intelligence agencies and institutions far beyond post-Sept. 11 reforms. Romney would pool the civilian agencies of the government, assign to each region of the world a civilian leader equivalent to the powerful regional military commander and make him or her responsible for promoting U.S. interests and "building the foundations of freedom, democracy, security and peace."

Strikingly, both want to reinvigorate existing multilateral alliances and to create new ones. Both point to flaws in the United Nations but say the United States should work to cure them rather than pull out. Both want renewed attention to securing loose nukes around the world.

Each of their calls for change carries criticism of the Bush administration, implicit in Romney's case, explicit -- and eloquent -- in Obama's. The United States cannot promote its values abroad unless it lives by them at home, Obama says, pledging an end to secret prisons and other abuse of detainees. A president cannot sell an active foreign policy, he says, unless he "can restore the American people's trust" at home.

But in both cases, the criticism is not that Bush took on too much but that he accomplished too little. "We are a unique nation, and there is no substitute for our leadership," says Romney. Agrees Obama: "We can be this America again. . . . [A]n America that battles immediate evils, promotes an ultimate good, and leads the world once more."

If Iraq-weary voters are looking for someone who will call on America to "come home," they won't find that candidate here.

fredhiatt@washpost.com

Fraud politicians can only pepetuate their scheme with the assistance of the Duped. (1 image)

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

And the Duped seems to feel St Obama will bring the boys home. I can see a young kid falling for this crapola, but mature adults? Barnum was right.

"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942

This can be reconciled by understanding we have people here that believe we have a "two party political system". Sigh...

And like a trout after a fly, they're willing to gobble anything the System floats past them. "None of the Above" is the only rational vote a clear thinker should cast.

A native trout (American) is wary of everything that comes down from above, very wily.

Can we just rename the Military to the Worker's & Peasant's Army, establish an American Comintern, and get it over with?

"We've come to liberate the crap out of you, comrade! We don't care if you want it or not."

"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.

Allow me to interpret: when America's Appalachians and southerners die for Israel, an angel gets its wings.

“Our battered suitcases were piled on the sidewalk again; we had longer ways to go. But no matter, the road is life." - Jack Kerouac

I'm still trying to find it again, but I thought I saw a quote of Obama saying that Israel is "our #1 priority" in the ME.

Still, I do have plenty of references of Obama promising more money and guns for the IDF and that Syria and Iran will remain on the hit list for "liberation" later.

If Obama is in charge a few years from now and the ME is still a shooting gallery, what will his supporters say then?

(I already have the answer. Obama's staff will just dust off some old 1990's era GOP press releases about "stratigifying" political opponents by addopting every single one of their goals and edit them for the current party in power. Remember how the "D"s 'forced' Bush to go against so many of the old school GOP values? Same story with different actors.)

"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.

Unless he's talking about throwing out the criminals in the WH, Sen and Cong, he's merely spewing.

Asked by moderator Tim Russert what he could do to reassure Jewish Americans, Obama cited his belief that Israel's security is "sacrosanct." He also said he has strong support in the Jewish community because of his opposition to anti- Semitism and his efforts to rebuild the relationship between Jews and African Americans.

On Sunday, Obama took time from his campaign to air out concerns with about 100 Jewish leaders in Cleveland, assuring them of "an unshakable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel."

After the meeting, Rabbi Michael Lerner, editor of the liberal Jewish magazine Tikkun, issued a statement declaring that Obama "has been very successful . . . in reassuring the bulk of American Jews that the innuendoes and overt attacks on his alleged hostility to or indifference to the well-being of Israel are false."

Obama, albeit using slightly different terms, agrees: "To defeat al Qaeda, I will build a twenty-first-century military and twenty-first-century partnerships as strong as the anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War to stay on the offense everywhere from Djibouti to Kandahar." - Sen Obama, June 4, 2007

"Will you pledge that by January 2013, the end of your first term, more than five years from now, there will be no U.S. troops in Iraq?" MSNBC's Tim Russert, who moderated the debate, asked Senator Barack Obama.

"I think it's hard to project four years from now, and I think it would be irresponsible," Sen. Obama responded. "We don't know what contingency will be out there," he continued. The best he could do was declare: "I will drastically reduce our presence there to the mission of protecting our embassy, protecting our civilians, and making sure that we're carrying out counterterrorism activities there."

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your country can do for Israel.

As the Big O adjusts to the media spotlight, his positions will become more malleable. If they don't, he'll be asked to leave the Club.

This election is a study in Jewish domination of American domestic political interests.

I still believe that Obama's supposed anti-war stance has nothing to do with the support he has here. IMHO, it's all about the free goodies he's promised to hand out, the biggest being "free" healthcare.

What anyone knows that pays attention is that Obama wishes to pick up the attempt to bring about a rapprochement between the Jews and Palestinians ... the policy that characterized U.S. ME foreign policy for 30-40 years and which the Bush administration junked junked on day-1 in favor a bellicose policy of making war on every ME nation that Israel perceives as being an enemy.

I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party

You might be right. His own words indicate his anti-war stance isn't about leaving Iraq. And about his support here? It seems it has made the leap into FReeper-like party politics. When Obama can announce that Al Gore is in line for a cabinet level position, and it's defended rather than criticized, we're talking about extreme left-wing political views.

Ah......and why would Obama think this position is reasonable, when the Israelis themselves don't want peace?

Exactly! They want nothing less than for our military to be their proxy in the slaughter of their neighbors.

We will NEVER leave the ME. Anyone that deludes themselves into thinking Obama or any other "system" operative is going to remove our military from protecting Israel is being less than realistic.

Our latest effort in the ME is to surround Israeli with oil rich, friendly governments. I think we can all agree with that. That as a given, what would make anyone think that one man would be given the power to change the scheme, given a trillion dollar expenditure (to date) and, as yet, a ZERO return on the investment? The truth be known, Obama has been sufficiently blunt in letting folks know we're in Iraq for the long run. The less political sophisticated focus in on his stump speeches, but the more detailed information we've posted here makes things clear. His ME position will become even clearer as this circus of a process moves forward.

And working to keep a lid on Israeli/Palestinian conflict was our policy for decades .... up till Bush's 10th day in office when he junked it and began war plans for Iraq. How did that little U-turn, cakewalk work out for y'all?

Secy of Treasury Paul O'Neill revealed all this in his book The Price of Loyalty. A price he wasn't willing to pay as he left the administration about two years in. Up till that time he and Greenspan also attempted to fight Bush on his guns-and-butter economics to no avail. Bush listened to no one except Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rove and coterie of kiss-up, mid-level yes-men and neocons. Yes, Rove was actually a policy adviser.

Now you guys want chapter three of an administration fronted by a another headstrong, C-, war monger.

Well, that ought to place you in perfect position for another 4-8 years of pissing and moaning.

I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party

It'll be better than hanging out in the Hall Of Shame with all the former Bush supporters who were just sure that their golden Calf canadate would never ever lie to them.

It's going to get real crowded 4 years from now when all the Obama supporters join them. They'll be wedged in between the Republican Revolution supporters and everyone who voted for the "D" party in 2006 because they really really promised to end the war in Iraq.

"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.

I cling to hope of a 50 state repudiation of the traitorous, neocon Plutocrat Party

That's what I don't understand, in all the glee to bash Obama, who says he'll restore habeas corpus and has an actual date for leaving Iraq. Rather than support him they deride and ridicule him as a liberal/socialist/etc.

They would rather see us totally destroyed than become socialist, a place we could still return from. And Obama is not liked by the Zionists. In fact, some of the more rabid criticism of Obama is probably from Zionist paid shills.

'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz

The entire political situation is like reading the story over and over. You already know the ending. Some people seem to think that if they read the story enough times it will somehow change the ending.

"If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.

Obama's legislation, offered on the Senate floor last night, would remove all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008.

A change in Feingold's bill -- the removal of an end date for troop redeployment in an effort to win wider support -- persuaded Obama to not co-sponsor the measure. "Senator Obama has long said that he would only support Iraq legislation that has an end date for the removal of troops," an Obama aide told the Huffington Post. As for whether the Senator would ultimately support the bill, the aide said, "it will depend on the final version."

Obama himself responded from Wyoming: "I will bring this war to an end in 2009," he said. "Don't be confused."

Once opposed setting 'date certain'

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama has apparently reconsidered his position against setting a "date certain" for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq.

On Tuesday, Obama introduced the "Iraq War De- escalation Act of 2007," which calls for a goal of all U.S. troops to leave Iraq by March 31, 2008, in a phased redeployment worked out with military commanders.

Earlier, he refused to vote for an amendment proposed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) that would have, as Obama said, bring the troops home on a "date certain."

On June 21, Obama took to the Senate floor to say, "A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field and our diplomats in the region insufficient flexibility."

Obama started moving toward setting a timetable in the weeks leading up to his announcement of his 2008 Democratic presidential exploratory campaign.

CHANGE SEEMS TIED TO PRIMARY

On Nov. 20, the Illinois Democrat said a "precise" timetable for U.S. troops to leave Iraq should be mapped out by the president, military commanders and, when possible, with Iraqi government leaders.

However, at that speech before the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Obama said he was not suggesting an "overly rigid" timetable.

The gradual switch in approach seems to be tied to the reality of the Democratic presidential primary.

Ending the war in Iraq is a major issue and while all the Democratic hopefuls are against President Bush's troop escalation and supportive of capping troop levels, they have different ideas on the best way to bring soldiers home.

Asked if the Obama legislation represented a change in position, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor replied, "This is entirely consistent with the Nov. 20 speech."

Added Robert Gibbs, another Obama spokesman, "Obama's legislation embraces the goals set out by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group in saying that the goal is to have all combat forces out of Iraq by the end of March 2008."