America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and responsibilities.

Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead. Personally, I like it.

All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world in America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.

Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty, build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . . generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.

It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.

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.

Obama talks about "rogue nations," "hostile dictators," "muscular alliances" and maintaining "a strong nuclear deterrent." He talks about how we need to "seize" the "American moment." We must "begin the world anew." This is realism? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?

Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday, when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military action. So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers think Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it comes to America's role in the world, apparently they don't think there's much of an argument.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy. He has been advising John McCain's presidential campaign on an informal and unpaid basis

Robert Kagan cofounded the neoconservative letterhead group Project for the New American Century (PNAC) in 1997 with fellow neocon Wiliam Kristol, with whom he has also co-written articles and books. Kagan remains a director of the basically defunct, yet previously influential group, which has had no significant actions since 2005. Kagan is a monthly columnist on international affairs for the Washington Post, a contributing editor at the New Republic, and a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on international relations and security issues.

Kagan has impressive neocon credentials; his father Donald and brother Frederick are neocon historians who have written on the need for a stronger and more interventionist U.S. military. Robert Kagan was recently cited by presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as being one of several conservatives whom the senator calls up for guidance and advice on foreign policy; the group also included Kristol and George P. Shultz (Associated Press, March 9, 2007).

Kagan writes frequently on post-Cold War strategy, transatlantic relations, U.S.-China relations, military strategy, defense budget, and U.S. diplomatic history.

In a January 2007 column for the Washington Post, Kagan opined: "Those who call for an 'end to the war' don't want to talk about the fact that the war in Iraq and in the region will not end but will only grow more dangerous ... To the extent that people think about Iraq, many seem to believe it is a problem that can be made to go away. This is a delusion, but it is by no means only a Democratic delusion. Many conservatives and Republicans, including erstwhile supporters of the war, have thrown up their hands in anger at the Iraqi people or the Iraqi government" (Washington Post, January 28, 2007). Many of Kagan's fellow neocons, including Richard Perle and Kenneth Adelman, who both initially supported the Iraq War, have reversed course to become highly critical of the Bush administration's handling of the war.

Kagan supports the idea of increasing troop levels in Iraq. "It is precisely the illusion that a political solution is possible in the midst of rampant violence that has gotten us where we are today. What's needed in Iraq are not more clever plans but more U.S. troops to provide the security to make any plan workable. Even those seeking a way out of Iraq as soon as possible should understand the need for an immediate surge in U.S. troop levels to provide the stability necessary so that eventual withdrawal will not produce chaos and an implosion of the Iraqi state" (New Republic, November 27, 2007). His brother Frederick led an American Enterprise Institute panel that concluded a vast troop surge is necessary; the January 2007 report was called "Choosing Victory: A Plan For Success in Iraq."

Kagan's latest book is Dangerous Nation: America's Place in the World from Its Earliest Days to the Dawn of the 20th Century (2006), the first volume in what is likely to be a two-part series. In it, Kagan argues that America is not the isolationist power that he says many conceive it to be. His previous book was Of Paradise and Power: America and Europe in the New World Order (2003), in which he argues that "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus: They agree on little and understand one another less and less." Kagan claims that because Europe has benefited from 60 years of U.S. security guarantees, it has not been forced to spend as much on defense as the United States and is softer when it comes to issues like Iraq and other "rogue states."

According to a BBC profile of him, "Kagan disputes that the United States' attitude was altered by the events of September 11. He says that the country 'only became more itself' in its intolerance for the enemy ... Critics accuse him of over-simplifying the argument, overlooking the influences of economic and cultural strength as well as military, and also a certain brutalism in his acceptance that 'American power, even deployed under a double standard, may be the best means of advancing progress'" (BBC News, April 17, 2003).

Kagan was appointed by Elliott Abrams in 1985 to head the Office of Public Diplomacy, which was created to push for U.S. support for Nicaraguan Contras. After the Iran-Contra scandal broke, Abrams pleaded guilty to two counts of withholding information from Congress. Kagan, however, failed to mention Abram's illicit activities or guilty plea in his 1996 book A Twilight Struggle, which was touted as the "definitive history" of the U.S. anti-Sandinista campaign. (Kagan does mention the convictions of Oliver North and John Poindexter.) The book received financial backing from the Bradley Foundation and the Carthage Foundation, two key conservative funders (Burch, Research in Political Economy).

He is coauthor, with William Kristol, of a 1997 Foreign Affairs article called "Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy," which argued that the United States should establish a "benevolent hegemony." Kagan edited, also with Kristol, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign Policy (Encounter Books, 2000). Kagan's writing has been published in numerous venues, including Foreign Affairs, Commentary (where Norman Podohoretz is the longtime editor-at-large), Foreign Policy, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, National Interest, Policy Review, and Weekly Standard (where Kristol is editor).

In a 2002 article for Policy Review that became the basis for Of Paradise and Power, Kagan argued, "It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world. On the all-important question of power—the efficacy of power, the morality of power, the desirability of power—American and European perspectives are diverging. Europe is turning away from power, or to put it a little differently, it is moving beyond power into a self-contained world of laws and rules and transnational negotiation and cooperation. It is entering a post-historical paradise of peace and relative prosperity, the realization of Kant's 'Perpetual Peace.' The United States, meanwhile, remains mired in history, exercising power in the anarchic Hobbesian world where international laws and rules are unreliable and where true security and the defense and promotion of a liberal order still depend on the possession and use of military might" (Policy Review, June/July 2002).

Kagan is married to Victoria Nuland, the U.S. representative to NATO. She served as Vice President Dick Cheney's deputy national security adviser from 2003 to 2005.

The Obamacons' delusion is very strong; for those that haven't been pining for the Marxist World Order to begin with.

That's right, we gottem by the handful right here on 4um; some even pretended to support Ron Paul...

Heck, if Obama is good enough for Kagen, he just might have a chance at the brass ring yet !

'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

It's hilarious, this article has nearly 20 views, but the Marxists haven't appeared yet. And they won't. Kagen blessing Obama's foreign policy punches a hole in their anti-war hopes.

It has everything to do with this article. Obama's foreign policy is not one of military intervention but of diplomacy.

Hillary wants to "obliterate Iran" if it touches Israel, Obama said "appropriate action".

Commies never are intellectually honest, it destroys everything they try to shovel onto us...

I disagree, which is why I posted the "accusation" by McCain (with Fox News source) and the contrasting idea of appropriate intervention by Hillary.

The debate, which focused mainly on domestic and economic issues, opened with a long argument on the candidates' health insurance program. The Israeli issue was addressed in detail later on.

He added that he has always been "a stalwart friend of Israel's," and said he considers Israel to be one of the U.S.' "most important allies in the region [Mideast]." He added, "I think that their security is sacrosanct."

Yet Hillary got the majority of the Jewish vote in PA. And Hamas likes the idea of Obama in the WH, another "smear" by McCain.

I am generally categorically opposed to torture, however when it comes to Mr. Kagan I could be persuaded to look the other way, for, say, twelve agonizing hours. Besides, Jews generally believe torture is a “swell” idea.

Hillary's vote demographic has no relevance to Kagen - a co-founder of PNAC - endorsing Obama's foreign policy. Once upon a time we could count on you to be equally outraged by such uber Neocon endorsements. What happened to you?

This is what I was replying to, and pointing out that Hillary, Obama's opponent, received the Jewish vote.

No, if the GOP candidate was not a crazed warmonger I would not even be looking at an alternative.

Yes. When Kagen cheers Obama, and you shrug it off, his color is the only rational answer for your spinning.

No, if the Establishment's candidates were not ALL crazed One World Monopolist Socialist/Communist gun grabbing neocons and necommies, you wouldn't have cover to run to the gun grabbing racist Marxist Ostoolie elitist NAUer CFR/Trilat/Bilderberg approved fascists.

Better to go with the Establishment now and be able to beg for mercy on that fact later...plus all the Socialized bennies that are inevitable as they continue to crash the currency. Short of military revolutionary coup led by Constitutional patriots and carried through by the 3%ers in America, we're going to wake up with the preferred McHillobama selection as NAU subjects and 3rd class serfs in the land of our Fore Fathers...other than making a statement, this (s)election was over a long time ago.

As an adviser for McCain, Kagan cannot be taken as a serious cheerleader of Obama.

Do you remember the attempt to smear Ron Paul b/c White Supremacists were cheering for Ron Paul?

I don't care that Kagen cheers, or rather spins a cheer for Obama. I do find it interesting that Hamas is cheering for Obama, and that McCain used that fact to attack Obama.

I find Obama's enemies the most interesting. O'Reilly and Limbaugh were smearing and slamming Obama all week. Fox News is going all out too.

As an adviser for McCain, Kagan cannot be taken as a serious cheerleader of Obama.

Sure he can, and did, read his comments again. And since when are neos beneath supporting both sides of the political aisle? He works for McCain, yet supports Obama & Hillary's foreign policy. That's not new, it's Washington politics as usual, neoconservative style

Do you remember the attempt to smear Ron Paul b/c White Supremacists were cheering for Ron Paul?

And the New Black Panther Party, and the entire Afro Centric Theological Klan supports Obama, your point?

I find Obama's enemies the most interesting. O'Reilly and Limbaugh were smearing and slamming Obama all week. Fox News is going all out too.

So, they're Rs. They slam the front runner. They slammed Perot, Buchanan and Paul also. Nothing new here.

He works for McCain! He is SPINNING to make it LOOK LIKE OBAMA's policies are the same!

There is a difference, but Kagan and Fox News just LOVES it that you were fooled.

Thread after thread has been posted that disproves Kagan's point that there is no difference between Obama's foreign policies and the other two.

Obama has said he will bring home the combat troops within 16 months, as has been posted many times now.

As has been posted before, Obama said "appropriate action" if Iran bombs Israel.

Hillary said "obliterate Iran", McCain wants to "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" before they do anything.

Obama Might Send Troops Into Pakistan

WASHINGTON - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would possibly send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists, an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

"Let me make this clear," Obama said in a speech prepared for delivery at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

The excerpts were provided by the Obama campaign in advance of the speech.

Obama's speech comes the week after his rivalry with New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton erupted into a public fight over their diplomatic intentions.

Obama said he would be willing to meet leaders of rogue states like Cuba, North Korea and Iran without conditions, an idea that Clinton criticized as irresponsible and naive. Obama responded by using the same words to describe Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq war and called her "Bush-Cheney lite."

Thousands of Taliban fighters are based in Pakistan's vast and jagged mountains, where they can pass into Afghanistan, train for suicide operations and find refuge from local tribesmen. Intelligence experts warn that al-Qaida could be rebuilding here to mount another attack on the United States.

******

Obama stakes turf, outlines counterterrorism plan - Would add troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid

From:: The Boston Globe
Date:: August 2, 2007
Author:: Scott Helman
More results for:: obama troops to afghanistan

WASHINGTON - The United States must add at least 7,000 troops in Afghanistan, double foreign aid spending to $50 billion, and be prepared to strike unilaterally against terrorist sanctuaries in Pakistan, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois said yesterday in a major speech laying out his counterterrorism plan.