Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Clinton: Kinder, Gentler Neoconservatism?

By

Is this Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream?

Via The New York Times.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Obama, let’s stay in the region. Iran continues to pursue a nuclear option. Those weapons, if they got them, would probably pose the greatest threat to Israel. During the Cold War, it was the United States policy to extend deterrence to our NATO allies. An attack on Great Britain would be treated as if it were an attack on the United States. Should it be U.S. policy now to treat an Iranian attack on Israel as if it were an attack on the United States?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, our first step should be to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians, and that has to be one of our top priorities. And I will make it one of our top priorities when I’m president of the United States.

I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons. I believe that that includes direct talks with the Iranians where we are laying out very clearly for them, here are the issues that we find unacceptable, not only development of nuclear weapons but also funding terrorist organizations like Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as their anti-Israel rhetoric and threats towards Israel. I believe that we can offer them carrots and sticks, but we’ve got to directly engage and make absolutely clear to them what our posture is.

Now, my belief is that they should also know that I will take no options off the table when it comes to preventing them from using nuclear weapons or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that would include any threats directed at Israel or any of our allies in the region.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?

SENATOR OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Clinton, would you?

SENATOR CLINTON: Well, in fact, George, I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region.

You know, we are at a very dangerous point with Iran. The Bush policy has failed. Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons but they are intent upon and using their efforts to intimidate the region and to have their way when it comes to the support of terrorism in Lebanon and elsewhere.

And I think that this is an opportunity, with skillful diplomacy, for the United States to go to the region and enlist the region in a security agreement vis-a-vis Iran. It would give us three tools we don’t now have.

Number one, we’ve got to begin diplomatic engagement with Iran, and we want the region and the world to understand how serious we are about it. And I would begin those discussions at a low level. I certainly would not meet with Ahmadinejad, because even again today he made light of 9/11 and said he’s not even sure it happened and that people actually died. He’s not someone who would have an opportunity to meet with me in the White House. But I would have a diplomatic process that would engage him.

And secondly, we’ve got to deter other countries from feeling that they have to acquire nuclear weapons. You can’t go to the Saudis or the Kuwaitis or UAE and others who have a legitimate concern about Iran and say: Well, don’t acquire these weapons to defend yourself unless you’re also willing to say we will provide a deterrent backup and we will let the Iranians know that, yes, an attack on Israel would trigger massive retaliation, but so would an attack on those countries that are willing to go under this security umbrella and forswear their own nuclear ambitions.

And finally we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. And this administration has failed in our efforts to convince the rest of the world that that is a danger, not only to us and not just to Israel but to the region and beyond.

Therefore we have got to have this process that reaches out, beyond even who we would put under the security umbrella, to get the rest of the world on our side to try to impose the kind of sanctions and diplomatic efforts that might prevent this from occurring.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. The correct response to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be to deplore the violence, and apologize for our oppression of Iranians, which has caused such frustration that they cling to their desire to eradicate Judaism from the earth.  Maybe some some sanctions, unless Europe has business dealings there that might be adversely affected.  Or maybe we should pay Iran reparations for our past imperialism.

    <

    p>Deterrence is not “neoconservatism.”  Deterrence is an actual sane foreign policy response to a potential threat, as formulated by people who do not live in la-la land.

    <

    p>A neoconservative policy to this potential threat would be to invade Iran in order to ensure that the threat is not realized, thus enhancing our national greatness through the actual, rather than threatened, use of raw military force.

    <

    p>It is increasingly clear that while the Republicans have badly screwed up our national security policy, liberals have learned all the wrongf lessons from those failures.

    • … what you mean by this and where it comes from.

      <

      p>

      …, liberals have learned all the wrongf lessons from those failures.

      <

      p>If you are holding up the notion that “The correct response to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel would be to deplore the violence, and apologize for our oppression of Iranians…” is some kind of example of liberal policy, then you should explain where that comes from or take it back.  

      <

      p>Of course if you meant something else, I’d be happy to hear what it was.

      • stated that Iran should know that the United States should make it known that an attack on Israel would be regarded as an attack on the United States, and would result in significant adverse consequences for the aggressor.  This is textbook stuff; it is how, for nearly 50 years, we kept Europe free of Soviet invasion.  Even if the Soviets thought they could take on West Germany and France and emerge victorious at a price they deemed reasonable, they couldn’t act because the American response would make the price unreasonable.  So they didn’t.  Same reason, in converse, that we decided it probably wasn’t worth it to try to liberate East Germany by force.

        <

        p>A credible threat of American military force is often just as good–and likely better- than the actual use of military force.  Hence, after AUMF, Bush actually made progress on the WMD front before he chose to throw it all away.

        <

        p>But the liberal position, evidenced above,  is that the President– apparently a President Clinton as well as a President Bush– should not even have this tool at their disposal.  That the troops in Iraq should be taken home, and not redepolyed to Afghanistan– indicating that they aren’t really all that keen on Operation Enduring Freedom, either.  That military action in the Balkans was a travesty-see jconway’s post of yesterday.

        <

        p>The quote from Senator Clinton is the most reasonable thing in the world, and the poster made it sound like she wants to invade.

        <

        p>The wrong lesson is this:  Military operation A was strategically ill-advised and poorly executed, therefore All War is Bad, and must never even be a threatened option on the table; therefore military commitnments need to be scaled back, budgets need to be scaled back, etc.

        <

        p>It is a repeat of the earlier fallacy:  Peace Now!  Out of Vietnam! (probably a rather smart thing to do), thus Peace Now! No Nukes! (exceedingly stupid, and thank goodness that Reagan ignored these people).

        <

        p>Military force must always, always be an option on the table, in order to provide a judiciuous President the ability to negotiate effectively.  A judicious President also employs that military wisely– under conditions once known as the Powell Doctrine– in order to be sure that the threat to use military force is a credible one.  The present President has been neither wise nor judicious, but that is no reason to remove the military option from the table for the next President; it is merely a reason to get a better President.

        <

        p>It is stupid to pretend that Iran is not a potential, even if not an actual threat.  Just because it would be crazy to invade today as Cheney wants is no reason to pretend that there is no actual or potential threat.

        <

        p>I made the comment because so-called progressives react to any suggestion that the military might be used for missions other than humanitarian relief after a tsunami by screeching “neoconservative!”

        • I agree with you and your candidate on the issue of deterrence.

          <

          p>I am far from a “progressive pacifist”, I am a neo-liberal realist and my objections to the Balkan campaign are not that I oppose military intervention, but that its a campaign that did not serve its strategic objectives and damaged US foreign policy.

          <

          p>So first answer me this what US interests were at stake in the Balkans?

          <

          p>The cleansing had already happened so there was no humanitarian crisis to stop.

          <

          p>It was bad policy for four reasons:

          <

          p>A) NATO supported a known Islamist terrorist group, the KLA, against the Serbian military. The KLA was engaging in ethnic cleansing and civilian massacres as well.

          <

          p>All the US did is arbitrarily pick which side deserved the win and gave that side the win with US air support.

          <

          p>Now with an independent Kosovo we have an Islamist government on the European continent. Way to go Billy!

          <

          p>B) The Bombing Campaign Failed

          <

          p>Look at the bombing campaign, we did not attack Serbian paramilitary groups that were attacking ethnic Albanians, we did nothing to stop the massacres, we failed at every stated goal in Operation Allied Force.

          <

          p>We failed to stop the ethnic cleansing
          We failed to stop the massacres
          We failed to stop the Serbian advance into Kosovo territory
          We failed to topple Slobadon Milosevec

          <

          p>C) Destroyed the Balkan Peace Process

          <

          p>What we did do is destroy Serbian infrastructure, build in civilian resistance to US and international peacekeepers with our actions, alienate the Serbian population, artificially keep Milosevec in power by giving him the cover to declare martial law and invalidate elections that had thrown him out of power. Oh and we nearly went to war with Russia.

          <

          p>D) Crippled political military relations with Russia

          <

          p> In my view it crippled our relations with Russia since they saw that NATO had in fact violated its own charter by engaging in an offensive war against a Slavic state and ever since then Russia has consistently opposed NATO expansion, missile defense, arms control, and every other major strategic initiative the US has tried to conduct in Eastern Europe. Russians are notoriously pan-Slavic, paranoid, and have long memories so we are 0-3 in pissing them off on that front.

          <

          p>Finally Wes Clark was a grade A moron, ground troops were the only means of stopping the ethnic cleansing, and his actions at Pristina almost started WWIII.

          <

          p>So the air war was just something to make Bill Clinton and the west in general look nice for the cameras.

      • The liberal/progressive apologist policy stems from their bizarre response to aggression and totalitarianism predates WWII. The seld loathing, anti American, and ultimately suicidal policy really became a driving force of the lefties during the Vietnam war, which resulted in an “all volunteer” armed force (a very bad thing for many reasons)a generala weakening of our armed forces, and a disinterest, and sneering disdain for thos Americans who choose to serve in our armed forces and put their money where their mouth is.

        <

        p>When Barack Obama is elected, no doubt he will immediately withdraw our military from Iraq, and pass to the secretary general of the un the necessary targetting data to enhance the success of an Iranian attack on the Israelis.. It is obviously the duty of the liberals in USA, to assist the Iranians in every means possible to fullfil their obligated duty in erasing Israel from existence.

        <

        p>Liberals deem it necessary to apologize for any act that America may take in its defense. Liberals went so far to point out that the 9/11 attack was actually the fault of USA and the US government may have even been complicit in the murder, with premiditation, of over 2500 Americans.

        <

        p>People like Bill Mahr, a noted leftist spokesman, stated that the murders were in fact not cowards, they were courageous freedom fighters. The noted gems of the liberal community residing in California are not to be overlooked. The baldwins, the darlings of the left wing, speak volumes.  

    • This “policy” is applicable beyond the scope of nuclear weapons. It is, in effect, proposing a NATO-esque vision for the Middle East.

      <

      p>Now, how do you think Iran, Russia, India and China feels about that?

      <

      p>Is this not a policy extension of Bush/Cheney’s arrogance?

      <

      p>The Duty of Global Leadership        
      Tuesday, 19 February 2008
      An interview with Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski

      President Bush has been adamant that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, but while you have acknowledged that it is possible that Iran may be “seeking weapons or positioning themselves to have them,” you noted in an interview with CNN in September that “we have very scant evidence to support that.” Absent proof-positive of Iran’s intentions with their uranium enrichment program, what should be the United States’ plan of action?

      I think the United States has legitimate concerns that the Iranians may be seeking to acquire nuclear weapons and may be positioning themselves to have them. Therefore, negotiating with Iran on this subject is perfectly appropriate and a legitimate undertaking for the United States to pursue. However, we cannot entirely ignore the fact that the Iranians have been publicly declaring that, one, they are not seeking to have nuclear weapons, two, that they do not want to have nuclear weapons, three, that their religion forbids them to have nuclear weapons. These assertions may be false, but they at least provide the basis for serious discussion, which we could initiate simply by indicating to them that we entertain suspicions as to their veracity, but that we would like to explore with them ways in which we could be reassured that what they are saying is actually true. I want to emphasize here that what they are saying is the very opposite of what the North Koreans have been saying. The North Koreans have said openly that they are seeking nuclear weapons, that they want nuclear weapons, at one point they even said they have nuclear weapons. In that sense, the Iranian problem is somewhat easier to tackle through serious negotiations, but I do want to emphasize that these negotiations have to be pursued in a way that encourages all sides to find a constructive outcome.

      • Clinton didn’t say that we shouldn’t be talking to the Iranians, she said that they ought to be made aware that an attack on Israel will involve American response.

        <

        p>I suspect that Iran, Russia, et al. would think that maybe it is a bad idea to try to nuke Tel Aviv.

        <

        p>I really don’t find this to be remotely controversial.  The real question might be whether Israel needs the help.  If there is an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel, I suspect that Isareal would react with some massive rtaliation of its own.

        <

        p>In other words, Israel is the only–the only– good guy in that neighborhood, and I have zero problem taking sides against whatever of its neighbors would do it ill.

      • Liberal America loved Joe Stalin. He only killed twenty million people. Hey–what’s a million here and a million there.

        <

        p>The Russians are worried about US domination? The Chinese? Are you serious?

  2. Sound familiar CMD?

    <

    p>No cause more pressing than to protect Israel
    By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

    -snip
    We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. It would be infinitely less dangerous (and therefore more credible) than Cold War deterrence because there will be no threat from Iran of the annihilation of the United States. Iran, unlike the Soviet Union, would have a relatively tiny arsenal incapable of reaching the United States.

    How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy’s language while changing the names of the miscreants:

    It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon Israel by Iran, or originating in Iran, as an attack by Iran on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon Iran.

    This should be followed with a simple explanation: “As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people.”

    This policy – the Holocaust Declaration – would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration.

    For the first time since the time of Jesus, Israel is the home of the world’s largest Jewish community. An implacable enemy has openly declared genocidal intentions against it – in clear violation of the U.N. charter – and is pursuing the means to carry out that intent. The world does nothing. Some, like the Russians, are literally providing fuel for the fire.

    For those who believe that America stands for something in the world, there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final Final Solution.

    • How is this so unreasonable?  Nobody is talking “preemption;” they’re talking about a security umbrella, the likes of which have covered Western Europe for six decades and Taiwan for nearly as long.  BFD.  Unless Iran is developing nukes with the intention of using them against Isreal, they should give two shaving cream cans.

      <

      p>If the Democratic position regarding is different than as described above, please let me know so that I may, in good conscience, vote for the carzy bible thumpers on the other side.

      <

      p>If the Dems want to abandon Israel to that degree, fine, but that’s a deal breaker for me; I’ll vote for McCain.

      <

      p>Gee, sorry that Tel Aviv and Haifa are smoking ruins, hope that works out for ya.  Hey, look at the bright side, we’re considering sanctions!

      <

      p>No.

      <

      p>That doesn’t mean that we can’r put pressure on Israel with respect to the West Bank and Gaza, but it does mean that to the extent that any other nation in that neighborhood decides to try 1973 all over again, but with nukes, that we’re 100% in their corner. Period.

      • How did you get here?

        If the Dems want to abandon Israel to that degree, fine, but that’s a deal breaker for me; I’ll vote for McCain.

        <

        p>So provocative. I love when you polarize like that CMD.

        • that there would be an American militrary response to a nuclear attack on Tel Aviv that would be the same as the response to a similar assault on L.A., then that is because you don’t think that there would be or should be.

          <

          p>I would regard that as cutting Israel loose, and yes, it would be a deal breaker.

          <

          p>Obviously, this is not a problem for a candidate Clinton, but candidate Obama requires some investigating.

          • MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you would extend our deterrent to Israel?
            SENATOR OBAMA: As I’ve said before, I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one that we — one whose security we consider paramount, and that — that would be an act of aggression that we — that I would — that I would consider an attack that is unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action.

            <

            p>Clinton was flexing for the camera.

            <

            p>What I am saying is that she is tying American ME foreign policy in the near east to the state of Israel in a way that maintains the status quo.
            This does no good, imo, helping us bridge the gap between the only world superpower and the muslim world.

            <

            p>How is it that we see the ill effects of US forces in Iraq, yet cannot fathom how our glaring preference for Israel works against our long term strategic interests in the region?

            <

            p>Bush/Cheney have been seeding the ME with “freedom.” That is the neocon strategy. Clinton is using very similar rhetoric.

            <

            p>Besides her “umbrella” holds a promise of protection that will likely be enforced with conventional forces, as opposed to nuclear.

            <

            p>Are you saying that we should make it US policy to be the “world police” in the ME?

            <

            p>It is hawk talk.

  3. to help the Democratic party, this pretend Hillary is Republican or a NeoCon stuff is dumb.  

    <

    p>You know what?  It’s great to enthusiastically support a candidate, but when you start putting up these posts it takes away from both candidates in my opinion.

    • on this paticular point has third party validation in the form of Kieth Olbermann, Rachel Maddow and former National Security Advisor Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski.

      <

      p>They make being a partisan hack easy.

      • Perhaps I have a different take on this since I have studied directly under noted realists like John Mearshemier and Bob Pape but essentially in IR 101 this is a form of deterrence, NOT a form of preemption.

        <

        p>So lets define some terms before we proceed.

        <

        p>Neoconservatism: an ideology that free markets, democratization, etc. are good for humanity and America in particular and that the American military should advance those two interests, unilaterally if need be.

        <

        p>Preemptive war: A nation is blatantly making threatening moves against another nation, the threatened nation attacks first before the threatening nation can gain an advantage.

        <

        p>Examples of these include the Six-Day War or Germany mobilizing against Russia and France in WWI. The Iraq war was NOT preemptive since Saddam while seeking greater capabilities did not posses them at the time of invasion and had no intention of imminently using them.

        <

        p>Preventative war: A nation could posses the capabilities to destroy another nation several years down the road, the threatened nation responds by hitting the ascending state while it is still weak.

        <

        p>I.E The Iraq War, and Japan attacking the US at Pearl Harbor

        <

        p>Nuclear Deterrence: Country A raises the stakes so that Country B will not attack Country C with nuclear weapons; Country A states that an attack on Country C would be met with full nuclear retaliation by Country A on Country B.

        <

        p>I.E The US and modern Japan, if Japan is nuked, the US will nuke whomever nuked Japan, i.e US and Taiwan, i.e US and W. Germany, i.e US and Britain

        <

        p>So with that said Clinton, with whom I disagree with on most issues, is just restating current US policy to sound hawkish. If Israel is directly attacked by a nuclear weapon from Iran the US will respond with massive retaliation. And that ups the stakes on Iran and deters that state from attacking Israel.

        <

        p>It does not preclude diplomacy with Iran, it is not a call to wage preventative war against Iran, and it is certainly not a policy of premption either. And lastly its a realist idea in my view and not a neo-conservative one. The neocons would want to attack Iran right now, especially while we still got boots on the ground in Iraq.

        <

        p>Lastly to CMD Obama agrees with Clinton and as stated that several times, its also the modern foreign policy consensus within the foreign policy community.  

        • Whose the old hack? As for calling two brilliant men buffoons  I understand that in your oversimplified black and white view of the world (America vs ISLAMO FASCIST!) that any kind of nuance such as the statistical analysis of suicide bombing as a tactic by terrorist groups of all stripes and colors (Bob Pape) and the statistical analysis of the ineffectiveness of air wars (Bob Pape again) not to mention the spot on predictions by Mearsheimer that we would win the Gulf War and lose the Iraq War, and any other kind of logical argument or on the ground facts such as a losing war in Iraq, etc. that do not fit your world view need to be shut out of the discussion.

          <

          p>Furthermore you clearly did not read anything I said since I am in fact agreeing with you that we should respond to an Iranian nuclear attack on Israel with full retaliation and that this is not, to my leftist colleagues here on BMG, a neoconservative idea but rather a wise and rational one.  

      • Third party validation? Please tell me you don’t watch MSNBC, because no rational observer could see any of those three as anything but totally in the tank for Obama. Putting aside for a minute the fact that it’s pretty ridiculous to cite a senior figure from the Obama campaign (Zbig) as offering an objective analysis of the situation, Keith Olbermann spends a huge percentage of every show hurling spittle flecked invective at Hillary, and Maddow spins for Obama every chance she gets.

        <

        p>Hey, stop the presses. Michelle Obama agrees with you too!

    • is the tone of her comments. This is saber rattling and is completely unnecessary. Iran knows full well what the consequences would be of an attack against Israel.
      This is purely an appeal to the most hawkish elements of the party, who love this kind of tough talk. Unfortunately the effect of such rhetoric is to further marginalize the moderates in the Arab and Muslim world. What the Democrats can offer, if they choose to, is a departure from the Bush agenda that has done nothing but to empower the most fanatical voices on both sides of the divide. Honest and comprehensive negotiations are the only path to peace. If you don’t believe this, you are a neocon.

  4. The debate over Clinton’s language is silly.  What is never addressed, either by the question, her answer, or Barack’s answer is the relaity of what an Iranian attack on Israel should or would mean for the United States and the rest of the world.

    <

    p>For instance, the question itself displays Cold War thinking:  Would Iran, the state, ever attack Israel?  The answer:  only if they had a death wish.  Even if Iran got one nuclear weapon, so what?  The United States has an arsenal that can destroy the world over.  Israel itself has conventional weapons that could render Iran defenseless quickly.  In my own opinion, Iran only instigates a war with Israel under two sets of circumstances: 1. the threat of invasion, real or perceived; or 2.  the instigation of global conflict against western forces by fundamentalist powers within the government.  Neither of these things, at this time, seem particularly likely, IMHO.

    <

    p>What seems way more likely to me is that Iran develops nuclear weapons and uses them through a surrogate, non-state affiliated agent or terrorist organization.  Suppose that Hamas, through Iran, gets a nuclear weapon and uses it.  Then what?  

    <

    p>Option One: The United States retaliates with a full on nuclear assault against Iran based on scant and/or debatable evidence, killing millions in the process.  India and Pakistan get into it, each assuming the other will pre-emptively strike amid the chaos. China and the Russia then get involved, siding up with Iran, and we’re really off to the races.  One or the other, if not both, hit the US.

    <

    p>Option two:  The United States invades Iran, facing the same credibility issues as it does in Iraq, and is now seriously bogged down in three Middle Eastern nations, and faces resistance from China and Russsia.  China threatens to stop buying our debt, and the price of oil sky-rockets, sending the economy into a tail-spin.

    <

    p>So… I’d like either candidate to address the real problems facing US foreign policy.  Right now, none of the three candidates particularly deserves my vote.  CMD may be right about deterence, but tough talk doesn’t replace intelligence.  So, for all her bluster, I don’t feel any safer listening to Clinton.

      1. I thought the subtext of the remarks was Obama a bit concerned about his exact language.

      <

      p>”Hmmm…is this question a trap…if I say slightly the wrong thing they’ll pounce on me….I’ll stick to general theme of Of Course We Protect Israel”

      <

      p>Clinton noticed his hesitation.  

      <

      p>She thought “Geez, I can tell Obama is scared because he’s clinging to generalities, it IS okay to say ‘We’ll Hammer Those SOBS And More’, so I’m gonna do that.”  

      <

      p>2. Ed, your question is hard for a candidate to responsibly answer honestly.  

      <

      p>It doesn’t US interests to say either “With weak evidence, we’ll STILL nuke those bastards” (they rightly freak out), nor to say “Unless the evidence is concrete, of course we do nothing” (may push a jihadist-leaning general to be complicit in theft of a device).  

      <

      p>That’s not to say that candidates shouldn’t lay out their broad theory of security and the world.  You listen to that, plus you judge their character…that’s it, no?  

      • Obama was diplomatic and Hillary flexed for the cameras.

        <

        p>ZBIG interviewed

        In your latest book Second Chance, you argued that the world is undergoing a “global political awakening,” the central challenge of which is “the worldwide yearning for human dignity.” What, more specifically, is this “global political awakening,” and what are its policy implications?

        Its policy implications are that, first of all, for the first time in human history, humankind is really politically activated. That activation expresses itself in a variety of ways, some of them conflicting, some of them quite violent. In any case, what it means is that humanity can no longer be managed by a few leading states or dominated by a single empire. The world is now too complex, too volatile, for it to be subordinated to the will of a single very dominant power. That in turn implies a need for a much more historically sensitive stewardship of American foreign policy. It means that America has to have the ability to relate effectively to the conflicting aspirations that the politically awakened humanity now articulates and seeks. It has to be able to show both empathy and sympathy for those vast majorities of people in the world who are relatively deprived and in some cases absolutely deprived of the basic requirements of a decent life. That kind of an image, that kind of response to the new global realities can best come from someone who in some ways symbolizes them himself, and that is an additional reason why I support Obama.

    • A strike on US soil from a weapon launched from Cuba will be perceived as an attack on the United States of America by the Soviet Union and will require a full scale retaliatory strike.

      <

      p>A strike from Iran on Israel would be suicidal. Hmmmm

      <

      p>Let’s see. Who sends suicide bombers into Israel, and Iraq? Who encourages others, individuals and well as political entities to engage in sucidal behavior? Let’s see—Israel?  Noooo.  USA? Noooo. Great Britain ? Nooo.
      Islamo fascists?

  5. Hillary continues to demonstrate that she has the experience, sound judgement, and is ready to be president!

    <

    p>Ready on Day One!

    <

    p>

    • We should only react where we have specific treaties to do so.  Otherwise, our primary recourse would be through the Uniited Nations.  And those possible treaties should be under the purview of the US Congress, and not the will of the President.  Haven’t we had enough of that already?

  6. Since we’re discussing Iran, it seems relevant to point that out.  This is a point that hardly anyone mentions, but is perfectly obvious.

    <

    p>The only two other beneficiaries are Al Qaeda, for whom our war as a recruiting boom, and war profiteers who’ve made obscene amounts of money.

    <

    p>Certainly the people of Iraq and the USA have not benefited.

    • That does not diminish the clear and present danger dwelling in the middle east against western civilization.
      The middle east will be in deep kimshee in five years when they have nothing to eat but sand and we sell them a bushell of wheat at $1000.00/bushell. Of course the alternative is starvation.  

  7. From Crooks and Liars

    -snip

    There is a conventional wisdom that a Democrat must appear to be as hawkish — or more so — than a Republican to appear credible on national security issues.  However, given that these pre-emptive aggressions in the Middle East already advocated by Neo-con policy makers has resulted in making us less safe, is it too much to ask that our Democratic candidates show that they aren’t as mindless and uninformed as the current President and not threaten another country that does not pose a direct threat to us and stop accepting and running with right-wing talking points?

    Maybe they could have said something like Rep. Lynn Woolsey did yesterday on the House floor: (h/t BillW for tip)

Archives