Looking at Barack Obama's Foriegn Policy

I'm deeply interested in the essays that are beginning to appear in Foreign Policy that allow the presidential candidates to discuss their Foreign Policy views. I'm planning on posting my comments here, on the blog.

First: Barack Obama.

He invokes 3 Democratic party presidents...

• FDR, who grew government in a time of financial crisis, tried to stack the supreme court to get his way, fought a world war and built the first nuclear bomb.
• Truman, who used the nuke.
• JFK, who threatened to use the nuke and was willing to go toe-to-toe with the "Rooskies".

I'm down with that.

• FDR - building a larger military
• Truman - A reference to the Marshall Plan... I'll bet he's going to increase direct government foreign aid.
• JFK - indirect reference to SPEC OPS and the creation of the JCS. Non military assistance organizations. He's going to spend the money to send more assistance abroad-will he find the people to fill the positions, seeing how they are easy targets for terrorism.

I read "from global terrorists who respond to alienation or perceived injustice with murderous nihilism" and realize he fails to acknowledge religious determination as a cause of terrorism. See Reliance of the Traveler, sections o9.8 and o9.9; "The Objectives of Jihad".

Terrorists come from rogue states (check), rising powers (check - perceptive), weak states (check) and "a warming planet" (Woah! Global warming causes terrorism! Ahhh - turning the page - natural disasters and diseases are a result of global warming and spawn terrorism.) I find fault with this last assertion. But, more importantly, I'm seeing a "county-centric" view of terrorism that refuses to address the role of Salafi and Shia Islamic violence in our current world. We don't seem to see many non-Salafi and non-Shia poor peoples attacking innocents - even folks like the ETA and the Earth Firsters seem to have figured out that American society can be turned - albeit with glacial slowness - by education and emotional appeal.

"outdated thinking" ... like "viewing problems as state-based" (see the outdated thinking above) So what is the opposite of state-based? Warmed planet-based. Regional-based. Ethnically-based. Religiously-based.

Ahhh... being "principally amenable to military solutions" is "outdated thinking". I'll tentatively accept this but, the willingness to swing back tends to keep the Bullies away.

"The mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity." Assuming, of course, that the global community wants to provide global subordination to the United States, is he saying that America should modify its views on security and human issues to fit that of the community so it can stay comfortably in charge? It sounds like if America can't beat, convert, convince, or sanction them to our way of thinking, we should join them. Global morality by majority vote? This bothers me.

"great promise"?? "historic purpose"??

First priority: bring Iraq war to an end.

"we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions." Doesn't this ignore the foreign involvement of AQ and Iran? Or, are they just factions? If the "AQI" faction wins, we have a new Talibanesque state. If the Iran/Shia faction wins, we have the stage set for a Iraq/Saudi war over the holy sites. Does anyone who has read Patai's The Arab Mind really believe they will collaborate?

"We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda." I'm sorry, but I doubt any "minimal over-the-horizon military force" would be capable of rooting out anyone. Only "boots on the ground" can do that. And what kind of leadership example does an "over-the-horizon military force" set? I can hear the comments now. "Rather than demonstrating loyalty, strength and commitment by risking troops on the ground; those not-so-heroic Americans are sending their cruise missiles again. I hear Osama fed the wedding information of Ahmad ibn Shia to the infidel's HUMINT sources. Now THAT'S going to be an exciting reception!" -- and this still sees the Iraq "problem" in terms of "state politics" and assumes a measure of reasonableness in the parties I do not assume.

Bush has neglected the Israelis and Palestinians... this sounds very patronizing--sort of like the scene in the movie "Independence Day" when the Americans send out their attack plan via ham-fisted morse-code operators and when the British squadron commander hears the news, he says essentially, "it's about bloody time the Americans figured out how To save our behinds. We were significantly at a disadvantage and had no clue as to how to proceed."

IMHO, the Palestinians have no intention of making any lasting settlement with JEWS. "There must be some interest served in making a truce [a peace treaty with those hostile to Islam] other than mere preservation of the status quo. Allah Most High says, 'So do not be fainthearted and call for peace, when it is you who are the uppermost.' (Koran 47:35) ... If the Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary ... It is not permissible to stipulate longer than that, sane by means of new truces, each of which does not exceed ten years." (Reliance of the Traveler, o9.16) Any agreement made now is only temporary appeasement... see Kashmir.

One one hand:

• "Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing."

and on the other:

• "The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

So, if the "world" was to issue threats--I mean use "tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military" and rely on intermediaries--I mean allow a multinational force representative of like-minded members of a global coalition to employ military power after over a dozen global political and economic "initiatives" fail for more than a decade--it would be OK? Oh, and "Who's" on first. I'm sorry. I think this was just disingenuous.

"We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale." this was good! However, it seems to contradict the "over the horizon" military spoken of earlier--unless, he's expecting the Marines, SOF, or Airborne to conduct massive invasions at the drop of a hat. I suggest a review of Operation Market Garden and throwing out the Navy Seals DVD . I guess we could establish a new doctrine for Raid Warfare... and start recruiting every High School football team in America.

"National Guard" should be a state militia (period) and not a federal military reserve. In the technological battlefield, mixing the two for anything but Homeland Security is a bogus use of forces.

"I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened." This sounds to me like you just took military forces off of the table for anything except responding to a military threat. I thought was was "diplomacy by other means." So much for the "tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power." Just ignore our diplomats, refrain from overt threats, and employ--oh, yeah--intermediaries to snipe at us and you will be OK.

But then you flip... "We must also consider using military force in circumstances beyond self-defense in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability"... first you're against aggressive use of military force--then, you're for it. Can you tell I'm beginning to form a view of your foreign policy advisers?

I'm wearing out...

Let me jump ahead a bit.

"As president, I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world. America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years -- the most effective way to prevent terrorists from acquiring a bomb."

• Are you going to "lead" or "work with"? I see this as two different concepts. One sets the agenda and, if need be, executes the plan while the other reminds me of Buzzie, Ziggy, Dizzy and Flaps. "Wadda you wanna do? I dunno, whadda youuu wanna do?"

Query: how can one "de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons" when they guarantee a key to the global dominance wash room at the United Nations?

Query: what "technological advances" build "bipartisan consensus"? Better computer modeling of new warhead design? What stuff! If you think I would support placing the ultimate, last-ditch, do-or-die survival of my country and constitution on an untested weapon... refer back to the afore-mentioned Independence Day movie and play out an alternate ending where the nuke fizzles. KISS!

One more... then I have to get to Mitt's essay. I hope he does better.

"Here at home, we must strengthen our homeland security and protect the critical infrastructure on which the entire world depends. We can start by spending homeland security dollars on the basis of risk. This means investing more resources to defend mass transit, closing the gaps in our aviation security by screening all cargo on passenger airliners and checking all passengers against a comprehensive watch list, and upgrading port security by ensuring that cargo is screened for radiation."

• Internal infrastructure--present!
• Air frontiers--here!
• Sea frontiers--arrr, matey!
• Land frontiers... land frontiers... land frontiers... pass the word for land frontiers!
  

Sir, the list of frontiers has been called and "land frontiers" are nowhere to be found. Hoisted on your immigration petard, are you?

I believe that foreign policy is the most important issue of the day... sir, yours seemed based entirely on getting out of Iraq and then telling the world that "as long as you leave us alone, you can do as you wish. We will only intervene when a consensus forms. We will not dismiss anyones reservations about using tough-minded diplomacy." That sir, invited Darfur.

I have plenty more marked up but have to work for a living--and sleep sometime.