All That, And Killing Terrorists!

As I hope I've made clear, I wasn't a huge fan of Barack Obama's Pakistan gambit. Nor, though, do I think much of Jerome Armstrong's somewhat unhinged reaction to the same: "Adding Pakistan to the list of countries that the US does unilateral military action in isn't going to solve a damn thing. The only real solution for our role in their region is to get off their oil, get out of their countries, and work with other nations to promote global accord."

I'm quite sympathetic to Armstrong's overall diagnosis of the strategic situation, in that I regard de-imperializing our role in the Middle East as vital. Nevertheless, though killing or capturing high-value al-Qaeda targets isn't sufficient as the be-all and end-all of American foreign policy, it's surely worth doing all the same. Helpful, even! Letting Osama bin Laden get away really was a giant Bush administration screw up, and nailing him and his colleagues really should be an important priority.

Jason Zengerle, in a related post, refers to Armstrong as a "netroots grand poobah," which reminds me that one big question I want to write on during YearlyKos is the issue of to what extent the erstwhile netroots leadership really commands any troops. Obviously, I think, the views of online political junkies and activists have some weight, but when Armstrong takes an against-the-grain view like that only Chris Dodd has an acceptably pacifistic view of al-Qaeda, does that move anything? I'm pretty skeptical.

Comments

I want to write on during YearlyKos is the issue of to what extent the erstwhile netroots leadership really commands any troops.

They don't command any troops; they provided a flag around which to rally.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 1:19 PM

Nevertheless, though killing or capturing high-value al-Qaeda targets isn't sufficient as the be-all and end-all of American foreign policy, it's surely worth doing all the same. Helpful, even!

It is not, however, worth doing at the cost of a unilateral invasion of Pakistan. I'm glad to see that you're "not a huge fan" of the proposal. But I get the feeling that if it had come from anyone other than your prohibitive favorite candidate - a candidate you've apparently donated money to, no less - you'd have three or four posts up by now about what a deranged idea it was, and how it demonstrates how the Democratic consultant class has its collective head up its ass. Instead you've bent over backwards to try to minimize the importance of a line that was deliberately included in Obama's speech to demonstrate that he's just as capable of pointless saber-rattling and lunatic warmongering as the Frontrunner Apparent is. The message here was clear: forget about that antiwar, talk-to-your-enemies stuff from last week! We can do Tough, Serious, and "Muscular," too!

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 1:37 PM

Also important to remember with Jerome, he really is unhinged, for some strange reason, by Obama. Half of his posts are picking up any possible concern about Obama, and blowing it up, without much context. Think "concern troll", here and you have the flavor.

So be extra cautious about content, and look askance at Jerome's posts on Obama, as he's lost credibility over the last six months. (And his comments section have been telling him this as well.)

Posted by JC | August 2, 2007 1:41 PM

nailing him and his colleagues really should be an important priority.

Isn't it really more that rendering him and his colleagues ineffective should be an important priority? Now, practically speaking that may or may not require "nailing" them, I don't really know. But if they can be made irrelevant, or mostly so, without actually capturing/punishing them, then I'd say that was enough. Vengeance alone, while surely sweet, would not be worth the price that would almost certainly have to be paid to obtain it.

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 1:43 PM

Influence? I'm not sure.

But he just became my favorite blogger. It's been an amazingly good week for the Blogfather as he distinguishes himself as an actual antiwar progressive on national security, as opposed to you, Ezra, and all the frontpagers at Kos, who stand up against miltarism only when it's an easy, popular thing to do.

Did you happen to notice, MY, that those AQ targets are in another country, Pakistan? I love this notion that there's a way to simply "get" AQ without inflaming the Muslim world and violating international law. So easy to say: killing and capturing high-values AQ targets is a worthwhile thing to do. Just like that. And anything is justified so long as it has the purported goal of getting AQ, even military strikes on sovereign country.

Do you really believe the U.S. can do basically what in wants in the name of going after AQ? Does the United States alone reserve the right to bomb its enemies in foreign nations, or are you willing, MY, to give that right to Iraqis, who were invaded by the U.S., and Iran, who has ample reason to beleive that the United States is going to attack?

Unlike the Taliban, the Pakistani government is not working hand-in-glove with AQ and sheltering them (and even if it were, I'd have misgivings about miltary strikes on that tinderbox of a nation.) There's a good reason that Musharraf hasn't gone up to clean house in the northwest, because he knows that it might incite a coup that would give AQ-allies nukes. So what BaHawk and Clinton and Edwards are saying is, if you don't really fuck your country up, then we're going to do it for you.

But then BaHawk probably doesn't really mean it. It's bluster, meant to make him seem tough. I don't really beleive he's going to do more than what's already being done in secret (which I'm sure is already creating many more terrorists.) But just because it's bluster doesn't mean it's not dangerous. It is, after all, an ultimatum to a leader of a Muslim country:

do this, or else we'll use force.
Do this, or we'll drop bombs in your country.

You think maybe that it's this kind of rhetoric and attitude that helped to create the problem? Do you think the press in the Middle East, Central and Southeast Asia is happy about Obama's speech? Do you think the people in Pakistan are eager to have a Western nation drop bombs in their country?

Posted by david mizner | August 2, 2007 1:55 PM

Good point, Matt.

I think Obama's argument has to be that we have ZERO interest in ever violating Pakistan's sovereignty EXCEPT with the regard to Bin Laden and his inner circle. Look: our nation was attacked. The attackers are alive (we think) and well (we think) in Pakistan. Shouldn't we be able to expunge them? And if not, why not?

Posted by PDo | August 2, 2007 2:00 PM

Does the United States alone reserve the right to bomb its enemies in foreign nations,

No, but the US is the only country that could conceivably get away with it. And that fact means that, as a general rule, we don't have to do so. Further, we might reasonably choose not to do so on pragmatic grounds. But the notion that someone could attack us as on 9/11 and then simply claim immunity behind "sovereign nation" is crazy. No country on earth would accept that. It's just that we're the country with the fewest other constraints on it.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:04 PM

Letting Osama bin Laden get away really was a giant Bush administration screw up, and nailing him and his colleagues really should be an important priority.

And as far as this goes, well, no, it really shouldn't be an important priority. Capturing or killing bin Laden and Zawahiri might provide Americans with some emotional satisfaction, but it wouldn't actually cause al Qaeda to magically collapse. It wouldn't even deliver a terribly important symbolic victory, since so much time has passed since the 9/11 attacks. If bin Laden had been taken at Tora Bora, the story would be different, but if America caught him next week, the message being sent would be, what, "attack the United States and we'll totally hunt you down and kill you, eventually, after many, many years"?

A much, much, much higher priority than playing whack-a-mole with individual terrorist leaders - who will always be replaced as long as there's a demand for the terror they supply - is the need to dry up support for terrorism itself. To do this America needs to pull out of Iraq, make peace between Israel and Palestine, reconcile with Iran, increase foreign aid, and stop blowing up and invading other people's countries. Yes, that means even in places like Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there might be actual terrorists, but the cost of killing terrorists will only create more terrorists. I know you're in the slow class, Yglesias, but I've got faith that you're going to figure this one out eventually.

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 2:04 PM

our nation was attacked. The attackers are alive (we think) and well (we think) in Pakistan. Shouldn't we be able to expunge them? And if not, why not?

Well, let's put the shoe on the other foot, shall we? Luis Posada Carriles, who it is pretty widely accepted blew up a Cuban airliner in a terrorist attack, is roaming free here in the U.S., and the U.S. government has shown little, if any, inclination to capture him and extradite him to Cuba. Shouldn't Cuba be able to take military action in the US to expunge him? And if not, why not?

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 2:06 PM

Nevertheless, though killing or capturing high-value al-Qaeda targets isn't sufficient as the be-all and end-all of American foreign policy, it's surely worth doing all the same. Helpful, even!

Including Iraq?

Letting Osama bin Laden get away really was a giant Bush administration screw up, and nailing him and his colleagues really should be an important priority.

It wasn't the Bush Administration that "let him get away at Tora Bora" - it was US troops ultimately under Tommy Franks command that made that call that they didn't want to risk deaths sealing off the back passes when Afghan locals would (if AQ hadn't bribed them better than the US).
The Bushies were out of that decision loop and pissed when they found out the generals had muffed it.
The Bushies were also furious and did a chain of command overhaul when a female lawyer countermanded line officers ready to fire a Hellfire missile at two SUVs containing a fleeing Mullah Omar, two senior AQ commanders because she thought ALSO killing Omar's two wives and a few of his kids in the vehicles would be a war crime.
Rules were changed so no lawyer can overrule a field commander in targeting decisions.

but when Armstrong takes an against-the-grain view like that only Chris Dodd has an acceptably pacifistic view of al-Qaeda,

That is pretty bizarre, but then again, so is long-time Teddy Kennedy crony Chris Dodd. Both Senators are a little shady, but both can defend that sleaze factor by saying their Dads were worse. Still, both are so in bed with special interests that when they travel they insist on a king-sized bed for them and the special moneymen, then a queen-sized bed to accomodate the spillover of banking, insurance, Israel, India, and teachers union lobbyists.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 2, 2007 2:13 PM

Shouldn't Cuba be able to take military action in the US to expunge him?

Sure. The problem for Cuba is we'd object militarily. Sucks to be Cuba.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:14 PM

Re Matthew's comment "Nevertheless, though killing or capturing high-value al-Qaeda targets isn't sufficient as the be-all and end-all of American foreign policy, it's surely worth doing all the same."
---------
Ah, too bad they don't read the classics at Harvard anymore. Try this:

""Nevertheless, though killing or capturing high-value Christian Zealot targets isn't sufficient as the be-all and end-all of Rome's foreign policy, it's surely worth doing all the same."

So how did that work out?

(Hint: With a generation, what covert religious cult was growing within Rome? What caused the collapse of the Roman Empire, according to Gibbon?
Has anyone noticed the growing conversions to Islam within our prisons?

War is what you do when you have badly fucked up in politics. It is the refuge of the incompetent.
Which is why Bush and Cheney use it so often.

I have no problem with exterminating Al Qaeda's leadership. BUT to avoid making them into martyrs, it is essential to FIRST isolate them from the Islamic World.

A new religious heresy in Islam might be nice. Say, one arguing that all men are brothers -- be they Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

After all, Southern aristocrats kept the lid on Afro-American rebellions for a 100 years by paying Southern Baptist preachers to promote that con.

It shouldn't cost much to get it off the ground either -- a few $billion here and there to fund certain mullahs and charities.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 2:15 PM

So opponents of the war in Iraq are agreed, then, that Sunni Muslims from Fallujah would be justified in bombing the White House? I'm just trying to figure out what the ground rules are.

Posted by david mizner | August 2, 2007 2:19 PM

When Armstrong does this it moves the traffic numbers of suckers like me who go to his site, which is otherwise increasingly worthless since the departure of Matt and Chris, to blast him in his comments section. I fall for it every time.

Posted by MSB | August 2, 2007 2:23 PM

I started reading Jerome Armstrong's (and Chris Bower's) MyDD.com in the months running up to the November 2006 elections and found it to be a great source of information on and activism for Democratic candidates.

I have however (slowly, over the last few months) stopped visiting the site.

Where I once depended on myDD.com as a valuable source of information and analysis of the various Democratic candidates and their campaigns, I have come to realize (or believe) that the site's front pagers are more interested (invested) in promoting the Edwards campaign, at the expense of the other Democratic candidates.

This, I believe, has been particularly true of the posts written by Mr. Armstrong.

His attacks on (and/or harsh criticisms of) Mr. Obama have become so consistent and predictable that his writing can no longer be counted on as a source of objective, and subsequently useful, analyses.

And this is especially true of anything that he writes about Barack Obama.

I should note that I do not believe that Obama is (or should be considered) above criticism; only that criticism coming from Jerome Armstrong no longer seems (to me) to be credible.

Posted by Emes | August 2, 2007 2:24 PM

Luis Posada Carriles, who it is pretty widely accepted blew up a Cuban airliner in a terrorist attack, is roaming free here in the U.S., and the U.S. government has shown little, if any, inclination to capture him and extradite him to Cuba. Shouldn't Cuba be able to take military action in the US to expunge him? And if not, why not?

Or for that matter, why shouldn't the UK have been able to bomb the US for American support of the IRA? Why shouldn't Iran have bombed us for our support of the MEK? It's 2003 all over again!

Look, I know I'm going to get increasingly frustrated with liberals who apparently have utterly failed to generalize the lessons of Iraq to the rest of US foreign policy, but wasn't the basic problem with the Iraq War that people don't like it when you bomb them, even when you claim you have a really, really good excuse, and this means that in general military action results in lots of unintended consequences that should be avoided at all costs? Even if bin Laden is sitting in Waziristan under a great big neon sign waiting for us to swoop in and capture him - which he is not - the Pakistanis will not take kindly to a unilateral invasion of their territory by a big fat foreign superpower best known in their part of the world for propping up unstable, unpopular dictators and invading and indefinitely occupying sovereign nations. There's nothing better you could do to quickly make the world a worse place than to launch a quick military invasion of (nuclear!) Pakistan.

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 2:24 PM

So opponents of the war in Iraq are agreed, then, that Sunni Muslims from Fallujah would be justified in bombing the White House?

I can only speak for myself, but "justified" has fuck all to do with my opposition. I was and am against the war because it was a moronic decision; judging its wisdom includes a judgment of the extent to which prosecution of the war violated various shared norms, but the judgment didn't stand or fall on that sub-judgment.

Wasn't Afghanistan a sovereign nation led by a government that was not itself complicit in the 9/11 attacks? (My understand, though I might well be wrong.) I still supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:28 PM

There's nothing better you could do to quickly make the world a worse place than to launch a quick military invasion of (nuclear!) Pakistan.

Oh, I beg to differ. We could get Israel (or India) to do it for us. Think BIG!

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 2:28 PM

, but wasn't the basic problem with the Iraq War that people don't like it when you bomb them, even when you claim you have a really, really good excuse

Um, no. I think for the most part people knew that other people don't like to be bombed.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:32 PM

I can only speak for myself, but "justified" has fuck all to do with my opposition.

And "justified" should have fuck all to do with a decision to invade Pakistan (and make no mistake, a unilateral military incursion into Pakistan's borders, without the consent of the government of Pakistan, would be seen by Pakistanis as an invasion of Pakistan). However "justified" a trip to pick up bin Laden might be, it would be every bit as moronic as the Iraq War - indeed, far more so, since the end result would be likely to destabilize a nuclear-powered regime in an area that's long been friendly to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 2:32 PM

And "justified" should have fuck all to do with a decision to invade Pakistan

Right, which is why it's unlikely that we wouldn't invade Pakistan.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:35 PM

I think for the most part people knew that other people don't like to be bombed.

Other people, yes, but foreigners? That's a whole different question.

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 2:36 PM

it's unlikely that we wouldn't invade Pakistan

So it's likely that we would invade Pakistan? That's precisely the problem.

Posted by Christmas | August 2, 2007 2:39 PM

Excellent point. I meant to write, "...it's unlikely that we would invade Pakistan."

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 2, 2007 2:42 PM

"Wasn't Afghanistan a sovereign nation led by a government that was not itself complicit in the 9/11 attacks?'

Well, the government of Afghanistan was working hand in glove with AQ; the governmet of Pakistan is fighting against AQ, (though of course there are AQ-allies in Pakistan's intelligence services--such is that neck of the wooods.) At the moment, Musharraf is trying to contain violence by radicals unleashed after the army raided Red Mosque in Islamabad. Musharraf has survived three attempts on his life by radicals; they're his enemies. if he could snap his fingers (or order a series of attacks) that would make them go away, he would. And, no, he does not preside over a nice government; he's a miltary leader keeping a lid on country filled with radicalism and discontent. But he's done more and risked more in the fight against Islamic radicalism than armchair BaHawk Obama has done.

Posted by david mizner | August 2, 2007 2:44 PM

he's a miltary leader keeping a lid on country filled with radicalism and discontent.

That's being rather charitable, isn't it? He deposed a duly elected, if corrupt, government, and has steadfastly resisted returning to civilian rule. There are certainly radical elements in Pakistan, but there's also a quite sizeable non-radical political class and very little reason to think that military rule is in any way necessary to 'keep a lid' on things. I trust you don't mean to be an apologist for petty thugs like Musharraf.

None of which, by the way, makes Obama's sabre-rattling justified.

Posted by Glenn | August 2, 2007 3:01 PM

Great post. Finally, a leading blogger on the left calls Armstrong out for his increasingly insane posts about Obama. It's to the point where even if Armstrong has honest and/or constructive criticisms, they are completely disregarded by most of his readers because he has no credibility whatsoever with being objective about Obama. Obama got under his skin early - same with Stoller - for whatever reason, and that's it. Nothing Obama can say or do will help, and even news accounts that are found to be outright false (see "keychain contributions") will elicit rethinking on Armstrong's part. It's becoming a little sad.

Posted by cms | August 2, 2007 3:27 PM

Erstwhile leadership? Hm. Who are the leaders now?

Posted by X | August 2, 2007 3:30 PM

RE "When Armstrong does this it moves the traffic numbers of suckers like me who go to his site ... to blast him in his comments section"
-----------
I know. I want Matthew's blog here to succeed so I feed trolls like HeiGou. The Atlantic just looks at the traffic numbers -- they won't know the difference.

Posted by Don Williams | August 2, 2007 3:31 PM

Why do you need to invade Pakistan to kill someone? Haven't any of you read Greenmantle or Rogue Male?

Given the ease with which some British Muslims get to meet the Jihadists in Pakistan, I find it hard to believe that the CIA/MI6 couldn't pull off an operation to "disappear" Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri without anyone knowing*** if they really wanted to. So you might end up with a few American or British corpses with their dicks shoved down their throats.

*** - the trouble is that Bush and Cheney, being the fuckwits that they are, would want to gloat about their deaths.

Posted by blowback | August 2, 2007 3:31 PM

"I trust you don't mean to be an apologist for petty thugs like Musharraf."

Not at all, he's a miltary dictator ffs, and if you have good ideas how to create a more democratic Pakistan, one that respect human rights, I'd love to hear them.

Nonetheless, one can be both autocratic and an opponent of AQ--Saddam was, no? And the fact remains, AQ and its allies are a threat to Musharraf's rule; if he could do away with them, he would, but he can't, and neither can we. Least of all with with armchair ultimatums followed by bombs.

Posted by david mizner | August 2, 2007 3:47 PM

Is there a plausible explanation for why Pakistan would deny the US's request other than another piece of a growing pile of evidence that Pakistan isn't particularly interested in fighting AQ, contrary to the mind-reading that Mizner is engaged in? Is there a good reason that Pakistan could give for denying authorization to act against an AQ base? Doesn't sound very friendly to me...

Oh, and mydd.com (particulary Armstrong and Stoller) has been engaged in could be called, without exaggeration, a campaign of character assassination against Obama. About time someone started talking about it.. .

Posted by Patrick | August 2, 2007 3:49 PM

Mind reading?

Does anyone read the newspaper, or just blogs. Musharraf just ordered a raid on a mosque run by a pro-Taliban cleric, a raid that killed dozens of civilans, and that sparked all sort of violence, violence that he's still trying to contain.

Musharraf is at war with Islamic extremists. Does he do all that BaHawk Obama wants him to do? No, because he can't.

"Clerics had used the mosque's thousands of students in an aggressive campaign to impose Taliban-style Islamic law in the capital.

The campaign, which included kidnapping Chinese women it said were prostitutes and threatening suicide attacks to defend the fortified mosque, raised concerns about the spread of Islamic extremism in Pakistan.

Militants sheltered in the mosque compound for a week before government troops launched their assault on July 10, leaving it pocked with bullet holes and damaged by explosions. At least 102 people were killed in the violence."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/07/27/business/pakistan.php

Posted by david mizner | August 2, 2007 4:21 PM

From what I can tell, mydd.com is a pretty pro-Edwards blog. And Armstrong himself has led that blog's attack on Obama. He's running plays from Stoller's playbook, which is basically making over-the-top assertions.

Posted by Naveen | August 2, 2007 5:43 PM

He will clarify the message no doubt. The underlying point though is unimpeachable that we cannot make meaningful inroads against terror if we only take a single path. You cannot just choose humanitarian aid or delta force--one of the first major car bombs in Iraq was against the Red Cross remember. The U.S. cannot should not work alone, but neither should it abdicate its responsibility to act. Action often means imperialism, but it does not have to mean that. It is worth noting that Samantha Power is among those who have his ear and she wrote the book so to speak on genocide. That allegory of the helicopter in his speech is about U.S. potential for being a positive change agent or a negative one--it is something still very much within our control.

Posted by JC | August 2, 2007 10:43 PM

david mizner,

I read news more than blogs, including on Pakistan, and I find you pushing a rather simplistic picture of Mushie dearest. The Red Mosque story is not the only Pakistan news, it's actually a tiny part of the big picture, and my picture from reading the Pakistan news can be summed up with the below. Note the bold highlighting, it's mine:

Peter Bergen July 12
@
http://www.peterbergen.com/bergen/articles/details.aspx?id=304

In March, Musharraf made what would turn out to be a spectacular mistake--suspending Chief Justice Chaudhry....

He also presided over an unpopular, and ultimately unsuccessful, war against local militants in the tribal region of Waziristan. Meanwhile, he aligned himself so closely with the United States that Pakistanis began referring to him as Busharraf. Plus, as we know from our own political system, simple fatigue with the incumbent will generally set in after eight years of rule.

Almost overnight, the fired chief justice became a hero to all sorts of disparate groups fed up with Musharraf. The first wave of protests in support of Chaudhry was undertaken by the most unlikely of demonstrators: lawyers wearing black suits, pressed white shirts, and black ties. When they stormed the entrance to the Supreme Court building, it made for great television....

And that's where the government made another mistake. A week into the crisis, on March 16, GEO was carrying live pictures of demonstrations around the Supreme Court. Hamid Mir, GEO's Islamabad bureau chief, told me he had set up cameras on the roof of his office: "We were showing police firing rubber bullets on the protesters and tear gas--the first time that the Pakistani people were seeing these scenes live." About an hour later, policemen armed with guns and lathi sticks started gathering outside the GEO office, then entered the building's reception area and beat the receptionist...

Contra the widespread myth that democracy would merely empower Pakistan's Islamists, it would likely damage the MMA, the coalition of religious parties that has never succeeded in winning more than 12 percent of the vote. (And that was in the 2002 election, which Musharraf fixed to disadvantage the two main secular parties.) In fact, polling indicates that the MMA will garner around 5 percent of ballots in the upcoming election. The Islamist militants of the Red Mosque, in other words, may be feisty enough to weaken Musharraf politically through their protests and violence, but they are not nearly numerous enough to run the country.

So who might benefit from the upcoming vote, if not the Islamists? That's where Benazir Bhutto comes in. For months, Islamabad was atwitter about the nature of the deal Musharraf and Bhutto were widely presumed to be cutting. The rumored agreement would allow Bhutto to return to Pakistan to campaign for her party--although not to run for prime minister, as she has already served the two terms allowable under the present constitution--while Musharraf would drop the corruption charges that he used to chase her out of the country in the first place. Bhutto would then play the key role in selecting the next prime minister. For his part, Musharraf would retain the presidency....

"US keen on Mush-BB deal" by Kalyani Shankar August 3
@
http://www.dailypioneer.com/columnist1.asp?main_variable=Columnist&file_name=shankar%2Fshankar232.txt&writer=shankar

...Washington's 'staunch ally' in the War on Terror is facing clamorous opposition at home from both pro-democracy protesters and radical Islamists. The US feels Gen Musharraf can survive in power if he strikes a deal with Ms Benazir Bhutto and makes her Prime Minister....

More recent non-Islamic-militant Pakistan news
@
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=bhutto&btnG=Search+News

Posted by artappraiser | August 3, 2007 1:28 AM

JC...sounds like you and I are the only two to actually read what Obama said.

The focus on the last resort of acting militarily is missing the larger point of the speech.

Obama is definitely asserting himself as a non dove. His larger point, however, is against imperialistic invasion/occupation of nations, increased focus on diplomacy, collaboration, manipulation of the seemingly never ending stream of foreign aid...in short a myriad of *spade work* that will solve most problems, with using any military action as the ultimate, all else fails, last resort.

I'm not a fan of our history in the region. I am definitely not a fan of military muscle flexing. That's what the status quo of DC history has gotten us.

This young fella seems to have a grasp of all that and I, so far, would feel safe handing him the reins for a go at changing our worldwide approach to problematic situations.

Posted by G Davis | August 3, 2007 3:00 AM