Whoa!! How did I miss this about Obama?

[jasmine621]

Obama the Interventionist

By Robert Kagan
Sunday, April 29, 2007; Page B07

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 ((also here)) 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.


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?

Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

1. Cut it down to four paragraphs, please. Le sigh, does no one read the forum rules anymore?

MKJ

[readmoreoften]

2. ROBERT KAGAN SUPPORTS OBAMA?

Okay I'm out.

[Mass]

6. He does not say that.

[rodeodance]

13. hardly--I see it as mocking him.

[Mass]

3. Not exactly sure that Kagan understands what Obama is speaking about.

Remember, he advises McCain, so he has trouble with the notion of diplomacy. If the idea is that Obama is not Noam Chomsky, that is true, but he never claimed to be and neither is any of the three other candidates.

[readmoreoften]

4. Holy shit, did they just move the article? /nt

[sufrommich]

8. I tried it too...nothing.nt

[readmoreoften]

9. I actually had the article, then lost it. /nt

[Mass]

10. The article is from April.

[readmoreoften]

5. sorry dupe

[Occam Bandage]

7. I would certainly trust Robert Kagan's analysis of a candidate. He always seems unbiased.

You know who else gives me a good feeling? Bill Kristol.

[debatepro]

14. it's old

and he only uses "rhetoric" as a warrant to argue that Obama is an interventionist... there is nothing specific in his speeches that Kagan can point to ... that is an interventionist policy... so this is really just a critique of rhetoric not policy at which point it is fairly obvious kagan over states the case.

[Buck Stopin Harry]

20. I seems to me Kagen is responding to facts

that are real regarding the concept of leadership.
Regaining some of what might have been lost in the past.
That sounds like fairly good forgein policy.
More should be brought to light regarding Obama's work with Sen. Luger
And his efforts to account for nuclear devices in Russa.

[readmoreoften]

11. Link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/AR2007042702027.html

[sam sarrha]

12. we aren't the worlds leader anymore we are its pariah.. a lot has changed in 7 years

[kurth]

15. Gotta spread freedom to the darkest corners of the world?

[TacticalPeek]

16. The link needs correcting.

It's copied with the literal artic... at the end, not the actual url location.

Edit the OP and use 'Copy Link Location' or something like that to copy/paste.

:shrug:

[debatepro]

17. FYI: He is a neocon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You people must really not want Obama ... if you will resort to this.

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1241

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,

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Well, there are ways of leading other than with the military.

There's moral leadership, of having the most transparent government, the most honest elections, the most corruption free government.

If THAT is what he's aspiring to, more power to him.

Empire, we don't need.

[Enrique]

19. an ambivalent column from neocon Robert Kagan

from last April.

I must be missing something. :shrug:

[MS Liberal]

21. It is bad enough that my son leaves for Iraq next week, with Obama his next stop will be Kenya.

America does not need another leader who has not served in the armed forces. Hillary is an exception because she has tried to learn how the military work and is a supporter of veterans.

Obama is slicker and less trustworthythan Bill Clinton.

This is my opinion and soon it will be yours.

[debatepro]

22. Think critically

Read the article and speech … and try to use your critical thinking and common sense skills.

Kagan's quotes contradict his thesis which is Obama is an Interventionist all over the place.
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.

This is classic softpower rhetoric not neocon interventionism.
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."

This next one is totally a neocon argument...LOL
Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power.

Kagan:
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."

If you go by this logic Obama never said he believed in Pre-emptive war either. There were lots of things missing from Obama's speech like IMMINENTLY THREATENED!!! and PRE-EMPTIVE war!!! Where does Kagan get these quotes from.

1. If you think Obama doesn't think that military force is indeed a last resort then you probably can't be convinced.
2. Neocons and Students of Softpower (Obama) see Imminent Threats differently. For neocons/hardcore realist imminent threat is anything you can manufacture (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq, speed boats in Iran, etc). we all just have a different view of what is an imminent threat... at least in Obama's case he HAD THE JUDGMENT AND UNDERSTANDING TO KNOW THAT IRAQ WASN'T an IMMINENT THREAT. Can we say that about the other candidates?
3. Also here is a link to the speech Obama gave at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs that Kagan is pulling his quotes from. Find "imminently threatened" in that speech.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/051122-moving_forward/index.php

Like i already said... Kagan cherry picks, then appropriates neocon definitions of threats and views of the world and then applies them to Obama. The only difference is that everyone on the planet knows that Cheney and Obama have a different definition of Imminent threat... heck look at Iraq ... Obama has a more credibility evaluating Iraq's as an imminent threat than Clinton or Edwards. (Thats Mate)

[ellisonz]

23. Not this shit again...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4007408