They're very different issues that need to be juggled together. You can't deal with Iran without affecting Iraq, Syria and Hezbollah, for example. What's the plan, Stan? I know Hillary has connections and attitudes. I don't know what Obama's are.

I guess in reply to one of the broader questions you asked, I could say this: I think the #1 foreign-policy issue for the US ought to be nonproliferation, and (as part of that) a secondary issue ought to be conflict reduction around the globe. We've been lulled into a false sense of security about nuclear weapons. They're still a catastrophe waiting to happen. We can't restrict the technology itself forever, so we need to work toward the sort of security regime you see in Europe -- a regime where many states that could have nuclear weapons feel that they are actually safer without them.

We should certainly remain vigilant about terrorism. But I think the idea of a "war on terror" is a rotten idea. It exaggerates the importance of non-state actors, while obscuring the big picture of security and nonproliferation.

I suspect you'd get more interesting replies to this thread if you decoupled the two parts of it. Linking them together is going to cause a lot of Obama supporters to shift into "spin mode."

A little disappointing Alex. Certainly you understood the question. Of course, if you have no interest in such questions, that would explain a lot. Apparently, you believe that George Bush and Karl Rove, who governed Texas twice, the US for 8 years, and won four major elections have proven the theory that running political campaigns (forget for a moment that Axelrod ran the campaign) are good preparation for governing America. Actually, more than a little disappointing.

How does that jibe with what his predecessor discussed and what the House version of his subcommittee discussed? I can imagine having a conference on "practical steps by NATO partners to disengage from Iraq" as something our NATO allies might love to help out with - why does it have to be controversial? One topic had to do with emerging technologies. How about something on converged energy strategies between Europe and the US?

Hmmm, I always thought that NATO and the EU was a huge island of stability that should be steadily expanded on to bring its influence wider and wider rather than recreating the wheel. NATO seemed to be a viable peaceful structure to re-focus inherent national security needs, rather than presuming countries would just beat swords into ploughshares.

Do you think Obama agrees with your view?

Oh my fucking God.

From Obama's foreign policy page: "work to build an infrastructure with countries in East Asia that can promote stability and prosperity;"

Would anyone out of curiousity care to Google "Greater East Asian Co-prosperity Sphere"?

To be honest, I was hoping for better than cutting and pasting or linking to Obama's website. What you cut-and-pasted is foreign policy-related, but not security-related. (Sidenote: Bemba arrested this weekend.)

I was trying to keep the focus on Obama and security/defense.

That sounds like a reasonably modest goal. We are stuck in Iraq & Afghanistan, so getting those tar babies off us will take some work, and I'd suggest we'll need to be more pro-active in our China & Russia relationship or we'll be in pretty poor shape in 8 years.

I was hoping to ignore the part before "And the" ;-)

I said proliferation was "a bit overyhyped", not a non-issue. Funding for non-proliferation by Obama-Lugar was something like $30 million and I think half of that was for some training initiatives. That's a pretty paltry amount in a $2.8 trillion budget. We spend about $9 billion a month on Iraq and another $3 billion on Afghanistan.

By the way, Lugar-Nunn was traditionally a stick with which to beat up Clinton in the post-Soviet years for not being strong enough on security. Obviously with the Republican administration this aspect got downplayed. And it does little to address the much more important issue of the active nuclear development and export role that Pakistan has played. Was Obama used, giving the Bush administration cover of being serious about non-proliferation? Barlow was used earlier by Bush Sr.. In 2004 we found out A.Q. Khan had been helping export Pakistani nuclear parts and knowledge to North Korea, Iran and Libya.
---------------------------------------------
In September 2005, Musharraf revealed that after two years of questioning Khan — which the Pakistani government insisted it do itself without outside intervention — that they had confirmed that Khan had supplied centrifuge parts to North Korea. Still undetermined was whether or not Khan passed a bomb design to North Korea or Iran that had been discovered in Libya.... given lingering skepticism about the "fullness" of the disclosures made by Pakistan regarding Khan's activities.... An additional complicating factor is that few believe that Khan acted alone and the affair risks gravely damaging the Army, which oversaw and controlled the nuclear weapons development programme and of which Musharraf was commander-in-chief.

Yes, but what's your point? That was one of countless misrepresentations by GWB. Obama hasn't shown himself to be a liar.

Wow. Excellent summary, Genghis.

I remember reading that article shortly after it came out and thinking Obama sounded a little to the right of Bill Clinton--Maybe a tad Bush oneish-- but I'll reread it later.

Thanks for your viewpoint.

This article has been brought to Mr. Gasket's attention before during a vigorous exchange of exactly the type he's said never happens. He's claimed to have read it.

It will be very easy for the Obama to improve our reputation to a point above that to which Bush has brought us. The very act of electing Obama would accomplish that. It will be much more difficult for Obama to improve our reputation to the point at which Clinton left us in 2000. Our reputation has sustained much damage over the past 8 years, and repairing it will not be easy, a point which Obama makes almost every time he discusses foreign policy.

Let me be cynical for a moment (I know, right?) and propose that the total atrocity of Bush actually helps the next president who is not John McCain.

It will help at least a little, but I'm afraid that the magnitude of the mess we've made of Iraq will be hard to get past, even with a new administration.

Just for perspective, yes, we lost 3,000 civilians on 9/11. Since we invaded Iraq, however, at least 100,000, and as many as almost a million, Iraqi civilians have died. And millions have become refugees. A country with less than one tenth our population has probably suffered 100 times as many deaths because of the chaos unleashed by our invasion.

Obama will improve our standing in the world, yes, but as Genghis notes, it will be quite hard, if not impossible, for him to restore it to where it was when Bill Clinton left office.

This was a response to roo_P

Aside from the fact that you seem to believe a military solution for all problems is appropriate, I'd like to ask why you keep saying, without supporting it, that "we have ... China completely unabated in its consolidation of Tibet and Xinjiang". Do you suggest that we mount a rescue effort to support the independence of these two provinces, which most Chinese people (including the residents of the provinces) believe are part of China? Should we also support the movement to liberate Hawaii? Should we support any separatist or independence movement? Why are we not championing a Kurdish state? It's ridiculous to take a whirlwind tour of the globe and choose every issue that exists and think that we have some kind of military interest in solving it. We really need to get out of that neocon mindset. This is the real difference between Hillary Clinton's supporters and Obama's - you people are still neocons: you want to use the military to rule the world. The military can't and, in most cases, shouldn't be used for that purpose.

First, I am attempting to present the Obama campaign's viewpoint unless specifically noted.

I'm glad you see appeasement as a sometimes useful tool in the toolkit. It worked with North Korea in postponing their nuclear development.

I don't see Hezbollah dissolving because they're effectively the government in their areas - they provide needed social services along with military protection. Some thought Hezbollah would go away by breaking Syria's hold on Lebanon, but it didn't happen.

Do you favor resolving Palestine-Israel even if it's pro-Israel, or favor a balance of Palestine-Israel even if it doesn't solve the problem?

Isn't resolving the Lebanon-Syria-Israel border dispute simpler than wading into Palestine, and how do you think Obama's approach will be different from Clinton's in the 90's that seemed quite promising until the end?

You support a middle way between current US-led NATO and the aborted EU joint operation force. Is that a finesse, or you think there's a 3rd way? And does that favor America's interests, or you're not concerned about America's interests in this regard?

You say there wasn't much Obama could have discussed in his subcommittee that wasn't discussed elsewhere. But he knew he was running for President - aren't these types of military details - the shape of NATO cooperation, shared approaches to Afghanistan and Iraq, how to expand the military umbrella of NATO to new countries to lower tensions and increase cooperation - along with reviving the strength of the dollar, trade policies, tariffs and other trade imbalances, joint EU/US action to drastically lower tariffs that hurt 3rd world countries, especially Africa etc., extremely important to being president and fostering sane foreign policy? Should it be left to someone else?

Why increase the military? I thought we were getting out of Iraq and going to more police enforcement?

Rumsfeld tried going to a more modern force with modern technology, relying less on traditional weapons and combat troops. That didn't work very well, did it?

And how do you get supplies quickly to the troops when pushing for 3-bid on every contract more than $25K? (Like improved metal plating for personnel vehicles). Lots of folks have washed up on the shore trying to improve Defense spending efficiency.

Isn't that like saying curing all disease is more important to Africa's poverty than sending financial aid?

Obama post-Bhutto assassination said basically Pakistan can handle its own internal affairs. Would you agree?

My comment on Russia and China refers to my feeling that we've bolstered those 2 countries in undesirable ways due to our "war on terrorism" (not my "fight against terrorism"). We now have Putin a billionaire controlling natural gas in a rather tyrranical way to Western Europe and China completely unabated in its consolidation of Tibet and Xinjiang. How do we rein in these forces, and most importantly, where do the candidates place these concerns on the priority list?