And no, this has nothing to do with the Democratic primary, or even Amy Winehouse. A post on pacifism at James Wolcott's blog has me thinking - if Obama is our next president, where and when would American military intervention be used?

I think this will be one of the most difficult and gut-wrenching issues for a potential Obama administration, even more so than a potential withdrawal from Iraq. There is no question in my mind that Americans are increasingly turning away from considering the military response as the reaction of first choice in a crisis, particularly after Iraq. And it will also be true that Obama is going to have to dance with them what brung him, some of whom seem very vocally pacifist.

But will President Obama - or any future president for that matter - really reject all military responses unless the U.S. itself is attacked first? Or will future presidents also continue to define when and where a military response is appropriate? 

Another issue that brings this to mind is the terrible situation in Myanmar - like Afghanistan under the Taliban, Myanmar-Burma suffers under a brutal and wildly delusional authoritarian regime. The fact that the Myanmar military junta is unwilling or unable to help the victims of the recent cyclone is bad enough - that they also are preventing outside help from getting to the people that need it most is truly unconscionable. Is this a case where a military response - an overthrow of the junta accompanied by massive humaitarian aid - would be appropriate? I really don't know enough about Myanmar to say yes or no. As with any military intervention, it would complicate things tremendously in the area, and undoubtedly rile the very powerful Chinese, so it's not cut and dried for me.

Beyond the humanitarian scope, and certainly getting beyond the campaign tough talk, what about Iran? What if the Mahdi-blessed nutjob running that show does decide to attack any other nation under Obama's watch? Would his current supporters back a military response, or would they unleash pacifist fury even against Obama if he did pusue a military option?
 
Strict pacifism is a lovely thing, but I for one do not think it makes viable foreign policy. The only question I have is, after eight years of our own homegrown nutjobs bombing everything in sight, I'm afraid we will have a hard time in the next administration returning to a suitable balance between idealism and pragmatism when it comes to military power.