Respectfully, I disagree somewhat with your stance. I mean, Obama is not Dennis Kucinich. Protecting our interests is still in our interests -- provided we do it the correct way, and not the Bush/Cheney way.

Thanks for posting the link, although I think in the article Obama makes it clear that military force would be a last resort.

Still, much of the article did seem pretty generic. One of the most specific parts was when he called to increase the military by 92,0000 (65,000 Army / 27,000 Marines).

Obama compliments Truman & Kennedy but somehow overlooks Korea and Vietnam. Arguably it was Truman who started the effective repeal of Congress's Power to Declare War by sending troops to Korea without ever getting such a declaration. Kennedy increased troops in Vietnam by 20x. Let's not even mention Kennedy's imaginary Missile Gap.

Obama also talks about bringing Pakistan & India together. Noble goal, but how does he plan to do that when Pakistan knows it can look for support from China?

In short, Obama's article frequently comes across as Wouldn't It Be Nice If....

Thanks for posting this. I support Obama in the election, too. However, support does not (and should not ever) represent blind allegiance.

I have read some excellent articles and interviews on Barack Obama's foreign policies. They are nuanced and filled with intricacies that do not fit into nice talking points. However David Lindorff criticized Obama for referencing leaders in Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea as our "enemies." Lindorff's criticism is warranted; they are not our 'enemies.' Calling them such does little to advance talks or change Americans perceptions or thinking. Presumably it is an oversight as campaigning every day hours on end with only 2, 3 or 4 hours of sleep takes its toll.

My take -- I am only guessing -- is Obama may somehow feel he needs to parse his words to lessen being misrepresented. But there is no way to escape it: Pundits and the GOP's penchant for taking a sentence here and there completely distorting what was actually said may be a bigger problem for the electorate. Voters, generally speaking, are not known to be diligent researchers. Paying attention is not enough because the media focuses on the irrelevant; the GOP do not believe in presenting facts; and talk show hosts, radio and TV both, have no compunction about misleading their audiences with utter fabrications.

McCain tries to compartmentalize Obama's message into a generic one-size-fits-all; It's not, but McCain's is. Convincing the public that Obama's knowledge and depth of understanding of foreign policy is limited will not be as easy as he thinks it will be. Obama has a much better grasp on the Middle-East and other challenges that the US is facing than Bush, Cheney, McCain and even Clinton combined. If Obama can find a way to hone his message before McCain cements that perception in the voters minds he will be home-free. It is critical for Obama to begin doing so at this juncture.

Another thing that stands out about Obama is his grasp of history and sincere interest in a vigorous pursuit to negotiate in contrast to Bush and Cheney who demand surrender or suffer the consequences. Had Bush & Cheney provided a safe house (as was done for Idi Amin) for Saddam, as per his request and allowed him to take $1 billion dollars of his own money, Iraq would be a lot different today. But they didn't. As a result Bush and Cheney needlessly spent 4100 American lives, over 1-million Iraqi lives and shy of a Trillion dollars. Obama said from day one attacking Iraq was a terrible idea. He knew it would advance anti-Americanism and most everything else that has transpired since.

Obama does not react; he uses reasoned logic and intellect to distinguish between real and manufactured threats. Therefore we can feel fairly confident in giving him the benefit of the doubt. While I have no doubt in his abilities -- he is a quick learner -- I do trust that he will do what is best for all concerned. Furthermore he has shown infinitely better judgment than his rival McCain in every aspect.

When voters hear Obama's message it resonates. McCain is flawed in his thinking and his judgment, but if he is able to define himself before Obama does herein presents somewhat of a problem. McCain has had far too long an open field and a friendly press portraying himself as a moderate and a maverick, both of which cannot be further from the truth. Fending off attacks from Bill Clinton, HRC and surrogates, McCain, the GOP, Rove and Bush too while simultaneously embroiled in a nomination process Obama proved he can hold his own. McCain's free ride is about to end once Obama secures the nomination on Tuesday.

Getting his message out to the general public will inspire confidence in Obama's understanding of foreign policy. However if Obama intends on changing the public's thinking -- what got us into war in the first place -- he needs to stop referring to other nation's leaders as enemies.

Trollfood should be witheld on this thread.

This is a critical topic and the assumption that it should be viewed through some sort of "progressive" lens narrows the focus.

Everyone will be arguing about whose version of progressivism is the proper one rather than examine contexts and the causes and affects that are working on Obama's FP postions; especially in regards to the ME.

This Obama campfollower since the day after he announced his run is among those with some serious problems with how he has responded to pressure groups. The more I look at the big picture, the more I believe that who has the president's ear is central to what his FP will look like. The amount of attention that has long been and still is being devoted to this topic indicates it's importance among those who would be the gatekeepers.