He wants the American military to "stay on the offense, from Djibouti to Kandahar," and he believes that "the ability to put boots on the ground will be critical in eliminating the shadowy terrorist networks we now face." He wants to ensure that we continue to have "the strongest, best-equipped military in the world."
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." That’s known as preemptive military action. It won’t reassure those around the world who worry about letting an American president decide what a "vital interest" is and when it is "imminently threatened."
Nor will they be comforted to hear that "when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others." Make every effort?
Conspicuously absent from Obama’s discussion of the use of force are four words: United Nations Security Council.
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?" Robert Kagan
Motive on Kagan’s part? I would guess that the idea is to reduce the threat of Obama as an anti-war candidate. Kagan is working for McCain. Perhaps he thinks that McCain would be better of running against Clinton (both of them)
In any case, Obama must be considered in the light of his words in Chicago. Kagan has a point. Neoconism is a body of ideas as well as loyalties. The ideas expressed by Obama in Chicago are neocon words. The neocons are not conservatives and neither is Obama, but he shares their ideas in foreign policy.
If he meant what he said in Chicago then he embraces interventionism for the purpose of Utopian reform in the world, ARMED intervention. (I can hear the "oilies" "revving" themselves up for a response)
He wants to spend 50 billion of our dollars a year for "nation building" in foreign places? How many Americans want that?
Some candidates are criticized for being "conniving" and "calculating." I would prefer that to this kind of foolishness.
The last thing the USA needs is another destiny driven president. I yearn for candidates like the ones produced in my youth in smoke filled rooms. pl