Obama means to Change Foreign Policy

[illinoisprogressive]

Fifteen years ago, incoming President Bill Clinton promised a government "that looks more like America." Today, would-be President Barack Obama promises a government foreign policy that looks more like that of the world.

And ironically, Bill's wife, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who once called herself the "agent of change," is now the guardian of the old policy order.

Obama promises "fundamental change" in America's international relations, and he means it. When asked, during the July 23 Democratic debate, if he would be "willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration" with foreign leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Obama immediately answered, "I would."

Realizing that Obama had violated foreign policy orthodoxy, Clinton pounced, deriding Obama's answer as "irresponsible and, frankly, naive."

In so saying, Clinton faithfully reflected the standard operating procedure of diplomacy, which holds that meetings "at the summit" must be preceded by an elaborate sequence of "confidence-building" measures, aimed at producing a positive outcome.

http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/ny-oppin315314034jul31,0,1474037.column?coll=ny-news-columnists

[burythehatchet]

1. The entire US foreign policy

is underpinned by White Man's Superiority complex. It is a fatal mental affliction.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I love that answer. Fatal for sure. But, it needs to change

[burythehatchet]

3. I agree it needs to, but it cannot

until progressives are allowed to govern by virtue of our majority.

[eweaver155]

6. Why are so many Americans afraid of political change?

It's hypocritical. America consistently complains about the Bush/Chaney foreign policy doctrine, the absolute worst disaster in the history of this country ever filled with a truck load of with corruption, lies, deception, bleeds money like a throat slash and most of all, 3600+ soldiers killed, 26,000+ soldiers wounded, 100,000+ Iraqis dead and countless wounded, unknown military medical/psychological problems to follow for years to come and a failed state in the Middle East that we broke and cannot fix. Then, a Presidential candidate comes along who wants to change the way american politics works in D.C. for the betterment of the american people and the world abroad but still, we bitch and complain? Have we as a nation become so conditioned and immune to this political bullshit that we continue to take the beating and not defend ourselves?

I would love to know the REAL reason why americans are so opposed to this philosophy of change and so anti-Obama about him being Prez. Your REAL reason, no shit answers. Be honest, answer from your heart, not some op ed piece that may have swayed your thinking written by a media hawk or opinion from a talk show/radio host. Let's be totally honest and don't lie, because if you do you are only lying to yourself. Thank you very much. :shrug:

[eridani]

8. Not anymore. The folks in the barbed wire protected elite compounds are multicultural now

They don't care if Khalilzad is brown--all they care about is whether he serves the interests of the dominant elite and is a good loyal oil company shill.

[Colobo]

4. President Obama: Ready For Change. Ready To Lead.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

7. Good one, Katz

:spray:

[TeamJordan23]

5. I, for one, would love to see a more fair US foreign policy. nm

[eridani]

9. You mean kinder and gentler imperialism?

Not much of a change, IMO.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/58063/

So whatever "leave Iraq" might mean, no candidate of either party likely to enter the White House on January 20, 2009 can think it means letting Iraqis determine their own national policies or fate. The powers that be just wouldn't stand for that. They see themselves as the guardians of world "order." They feel a sacred obligation to maintain "stability" throughout the imperial domains, which now means most of planet Earth -- regardless of what voters may think. The Democratic front-runners know that "order" and "stability" are code words for American hegemony. They also know that voters, especially Democratic ones, see the price of hegemony in Iraq and just don't want to pay it anymore.

So the Democratic front-runners must promise voters that they will end the war -- with not too many ideologically laden ifs, ands, or buts -- while they assure the foreign-policy establishment that they will never abandon the drive for hegemony in the Middle East (or anywhere else). In other words, the candidates have to be able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time.

No worries, it turns out. Fluency in doublespeak is a prime qualification for high political office. On Iraq, candidates Dennis Kucinich and Bill Richardson don't meet that test. They tell anyone and everyone that they want "all" U.S. troops out of Iraq, but they register only 1-4% in the polls and are generally ignored in the media. The Democrats currently topping the polls, on the other hand, are proving themselves eminently qualified in doublespeak.

[sandnsea]

10. This might not be so helpful

News Day is a Murdoch rag.

Obama gets framed as violating foreign policy orthodoxy, which the wiser Hillary "realized" and then "pounced".

It also leaves the impression that he intended to meet specifically with Chavez and Adhmadinejad, when I don't think their names were even in the actual question.

This is a devious hit piece -

"For his part, Obama comes from a different world. His father was Kenyan, and his stepfather came from Indonesia, where young Barack lived for four years. Obama himself was a state senator, representing inner-city Chicago, when the bipartisan "neoconservative" vision for the Middle East dominated Washington.

So it was easy for him to feel distant from the combined foreign policy vision of George W. Bush and the Clintons on Iraq. It was even easy, and effective, for him to label the New York senator's approach as "Bush-Cheney light."

Obama has never said he felt "distant" from any Clinton foreign policy vision. The whole thing is specifically designed to make people afraid of Obama, paint him as someone who's not a real American.

Bill was just pretending to concede. If they can't beat you face to face, they slice you up in the media. They've done it time and again.

But they NEVER use that media advantage to take on Bush.

[Ethelk2044]

11. It needs to be changed. The government needs to improve foreign relations.

[jmp]

12. If Obama is going to change ...

Our foreign policy, why does Obama feel the need to increase the size of our 1,400,000 strong active force by another 100,000? Are 2,600,000 troops (active duty and reserves) not enough to hunt down al-Qaeda in Afghanistan?

Or is he planning more invasions?

Seems to me that withdrawing from Iraq would free up more than enough troops to hunt down bin Laden.