Soccer Dad

One and one for mr obama

A week ago the Washington Post, despite some reservations, praised Sen Barack Obama's speech on foreign policy in Mr Obama's Worldview

BARACK OBAMA, who has been chided for failing to supplement his inspiring rhetoric as a presidential candidate with substantive stands on issues, took an important step this week toward correcting the deficiency. In a 40-minute address to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Mr. Obama described a foreign policy that centers on continued American leadership in the world and a strong defense but that sharply differs with the Bush administration on Iraq and, at least in tone, on the fight against terrorism. The speech didn't cover some important areas, leaving the Illinois senator much more to explain as the campaign progresses. For example, he said next to nothing about trade -- a glaring omission in a speech that purported to outline a foreign policy for the 21st century.

Mr. Obama nevertheless made a worthy start at something we'd like to encourage: a vigorous debate on the issues during this extended presidential primary season.

. In particular the Post likes Sen. Obama's call against isolationism. In some aspects the senator sounded like a neo-conservative

He would support continued negotiations with North Korea and Iran while seeking to induce other nations to "ratchet up the economic pressure" on Tehran. "We must never take the military option off the table," he added.

(at least in that last part); in others he sounded unabashedly liberal

He would launch a global education program. He would double U.S. foreign aid to $50 billion by 2012.

However the Post seemed surprised (and perhaps uncomfortable) with what Sen Obama didn't say

Much of the Bush administration's usual depiction of the world after Sept. 11, 2001, is nevertheless missing from Mr. Obama's speech. Perhaps unsurprisingly, he does not use the phrase "war on terrorism." More remarkably, he doesn't mention Islam, much less Islamic extremism -- which Mr. Bush has described as a critical ideological threat to freedom inside and outside the Muslim world. Mr. Obama's advisers point out that much of the speech is directly or indirectly devoted to strategies to combat terrorists, counter their recruitment, and rescue failed or failing states. Still, Mr. Obama ought to explain more directly how he views jihadism. Is it an ideological challenge comparable to communism and fascism, as Mr. Bush contends, or merely an esoteric dogma held by bands of criminals, like the anarchism of the early 20th century? Is terrorism the central threat of the early 21st century, or, as some Democratic strategists argue, merely one of a panoply of challenges that include global warming, pandemics and the rise of China?

My guess: with a plank of a worldwide education program, Sen Obama adopts the latter view.

Sen. Obama had another chance this past week to address what his foreign policy would be in the famous YouTube debate where, Charles Krauthammer notes, he made a goof, in Strike Two for Obama (or href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601863.html">here))
For Barack Obama, it was strike two. And this one was a right-down-the-middle question from a YouTuber in Monday night's South Carolina debate: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?"

"I would," responded Obama.

His explanation dug him even deeper: "The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration -- is ridiculous."

On the other hand, his opponent, the Senator whose husband hosted Yasser Arafat more than any other head of state objected immediately,

She pounced: "I will not promise to meet with the leaders of these countries during my first year." And she then proceeded to give the reasons any graduate student could tick off: You don't want to be used for their propaganda. You need to know their intentions. Such meetings can make the situation worse.

Just to make sure no one missed how the grizzled veteran showed up the clueless rookie, the next day Clinton told the Quad-City Times of Davenport, Iowa, that Obama's comment "was irresponsible and frankly naive."

Despite what countries will say about the United States, they crave the attention of the United States as Krauthammer observes

To be on the same stage as the leader of the world's greatest power is of course a prize. That is why the Chinese deemed it a slap in the face that President Bush last year denied President Hu Jintao the full state-visit treatment. The presence of an American president is a valued good to be rationed -- and granted only in return for important considerations.

Too often that presence is too easily bestowed.

Despite the firestorm, I'm inclined to think that Sen. Obama meant exactly what he said.

more at memeorandum especially a nice argument at the Weekly Standard.

barach obama, foreign policy.

Posted by SoccerDad at July 27, 2007 5:32 AM