In the 3/24 issue of TAC, Dr. Hadar has a section about a very different “Obama Doctrine” that seems relevant here:

“In a show of bipartisan spirit, Democratic and Republican lawmakers stood up and applauded President Obama after he delivered a major foreign policy address before a special session of Congress. He proclaimed that the U..S. would support an “independent and free Kosovo” with economic and military aid and would it from “outside aggression.” Dubbed the Obama Doctrine, the speech outlined a strategy aimed at forming close security ties with nations in the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, “and other free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by the new totalitarian regimes.” President Obama said that NATO will sign a security accord with Pristina that will eventually allow Kosovo to join the organization.”

Not only do I think such a scenario is plausible, but Obama has already all but said as much about Kosovo in one of the debates.  The most insightful part of the article, of course, is that Dr. Hadar repeats the exact same scenario for a McCain administration.

Or you could think, per davegnyc, that Obama is simply lying through his teeth to get past the AIPAC sentinals that guard the Oval Office and his true supporters just “know” by some undefined secret handshake/decoder ring that he doesn’t mean a bit of the whole “end the mindset that got us into Iraq” schtick. “A mounting sense of dread” covers it quite nicely. The last time I had that feeling was reading The Project for the New American Century’s website.

In my experience, whenever a politician focuses his rhetoric on feelings (eg compassionate conservativism and the War on Terror) as a basis for a world view, then it is likely that we are about to embark on a course of action that has enormous costs and no clear benefits.

We are a country consumed by imperialism, our political class (Democrat or Republican) sees our country as possessing the inherent right to project our military power anywhere in the world to achieve whatever objectives we deem appropriate, without regard to the countries we are invading.

The rule of thumb I use in determining whether someone is “changing the [foreign policy] mindset” to something better is if they plan to reduce military spending. In our current context, the only purpose our military serves is to kill people and blow things up. Increasing the military’s budget means increasing the United States ability to kill people and blow things up and the only reason for that is additional imperial mis-adventures.

Obama, like Hillary and McCain, is planning to increase the military’s budget. Up until this point, I had a shred of hope that Obama was less of an imperialist than Hillary and McCain. This article indicates that he’s far worse.

What I find even more sickening is that most liberals seem to think the opposite. As Daniel suggested, they seem more interested in embracing a bad foreign policy to escape their “defensive crouch” then they are about ridding this country of our imperialist mindset. If Matthew Yglesias, a smart liberal fellow who wrote a book specifically condemning American imperialism, can embrace Obama than liberals are in a great deal of trouble (and deservedly so).

If Obama wins this election, then history may look back at George W. Bush’s foreign policy as restrained by comparison.

Does it make it better that S. Res. 534 passed by unanimous consent? I don’t think it does. Ironically, the resolution called for all sides to respect infrastructure, which Israel obviously did not do and apparently had no intention of doing. So far as I know, Obama never said anything about that later on.

“There is a difference between bravery and foolishness, and taking on The Lobby head on is suicidal (at least for now).”

Does it bother you at all that Obama is, essentially flat out lying about a major foreign policy position? And doesn’t making those kind of statements in the campaign effectively limit his maneuvering room if elected? After 7 plus years (or 15 years, if you prefer) of jaw-dropping dishonesty from our elected officials on these issues, a little clarity and honesty would be refreshing, indeed, it would be audacious.

When it comes to Israel “cowardice” is a relative term.

There is a difference between bravery and foolishness, and taking on The Lobby head on is suicidal (at least for now).

BTW, the best part of this Rainmondo interview is between 9:30 and 14:20, although he continues on to talk about McCain which is interesting as well.

In short, we’re supposed to let Obama slide for effectively showing political cowardice over a major foreign policy issue when he was actually in office, while giving him endless credit for taking a politically convenient position in 2002 Illinois on another one when he wasn’t yet in national office, and then take this as a reason to think he would be a good President? Does that really make sense? Have I missed something?

There is a great interview with Justin Raimondo on this very topic here.