[Peace-discuss] Robert Kagan: Obama the Interventionist

[Morton K. Brussel]

Even more enlightening than Kagan's piece, is a recent one by Paul  
Street, who visited us last year. See

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=72&ItemID=12687

It's long article but devastating.  I should disabuse those who are  
taken in by OB's saccharine(?) speeches.

--mkb


On Apr 29, 2007, at 8:13 AM, Robert Naiman wrote:

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/27/ 
> AR2007042702027_pf.html
>
> Obama the Interventionist
>
> By Robert Kagan
> Sunday, April 29, 2007; B07
>
> America must "lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting
> the ultimate good." With those words, Barack Obama put an end to the
> idea that the alleged overexuberant idealism and America-centric
> hubris of the past six years is about to give way to a new realism, a
> more limited and modest view of American interests, capabilities and
> responsibilities.
>
> Obama's speech at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs last week was
> pure John Kennedy, without a trace of John Mearsheimer. It had a
> deliberate New Frontier feel, including some Kennedy-era references
> ("we were Berliners") and even the Cold War-era notion that the United
> States is the "leader of the free world." No one speaks of the "free
> world" these days, and Obama's insistence that we not "cede our claim
> of leadership in world affairs" will sound like an anachronistic
> conceit to many Europeans, who even in the 1990s complained about the
> bullying "hyperpower." In Moscow and Beijing it will confirm
> suspicions about America's inherent hegemonism. But Obama believes the
> world yearns to follow us, if only we restore our worthiness to lead.
> Personally, I like it.
>
> All right, you're thinking, but at least he wants us to lead by
> example, not by meddling everywhere and trying to transform the world
> in America's image. When he said, "We have heard much over the last
> six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to
> promote the spread of freedom," you probably expected him to distance
> himself from this allegedly discredited idealism.
>
> Instead, he said, "I agree." His critique is not that we've meddled
> too much but that we haven't meddled enough. There is more to building
> democracy than "deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box." We
> must build societies with "a strong legislature, an independent
> judiciary, the rule of law, a vibrant civil society, a free press, and
> an honest police force." We must build up "the capacity of the world's
> weakest states" and provide them "what they need to reduce poverty,
> build healthy and educated communities, develop markets, . . .
> generate wealth . . . fight terrorism . . . halt the proliferation of
> deadly weapons" and fight disease. Obama proposes to double annual
> expenditures on these efforts, to $50 billion, by 2012.
>
> It's not just international do-goodism. To Obama, everything and
> everyone everywhere is of strategic concern to the United States. "We
> cannot hope to shape a world where opportunity outweighs danger unless
> we ensure that every child, everywhere, is taught to build and not to
> destroy." The "security of the American people is inextricably linked
> to the security of all people." Realists, call your doctors.
>
> Okay, you say, but at least Obama is proposing all this Peace
> Corps-like activity as a substitute for military power. Surely he
> intends to cut or at least cap a defense budget soaring over $500
> billion a year. Surely he understands there is no military answer to
> terrorism.
>
> Actually, Obama wants to increase defense spending. He wants to add
> 65,000 troops to the Army and recruit 27,000 more Marines. Why? To
> fight terrorism.
>
> 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? This is a left-liberal foreign policy?
>
> Ask Noam Chomsky the next time you see him.
>
> Of course, it's just a speech. At the Democrats' debate on Thursday,
> when asked how he would respond to another terrorist attack on the
> United States, Obama at first did not say a word about military
> action. So maybe his speech only reflects what he and his advisers
> think Americans want to hear. But that is revealing, too. When it
> comes to America's role in the world, apparently they don't think
> there's much of an argument.
>
> Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for
> International Peace and transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall
> Fund, writes a monthly column for The Post. His latest book is
> "Dangerous Nation," a history of American foreign policy. He has been
> advising John McCain's presidential campaign on an informal and unpaid
> basis.
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss