the Hilary one is too funny...

Yeah, I agree Patricia.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/05/email-of-the--3.html

I am opposed to abortion with every fiber of my being. But so too am I opposed to torture. And to the death penalty. And to unnecessary wars. And to children going to bed hungry at night and lacking basic healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the world. And to our elderly lacking the medicines they require. Accordingly, this pro-life voter will proudly join Professor Kmiec in voting for Obama this fall. He is, after all, the most pro-life of the candidates.

Interesting article Hal, and really a great point.

what if Obama can really bring the pro choicers and pro lifers together?
Would either side be willing to listen?

Hal and Dan,

Why do you suppose he is opposed to abortion with every fiber of his being?

Don't know. Maybe he thinks like you guys do. Abortion if murder, yada yada yada.

Hal,

It sounds like you look forward to the "great black father" in Washington who will take care of you. Take a lesson from what happened to the Native Americans who looked to the "great white father" in Washington to take care of them.

I don't need anyone to take care of me Mary. I'm doing fine, even in the Bush years.

Don't know why you brought up race here. Do you see "black" man every time you see Obama? I don't.

As to the Native American issue, I'm not sure it's a good analogy. Not too many Native Americans thought the "great white father" would take care of them, despite the repeated promises of the white guys who tried to get them so sign away their lands and rights.

Obama, on the other hand, doesn't promise to take care of us. He's going to let us take our country back. Remember, "We are the ones we've been waiting for."

Hal,

That commenter from Andrew Sullivan's blog is an idiot. Obama is for legalized torture of innocent unborn/born children.

Hal,

Never mind the "race" nonsense. I spent my childhood alone in more racial diversity then you'll ever see in a lifetime.
My point is when we look to some father figure in Washington, whatever his color, to feed the hungry, manage our health care, and provide for the needs of our children, then we are in for a huge disappointment. The gov't has proved time and again its total ineptness at handling much of anything or solving any problems.

Hal,

We are the one we've been waiting for??? I didn't realize I have been waiting for myself. Exactly how does one wait for oneself?
Also, exactly how are we going to take our country back and from who?

"Hal,

It sounds like you look forward to the "great black father" in Washington who will take care of you. Take a lesson from what happened to the Native Americans who looked to the "great white father" in Washington to take care of them.
Posted by: Mary at May 18, 2008 9:04 PM"

Wow... that is one racist remark... lets not allow a black man to be president because he might kill and torture all the white people... he might put all the white people on reservations.... I am sorry but you are very stupid if you think that...

I came to this site after not post or reading for quite some time... I decided to come back and see what everyone was up to and posting about... Now I remember why I lieft in the first place.... and now I shall leave again.

Hal:

"And to unnecessary wars. And to children going to bed hungry at night and lacking basic healthcare in the wealthiest nation in the world. And to our elderly lacking the medicines they require."

I agree. We should invade Burma now for what they are doing to the Karen people.

JM,

Spare me. You're looking for something "racist".
Why is calling a black man black racist? Was my comment about the "great white father" racist?
Don't talk to me about stupid. I said nothing about killing and torturing white people or putting them on the reservation. That's your overwrought imagination running away with you. I said it as looking to someone to TAKE CARE OF US as a nation, not just white people.
Native Americans made the serious mistake of trusting the "great white father" in Washington to honor his promises and see to the needs of the Native Americans. We make the same mistake of trusting any man or woman in Washington, black, white, or purple, to honor their promises and take care of our needs.

HisMan,

For what the government is doing to the entire population of Burma who are dying en masse because the dictators refuse assistance of any kind.

Mary:

A good friend of mine is a missionary to Burma.

He has given up everything to help the Karen people. He often goes into villages at risk of life and limb.

If you go see the Rambo 4 movie, he says, this is an exact depiction of what the Burmese Army does to the Karen people and the world is silent. This is one of the most violent movies I have ever seen. Since Sly Stallone returned to Catholicism he has tried to wake up the world to what is going on there.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8763

My friend was in town a few weeks ago and all of us at the meeting prayed that God would wake up the world to the plight of the Karen people. A gentle and peace loving people.

It's a shame that Liberals spread lies, i.e. about American kids going to bed hungry at night and elderly people not getting their medication. And that we should not go to war to protect helpless and victimized people. Perhaps we should just talk to the Burmese government?

How does this relate to Obama? He's an appeaser and our enemies will be emboldedned to do whatever they want to do as 9/11 was planned during the Cllinton years while Billy was disgracing the Oval Office with Monca Lewinsky under his desk.

HisMan, the "appeaser" attack has run it's course. Everyone now realizes there is a difference between talking (the process) and appeasement (a bad, but not the only possible, result of the process. Was Reagan an appeaser when he talked to the Soviets? Sometimes you have to go talk to your enemies and let them know you mean business.

Remember, we don't make peace with our friends, we make peace with our enemies.

The good thing about Obama is that if we end up in a war somewhere, it will be the right war, for the right reasons, waged effectively. No more Rumsfield, et al, screwing things up so badly.

Hal:

An appeaser is one who recognizes an evil and rather than confront him through strength, he responds with "let's talk". And don't you dare compare Reagan to Obama. Reagan built up our military made weak by Jimmy Carter, an absolute joke of a President, before he confronted Gorbachev. Don't you remember he walked out of the Reykjavik Summit and Gorby knew Ronny wouldn't take any crap? Peace through strength, not Liberal, "can't we all just get along".

And how many years did we try to get Hussein to comply to UN resolutions?

Dictators may be cunning but they are made stupid and blinded by their own sense of self and cannot be reasoned with. They must be dealth with by total victory. Peace is not made with enemies, peace is made by absoluite victory over your enemies. We didn't make peace with Germany or Japan by talking to them, we made peace with them by bringing them to the edge of annilation and then making them submit. That's what good does to evil.

Going from IL State Senator to US Sanator for two years does not qualify one to run a war.

If Obama wins it will be because America has asked for him and God will oblige.

And a Marxist would not make a good president.

Besides, he won't win.

My point is when we look to some father figure in Washington, whatever his color, to feed the hungry, manage our health care, and provide for the needs of our children, then we are in for a huge disappointment. The gov't has proved time and again its total ineptness at handling much of anything or solving any problems.

Mary, I very much agree.

Looking ahead in time, if anything I think that worsening economic conditions for the average American will set the stage for not only a "father" figure but perhaps a "strongman" from outside the two major parties.

Hey Hal,

In what way has Obama reached out to pro-lifers? I must have missed it.

And if has never done so in the past, what reason is there to believe he will in the future?

what if Obama can really bring the pro choicers and pro lifers together?
Would either side be willing to listen?

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2008 8:49 PM

If he offers to remove Roe vs Wade and put in a constitutional guarantee of the right to life for all, unborn and born. (Before you jump all over me, I'm Canadian, so I don't know exactly how your constitution works compared to Canada's). Otherwise, why would he have anything to offer prolifers.
Right now anyone who is prolife can't practice pharmacy, obstetrics and gynecology. Anyone who is prolife in America really has no freedom of conscience. (Same in Canada btw, but much worse).

Andrew, I'm not sure Obama has reached out specifically to pro lifers, but many pro lifers seem to be drawn to him. I post links here now and then.

Especially if you define "pro life" more broadly than simply anti-abortion.

Hisman, Obama, like Reagan, also wants to make our military strong again. With the quagmire in Iraq, we're no longer a credible force to use our military strength anywhere and the "evil ones" know that.

Here our next President writing on the issue?

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

Search Archives

Advanced Search

Home

The Current Issue

Background On The News

Browse By Topic

Book Reviews

Back Issues

Academic Resource Program

Subscribe to Foreign Affairs

Search

About Foreign Affairs
Subscriber Services
Newsstand Finder
Permisssions
Advertising
Sponsored Sections
International Editions
Site Map
Contact Us

CFR.org

A daily guide to the most influential analysis from the Council on Foreign Relations, publisher of Foreign Affairs.

INTERVIEW: Probe into Olmert's Finances Imperils Israeli-Palestinian Peace Outline
May 15, 2008

INTERVIEW: Europeans Want Continued U.S. Involvement in Iraq, Middle East
May 14, 2008

INTERVIEW: The Aftermath in Myanmar
May 13, 2008

William G. HylandIn Memoriam: William G. Hyland
Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy IndexConfidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index
How to Promote Global HealthHow to Promote Global Health
What Now?Roundtable on the Iraq Study Group Report
9/11: A Roundtable9/11:
A Roundtable
Complete list �

Renewing American Leadership

Barack Obama

From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007
Article Tools

* Email to a Colleague
* Print Article

Summary: After Iraq, we may be tempted to turn inward. That would be a mistake. The American moment is not over, but it must be seized anew. We must bring the war to a responsible end and then renew our leadership -- military, diplomatic, moral -- to confront new threats and capitalize on new opportunities. America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.

Barack Obama is a Democratic Senator from Illinois and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Of Related Interest

*
Topics:
U.S. policy and politics
National security and defense

[continued...]

Our servicemen and servicewomen have performed admirably while sacrificing immeasurably. But it is time for our civilian leaders to acknowledge a painful truth: we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions. The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. This redeployment could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets the security, political, and economic benchmarks to which it has committed. But we must recognize that, in the end, only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.

At the same time, we must launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people. To gain credibility in this effort, we must make clear that we seek no permanent bases in Iraq. We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.

The morass in Iraq has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region -- and it has made many of those problems considerably more dangerous. Changing the dynamic in Iraq will allow us to focus our attention and influence on resolving the festering conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians -- a task that the Bush administration neglected for years.

For more than three decades, Israelis, Palestinians, Arab leaders, and the rest of the world have looked to America to lead the effort to build the road to a lasting peace. In recent years, they have all too often looked in vain. Our starting point must always be a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That commitment is all the more important as we contend with growing threats in the region -- a strengthened Iran, a chaotic Iraq, the resurgence of al Qaeda, the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah. Now more than ever, we must strive to secure a lasting settlement of the conflict with two states living side by side in peace and security. To do so, we must help the Israelis identify and strengthen those partners who are truly committed to peace, while isolating those who seek conflict and instability. Sustained American leadership for peace and security will require patient effort and the personal commitment of the president of the United States. That is a commitment I will make.

Throughout the Middle East, we must harness American power to reinvigorate American diplomacy. Tough-minded diplomacy, backed by the whole range of instruments of American power -- political, economic, and military -- could bring success even when dealing with long-standing adversaries such as Iran and Syria. Our policy of issuing threats and relying on intermediaries to curb Iran's nuclear program, sponsorship of terrorism, and regional aggression is failing. Although we must not rule out using military force, we should not hesitate to talk directly to Iran. Our diplomacy should aim to raise the cost for Iran of continuing its nuclear program by applying tougher sanctions and increasing pressure from its key trading partners. The world must work to stop Iran's uranium-enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. At the same time, we must show Iran -- and especially the Iranian people -- what could be gained from fundamental change: economic engagement, security assurances, and diplomatic relations. Diplomacy combined with pressure could also reorient Syria away from its radical agenda to a more moderate stance -- which could, in turn, help stabilize Iraq, isolate Iran, free Lebanon from Damascus' grip, and better secure Israel.

REVITALIZING THE MILITARY

To renew American leadership in the world, we must immediately begin working to revitalize our military. A strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace. Unfortunately, the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, according to our military leaders, are facing a crisis. The Pentagon cannot certify a single army unit within the United States as fully ready to respond in the event of a new crisis or emergency beyond Iraq; 88 percent of the National Guard is not ready to deploy overseas.

We must use this moment both to rebuild our military and to prepare it for the missions of the future. We must retain the capacity to swiftly defeat any conventional threat to our country and our vital interests. But we must also become better prepared to put boots on the ground in order to take on foes that fight asymmetrical and highly adaptive campaigns on a global scale.

We should expand our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the army and 27,000 marines. Bolstering these forces is about more than meeting quotas. We must recruit the very best and invest in their capacity to succeed. That means providing our servicemen and servicewomen with first-rate equipment, armor, incentives, and training -- including in foreign languages and other critical skills. Each major defense program should be reevaluated in light of current needs, gaps in the field, and likely future threat scenarios. Our military will have to rebuild some capabilities and transform others. At the same time, we need to commit sufficient funding to enable the National Guard to regain a state of readiness.

sorry about that, meant to cut and past only the last three paragraphs. Moderators, feel free to cut it down to size

OK Hal, I'm glad you admit that Obama has not reached out to pro-lifers. Let's be honest here, he's not going to reach out to pro-lifers. Maybe we could put this speculation to rest permanently.

And I disagree with your statement that pro-lifers are attracted to Obama. The discussion in the pro-life movement is which one would do the most damage?

What a strange comment about Obama: "the most pro-life of the candidates."

He is easily the most anti-life candidate running, and possibly the most anti-life candidate in our history. He not only supports killing unborn babies, but also killing those BORN babies that have barely escaped death by abortion.

"Most prolife"? Someone has been eating some bad mushrooms....

HisMan-

Lincoln would disagree. He had LESS experience than Obama, and yet waged the civil war, and won, preserving the U.S.

And some of our most "experienced" presidencies have turned out to be the worst. Political experience in all reality does little to aid anyone in the presidency, its a one-of-a-kind job. The same argument was used against Regan and countless other presidents. It means very little in the scheme of things, nothing is like being president of the U.S., period.

HisMan

I understand some Democrats, among them Senator Joe Biden, have expressed some very serious concern about Obama and the foreign policy he hopes to pursue. They apparently view his consideration of talking to dictators and terror supporters without pre-conditions as a dangerous violation of long standing American foreign policy.
I agree that dictators are cunning, but they are definitely not stupid. They know how to play the likes of Obama and Jimmy Carter all to well. I understand Nikita Kruschev viewed John Kennedy as some snot nosed kid and expressed his condolences to the American people for having a president such as him. Dictators and tyrants respect one thing only, those who will stand up to them. They do not respect those who come to them hat in hand hoping to "talk". Obama's naivete is not only appalling its dangerous.
Tyrants and dictators, such as the thugs in Burma, starve, neglect, torture, imprison, and massacre their own citizens. These are the people Obama thinks he can reason with and trust?

"What if Obama can really bring the pro-choicers and pro-lifers together?"

"He's going to let us take our country back. Remember, "We're the ones we've been waiting for".

"The good thing about Obama is that if we end up in a war somewhere it will be the right war for the right reasons, waged effectively"

Hal, seriously, you sound as if you are talking about the leader of a cult.

No, Mary, not a cult. But a true leader he is.

Hal,

Please just clarify the words of the true leader,
"We're the ones we've been waiting for".
I've heard of people finding themselves but waiting for themselves is a new one.

See how clever he is? We thought we were waiting for someone to fix things, but in reality, only the American people united and dedicated to change can do it. So, as it turns out, we are the ones we've been waiting for.

Hal,

Uhhhh, yeah.
I am truly spellbound by his cleverness. He has the most amazing ability to say nothing and convince people like you his every utterance is divinely inspired.
What change is he talking about and how will it come to pass, other than us no longer having to wait for ourselves?

Well, I think he'll try to elevate the tone of the public discourse. That would be a nice change. I think he'll appoint qualified people to important positions (No more Horse Club guys running FEMA). Judges more to my liking and less to yours (who actually believe the government shouldn't have unlimited power and corporations shouldn't win over people in every civil case)

I think he'll find ways to keep good paying manufacturing jobs in the US, and stengthen the dollar. Decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

I don't expect him to accomplish everything he sets out to do, and I don't even expect I'll agree with him 100% of the time, but I do know I'll sleep better at night knowing he's in charge.

Hal,

If he wants to improve the tone of public discourse he can stop whining like a petulant child every time he's criticized. Come on, going after Maureen Dowd because she made fun of his ears or he thinks Bush was criticizing him during his speech in Israel.
The best way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is to use our own resources, which we can't because of environmental wacko restrictions.
Judges to my liking? Those would be judges who interpret the law, not make it. Judges who respect the voters and do not overturn voter referendums they do not agree with. No, I don't think Obama would be inclined to pick those either.

Mary,

don't you know? Obama is allowed to critize Bush on the campiagn trail for 2 years but Bush can't critize him.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_051608/content/01125112.guest.html

The best way to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is to use our own resources, which we can't because of environmental wacko restrictions.

I heard something interesting today on the news..Chicago is #1 in the nation for gas prices? Know why? Reason #1: State and city taxes, Reason #2: Chicago is required to have cleaner fuel than the rest of the nation which costs a LOT more money. Here that environmentalists? While you're supposedly saving the Earth, you're keeping all those poor people you care about soooo much even poorer.

Great job.

I meant hear, not here..sheesh..finals make my brain hurt.

oh Jasper. I was SO depressed in 2000, and even more depressed in 2004. I know what you're going through. Don't worry, we'll make it. The times they are a changing. Not for the first time, not for the last time.

@Elizabeth: I wanted to cry filling up my tank at the De Planes (sp?) Oasis on my way out of Chicago this afternoon. Fortunately, my car is so *awesome* I made it home on a whole tank of gas. Scooooore.

However, I did have to fill it up by my parents' house when I stopped by- and gas was $3.65.

Awww, you're' back home Rae. :( I had a blast on Saturday!

I'm glad you made it home on a whole tank of gas..you rock..you have to email me the pics of all of us we took in my driveway in the dark lol!

Des Plaines?

Rae, I have never been happier to not own a car. Public transportation for only $75 a month is better than $30-40 at the pump every week. Even using the iGo cars is waaay better than paying monthly insurance premiums.

Public transportation is pretty much the only reason I don't want to move out of a big city. Having a car would be nice. Paying for it... would certainly not be.

@Elizabeth: I will! I'm actually looking for my cord to connect the camera to the 'puter.

Those pictures should prove iiiiiiiintaresting.

Luckily, it rained while I drove through Wisconsin- so my bug-coated windshield got nice and clean!

@Edyt: That's it! Thank you!

Yeah- fortunately in Minneapolis, gas is still "cheap". Relatively speaking, of course. But I need to drive a ~25 mile round trip from home to work to home again, and a bus would take far too long to make that trip- plus by the time I get off work, buses don't run that late from that area back to my apartment. Blargh.

Lol, awesome!

I can't believe we didn't take a picture in front of the aquarium....we are too smart.lol.

@Elizabeth: Yesh. We r speshul. In uh speshul, speshul wai. :D

hehehehe.

Rae,

That sucks. I used to live around Detroit and the bus/train system there sucked. EVERYONE owned cars. I really think if more cities started taking the reigns and making better transit systems, as well as improve the old, so that more people use them, it'll force gas companies to lower their prices.

And that includes cross-country transit. We have Amtrack ... but it's nowhere near as cool as the EuroRail.

Hey Doug,

Looking ahead in time, if anything I think that worsening economic conditions for the average American will set the stage for not only a "father" figure but perhaps a "strongman" from outside the two major parties.

oooooo-eeeeee-oooooo*cue twilight zone music*
Many people would say you just described the antichrist! *wink* You wanna watch that biblical thinkin' there...lol.

Elizabeth 10:42PM

Poor people are also being hit hard by higher food prices, especially in third world countries, because of this biofuel nonsense.
Its based on junk science about saving the planet and global warming. The arrogance of the human race in thinking we can control climate, something we can't even fully comprehend, anymore than we can control earthquakes is mind boggling.
Now I've read that hurricanes are not caused by global warming. Well duh, we never had hurricanes before?
That's why we will be required by law to have highly mercury toxic, and very expensive, lightbulbs in out homes by 2012. So far as I know there is no plan yet as to how these will be disposed of safely.
Another great scam is buying "carbon footprints".
Well, PT Barnum did say there's a sucker born every minute!

Mk,

I watched this special on the History Channel about the Antichrist..and everytime they talked about what the Antichrist would be like...I kept thinking..Obama, Obama, Obama. It creeped me out.

Chicago pictures!

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=2482972&l=4d33a&id=13956917

Rae,
Nice pictures! I like your captions. (Tuuuuurtles!) I wonder about the guy and the fish fountain too.

"Looking ahead in time, if anything I think that worsening economic conditions for the average American will set the stage for not only a "father" figure but perhaps a "strongman" from outside the two major parties."

oooooo-eeeeee-oooooo*cue twilight zone music* Many people would say you just described the antichrist! *wink* You wanna watch that biblical thinkin' there...lol.

Yo, MK - I figured; indeed it does sound somewhat similar. O' course, the "Antichrist" is one thing, while the tendency of cultures and civilizations is another - a thing that has been observed.

I watched this special on the History Channel about the Antichrist..and everytime they talked about what the Antichrist would be like...I kept thinking..Obama, Obama, Obama. It creeped me out.

Elizabeth, for a REAL Antichrist, check out Rick Santorum. Now that guy is creepy.