Obama's foreign policy plans

by: Jay Stevens

Thu Jul 24, 2008 at 23:25:27 PM MST

Okay, Berlin was more than a "little speech." It was a clear reaffirmation of Obama's intent to bring a disgraced United States back to the forefront of the international community as a leader for democratic values:

...the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.
The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

[snip]

But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America's shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

Simply put, awesome. Obviously the use of "walls" has an emotional appeal in Berlin -- they know what he's referring to...and did I ever tell you I was in Germany and Berlin for the 1989 revolution? Forget Reagan, forget consumer goods; the '89 revolution was about people, just ordinary folks, like you reading this blog, who stood up and left. They had it, and they quit the system. And that was the end.

But I digress.  

This was the spirit that was so decidedly missing from the Bush administration after 9/11. When we needed unity and a mission, we were urged to go shopping and asked for the keys to the Constitution. When we wanted to fight, you know, terrorism, we used al Qaeda and bin Laden to go after oil. When we objected, we were traitors and terrorists ourselves. Is this a chance to start again?

Yeah, I liked that speech. And isn't it cool that Obama speeches are events? It's like there's always something momentous that could happen.

The speech culminated the slow and deliberate formation of Obama's foreign policy vision, which started with a New York Times op-ed that declared the important foreign policy goal should be to reduce extremist terror, and that Iraq has nothing to do with fighting terrorism. A speech later that week clarified Obama's vision:

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy - one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century....

You know the rest. Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki endorsed Obama's timeline for pulling troops from Iraq. (Followed by  angry phone calls from US officials, and a non-retraction retraction.)

Meanwhile, McCain has been issue a series of amazing gaffes on foreign-policy issues, confusing Somalia and the Sudan, Shia and Sunni, Iraq and Afghanistan, and most recently got confused as to what Iraq war events happened when. Add that to McCain's Iraq policy -- which seems to be for permanent occupation, plus a lot of tire Bushian catch phrases, implying opposition to the occupation is akin to treason -- and Obama is looking very, very good on, supposedly, McCain's strongest issue.

Obama, on selecting a running-mate, back in April (hat tip, Steve Benen):

"I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."