B may wish to vomit because she sees no change. I understand, but I also understand the political downside of a radical change in foreign policy too soon in the election season. People are already unsettled by his message of change (for good or ill), and he can’t get too radical.

I still insist the very fact of his name and face is a transformative “re-branding” of America across the globe. I believe he understands that the eventual resolutions of America’s biggest felt problems at this time begin in Gaza and the West Bank and not Baghdad.

I believe he will also force his foreign policy team to place more emphasis on Africa than in the past.

That said, his foreign policy will not be the radical change many in Europe might wish, including our Austrian friend. I believe something else he commits to do will have a long-term effect on foreign policy that has not been discussed much. Obama has indicated that he believes the set piece military that relies on masses of soldiers and armor required for state to meet state in battle is sooo 20th Century and that he wants to redirect the miltary towards smaller teams and asymmetrical foes. I’m not so sure that the withdrawal of brigades from Iraq might not be accompanied or followed by withdrawals of American military presence in Korea and Europe and elsewhere. I think we’re in for a sorta kinda isolationist time when America, hamstrung in Mesopotamia, wants to take a “hands off” approach to many problems in so far as being bellicose with the miltary.

I think Obama is the most likely to get jiggy with Kyoto, but I can taste some protectionist flavors in the small pie of information we have about trade policy.

By November, B, and this is important to remember about the American electorate, about 40% of American voters will only know one single thing about foreign policy: “surge or surrender?”. Another 45% will only know: “A war that never should have been authorized, never should have been fought.” Right now, they don’t even know that much. So, some of this discussion might be called … uhm … esoteric.

blogblah

I have friends who love, love, love Hillary. However, it’s almost a sympathy thing, as if they’ll feel sorry for her if she loses. And then there’s near hatred for Obama. The attitude is: look at this little black child cutting in line in front of this nice lady.

I don’t understand voting out of sympathy. Pick an issue at least.

Thanks for less math. I’m going to hit that beer now.

Did you read Obama’s speech on foreign policy? I nearly vomited. No CHANGE at all. Same nauseating old shit. More military (which at least means more health care for people who otherwise can’t afford it, that’s the American way of getting it to the poor). America is already using as much money on military as the next 20 countries of the world together. “We have to remain the no 1 in the world” blablabla. “We have nuclear weapons and all kinds of nasty stuff but others shouldn’t have them”. “The world can’t do anything without America” (it’s EU troops that are going to Darfur now BTW).

Didn’t see anything about only deploying troops abroad if America is actually attacked. Nope, that’s it for me. As long as these imperial inclinations and the megalomania are still around, there won’t be any CHANGE.It doesn’t really matter who wins, the difference in foreign policy between all candidates is hardly discernable. Same old crap.

Your ideas about how Hillary should have gone about it are excellent BTW. Indeed!. That would have been a good strategy. It never pays for a woman to try to sound and behave like a man anyway. An original never looks and acts as strained and over-the-top as does the eager copy which for that reason never comes across as authentic. And voters funnily enough do have an antenna for authenticity.

Brigitte