Obama the Interventionist

It is probably impossible for many liberals to give up their ecstacy and illusion about Obama but here is a reminder from the past of what he represents in foreign policy. It is the same hubris and moral posturing that one finds in the Bush administration.
First there was Christian Right-Wing Evangelism and now we have Liberal Evangelism. The latter is no better than the former.

[Washington Post - April 29, 2007

Obama the Interventionist
By Robert Kagan

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.