Sullivan on Obama's foreign policy piece:

Er, no. Obama has pledged to get out of the Jihadist trap in Iraq. He's a path beyond Bush-Cheney. But he doesn't appear to be in denial about the threat itself. I don't have a problem with that. In fact, isn't it precisely the strategy we need? Call it: chastened interventionism.

Repeat after me. There is no existential threat to the United States. Two things are required to destroy the United States.

1) Motive. Yes, there are people who want to destroy the US. Al-Qaeda among them. Probably lots of Iraqis and many, many others.

2) Capability. Y'know, I'd like to fly. I'd also like to make a million dollars in the next year. Wouldn't turn down a date with Scarlett Johansson. None of those things are going to happen. Many people want many things, but they never do them or get them, because they can't. Al-Qaeda can't destroy the United States. It does not have the capacity. Iran can't destroy the United States, even if it had nukes. It doesn't have the capacity. In fact there is no organization in the world, no government in the world, capable of destroying the United States, except the United States (who are, I might add, doing their damndest, and far more than Al-Qaeda ever did.)

Americans live in a world of fear. Everyone's out to gitcha, and BOOM, if you didn't get Saddam a big nuke was going to take out New York City. This fear driven discourse, against an enemy that isn't even an enemy, but a tactic as old as warfare, terrorism, is a method for keeping the peasants at home scared spitless and willing to vote right and give up their rights. You have no fly lists, which are based on nothing but some bureaucrat's say. You have to provide ID to open a bloody safety deposit box. Police can seize your posessions before you've been convicted of a crime; you can be listened in to by the security agencies without a warrant, etc, etc, etc...

None of these things will keep you safe. The things that could keep you safe, like, oh spending money on securing Russia's nuclear arsenal, don't require more troops, more "unilateral action" or any other such macho dick swinging.

Obama's paper, which I've read, is a nice little centrist piece of Washington centrist dialogue. There is nothing very interesting there. He'll "talk" more. He'll force Iran to stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas with sticks and honey. He'll add 93,000 new troops (no idea what he thinks he needs that many troops for since he says he'll leave Iraq, mostly.)

Let's look at one specific from Obama:

Finally, we must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.

Oh, you won't take military action off the table when dealing with North Korea? I'm sure the South Koreans won't mind you putting their capital at risk of being wiped off the map because you feel like playing macho man. No, actually, short of North Korea using its nukes, or doing a full scale conventional attack against South Korea, military action should be off the table, because the consequence of using it, with the North Korean army poised just north of Seoul, with huge amounts of artillery armed with chemical weapons, would be immense loss of life. Stop with the macho. If North Korea wants nuclear weapons, it can't be stopped from getting them with force, unless you're willing condemn millions of South Koreans to death. Is that what you want to do Obama? No? Then shut up with the threats.

As for Iran, maybe you could get away with it there, once troops are out of Iraq. But let's be clear – the military consensus is that it would require either the use of tactical nuclear weapons, or a sustained aerial campaign to have any chance of destroying the Iranian nuclear program. We aren't talking about a single quick strike which Iran can shrug off, we're talking about going to war with them – multiple days bombardment (maybe even weeks) or the use of nuclear weapons can't be laughed off. The Iranian response, among other things, will be to attempt to shut down the Gulf. If they succeed, and there is a good chance they will, then the world's oil artery is choked shut. Like $4/gallon gasoline? You'll wish it was so good. Like terrorism? Well, Iran is really good at terrorism and has very strong assets overseas, probably including in the US. You bomb the hell out of Iran and you will sow the whirlwind. Should military action against Iran be “on the table”? Maybe, maybe not, but it should be an absolute last resort, and it's not clear that Iran having nukes is that big a deal. As Chirac pointed out, in a moment of unguarded honesty – if they do, and they use them, they get nuked in return. Which means they won't use them, because no, they aren't insane. Does that mean Iran having nukes is good? No, obviously it's not in the US' s interests. But is it worth a war with Iran? That's an entirely different calculation, and I don't know that it is.

Now almost all candidates have given in to the impulse to talk tough on foreign affairs, that apparently being how you prove you're John Wayne in the US, or something. But when I read Edwards foreign affairs speech, and then I read Obama's what I'm struck by is this - Edwards doesn't necessarily want to expand the army and he doesn't buy into the frame of the "war on terror". He isn't playing to Americans fear, and since the unfortunate "all options" comment some time back, he hasn't been playing the macho dick-swinging game.

As usual with Obama, when the details come out, there's not much there. Yeah, he'll be better than Bush would, but so what? A ham sandwich would be better than Bush. Yes, he'll be better than the Republican field on foreign affairs, with one exception. But he hasn't reached with this speech. He's still buying into the idea that terrorism is some sort of existential threat to the US, which it isn't. He's still acting as if the problem with the US is that it needs a bigger military. I mean, you spend about 50% of the world's entire military budget. You need to spend more? You can't even afford what you're spending now. And what are you going to use it for? Planning on occupying some more countries? No? Then you don't need 92K more troops. If you are going to, which countries?

No, I don't like Obama's foreign policy paper. It's time to end the "War on Terror"; it's time to stop pretending that al-Qaeda is an existential threat to the United States. It is time to stop pretending the problem with the military is that you need more troops and more money spent on it. And it's time to stop with talk of pre-emptive warfare, as in this paragraph:

I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened...

No. No. You get to declare war when you are attacked and not before. Capiche? Americans hung Germans for the crime of pre-emptive warfare. They said it was never justified. They were right. It wasn't justified then, it isn't justified now. There is no such thing as attacking first. And besides, again, this is just out and out Orwellian bullshit. Name the country that you might possibly need to go to war with who could destroy the US if you didn't attack first? Name them! They don't exist, unless maybe he's talking about Russia. And there's nothing in his speech to indicate that, nor do I think he's talking about pre-emptive nuclear war.

So, in conclusion, no I don't like Obama's speech. Oh, there are things in it to like - some specific things like spending money securing Russia's nuclear arsenal, a commitment to have direct negotiations with Iran before using military force and a commitment to reduce America's own nuclear arsenal. These are all good things, but without an end to the politics of fear and pre-emptive war they're simply tactical considerations which don't alter the US's overall strategic stance, which is that it has the right to attack nations that haven't attacked it.

Enough. Enough with the politics of fear and the politics of pre-emptive war. Enough from Bush, enough from Obama, enough from Clinton.

It is time for Americans to stop living in fear, and it is time for their leaders to stop using or feeding that fear.