Obama just announced the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades

[babylonsister]

http://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5757630/obama-foreign-policy-anti-war-speech-doctrine

Obama just announced the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades

Updated by Max Fisher on May 28, 2014, 12:40 p.m. ET @Max_Fisher [e-mail]


President Obama speaks at West Point JIM WATSON/AFP/Getty Images


President Obama made a commencement speech at West Point on Wednesday that the White House had aggressively billed as a grand articulation of Obama's foreign policy vision. This was not the first time he had attempted to lay out a foreign policy doctrine, and few expected much more than the usual vague policy mish-mash — when it's year six of your presidency and you still need to explain your doctrine, it's not a great sign that you really have one.

So it was a legitimate surprise when Obama articulated a unified, tightly focused vision of America's role in the world. And while it's not a vision that will thrill many foreign policy hands, including perhaps some of those in his administration, it is the clearest Obama foreign policy doctrine he's made in years: no war, no militarism, no adventurism. With the possible exception of Jimmy Carter's 1977 Notre Dame speech, it may well have been one of the most dovish foreign policy speeches by a sitting US president since Eisenhower.

Obama argued, directly and repeatedly, that the US would have to reduce its use of military force as a tool of foreign policy. Obama argued that the US could not and should not use military force, including even limited actions such as off-shore strikes, except when absolutely necessary to defend "core interests" or to "protect our people, our homeland, or our way of life."

That's a very high bar for the use of military force. Obama didn't just make the point abstractly, going through several major US foreign policy changes to explain why, in each, military force was not and should not be applied.

snip//

This doctrine means less of putting Americans into harms way, less of committing the United States to difficult and far-away conflicts, but it also means accepting some problems and risks as just a fact of life, beyond our ability to fix. As an example, he pointed to the Nigerian terrorist group Boko Haram as a problem the United States had to admit it couldn't solve. "Tragically, no American security operation can eradicate the threat posed by an extremist group like Boko Haram," he said, adding that "global leadership requires us to see the world as it is, with all its danger and uncertainty."

The Obama administration had previewed the speech as staking a middle ground between military adventurism and old-fashioned isolationism, and on the merits Obama did articulate such a foreign policy doctrine, one that replaces military-led foreign policy with multilateral diplomacy and alliance-building.

But, in execution, doing away with militarism and the use of force will be the much easier half of that. It's relatively easy to not order a cruise-missile strike or troop redeployment. Replacing that hard military power with soft power, and making it work, is a lot harder. Obama's got two years to prove to the world that he can do it. If he wants to see his superdove foreign policy doctrine survive beyond his time in office, he'll have to do a lot more with this doctrine than make speeches about it.

[Autumn]

1. He does give one hell of a good speech.

[babylonsister]

4. You sound pretty negative to me. Give me an anti-war prez ANY DAY. nt

[Autumn]

26. You don't think he gives good speeches?

wow

[Cha]

100. Yeah, not hard to have her number or any of the ODSers.. whose

mission is to jump on a positive PBO thread and spew their pot shots.

And, then act like they gave him a fucking compliment. Disingenuous bullshit.

[Pharaoh]

23. He does say the right things

But doesn't seem to follow through on much. On the bright side,he's not Mitt Romney!

[Autumn]

27. Well there is that

he's not Mitt Romney! Thank God.

[Skittles]

76. not being Mitt Romeny is pretty fucking low bar

very low indeed

[Autumn]

85. Right, that bar is pretty fucking low

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. What has he said ...

But hasn't followed through on?

[ConservativeDemocrat]

75. Here is where you'll get a litany of complaints...

...stemming from things that the Republicans in Congress have done.

Just watch. This is the D.U.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[1StrongBlackMan]

82. I suspect you're right. eom.

[Pharaoh]

95. Obama signs 'Monsanto Protection Act' written by Monsanto-sponsored senator

http://rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/


United States President Barack Obama has signed a bill into law that was written in part by the very billion-dollar corporation that will benefit directly from the legislation.

On Tuesday, Pres. Obama inked his name to H.R. 933, a continuing resolution spending bill approved in Congress days earlier. Buried 78 pages within the bill exists a provision that grossly protects biotech corporations such as the Missouri-based Monsanto Company from litigation.

With the president’s signature, agriculture giants that deal with genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and genetically engineered (GE) seeds are given the go-ahead to continue to plant and sell man-made crops, even as questions remain largely unanswered about the health risks these types of products pose to consumers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

97. Was that a response to my question? ... eom.

[Progressive dog]

110. So refusing to destroy the economy because of

Monsanto makes you angry.
I'm curious as to which crops grown now, you believe not to be man made.

[Cha]

101. Yeah, you'd actually have to know the Obama Admin's record of history to realize how ignorant your

statement is.

[Rex]

103. I think he gives the best speeches out of any POTUS I have ever heard.

The man knows what he wants to say and says it.

[Autumn]

105. First time I ever heard him speak he had me in tears.

I told my Husband then Obama would be President.

[Rex]

107. I didn't know anything about him before he ran for office.

It was so refreshing hearing someone that was intelligent and kind; as opposed to the 8 years of hell we went through with stupid evil men starting wars for profit and showing disdain toward the populace.

[randys1]

2. Why that no good cut and run commie

[LynneSin]

3. Two major powerhouses have invaded Afghanistan and yet no one has ever beat them

And this isn't exactly a country with a massive military of it's own. They just win because they have homefield advantage and players who have no problem dying for their cause.

[Hekate]

24. Afghanistan was called the Graveyard of Empires. Bush was an ahistorical idiot, but you knew that

It's very mountainous -- and the people have an aversion to being conquered.

[Aerows]

34. Alexander the Great lost there

The British Empire lost there, and the Soviet Union lost there. In between Alexander the Great and the British Empire, there were a HOST of different empires, but few were stupid enough to fool around taking Afghanistan because what you would end up getting if you "conquered it" wasn't worth the expenditure.

Now we have been stuck there for over a decade with exactly what every other empire had to show for attempting to conquer it. Spilled blood, expended treasure and little or nothing to show for it.

[ieoeja]

112. Alexander the Great lost there?

His empire ruled Afghanistan for centuries!

Afghanistan had been ruled by foreign powers for thousands of years until fairly recently. They have only had self-rule for about 150 years. And they needed a Russian Army to help them achieve that. In fact, Afghanistan has never "defeated" an enemy without backing from another foreign power.

In truth, Afghanistan has been the world's punching bag for thousands of years.

"Graveyard of Empires" is a line from a poem. If we're going to put poets in charge of national security then lets send the Marines after the Jaberwock, and get the NSA busy locating the Cheshire Cat.

[LynneSin]

36. Hell I knew they were fighting against an army...

that was trained by our CIA and armed with our equipment.

Osama Bin Laden was one of the Freedom Fighters who received CIA training during the Soviet invasion. They were the perfect tool for us to use during the cold war.

[Ikonoklast]

68. Bin Laden was never trained by the CIA. That misinformation gets repeated constantly here.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/rand-pauls-bin-laden-claim-is-urban-myth/

Bin Laden complained because he didn't receive any CIA money or training.

[freshwest]

78. Thank You! Bookmarking that website now. We are not in charge of the world, that's a myth.

[Maedhros]

90. But arming Syrian rebels to fight Assad won't come back to bite us.

Not this time!

[LynneSin]

92. I know - it doesn't settle well in my stomach either

I know the intentions are well meaning but I've read too much about stuff like this in the past to know that I have a bad feeling about this.

[Aerows]

37. SEVERAL major powerhouses over the centuries have met their end

trying to conquer Afghanistan. All of them learned that it wasn't worth what they would get out of even "subduing" it, much less "conquering" it. You have a nation that is so mountainous and has such odd weather and terrain that the home field advantage isn't just a minor advantage. Add in, as you say, players that have no problem dying for their cause (or sacrificing anyone that isn't 100% for the cause, and expendable) and you get a recipe for disaster for those attempting to take it over.

If you conquer it, what do you really get, anyway? An area of the world where you have to have specialized knowledge of the terrain and weather to even survive, much less thrive and build industry.

[LynneSin]

43. Ok in the last 40 years

I knew others have had issues

[Aerows]

44. Oh, I agree

I was just expounding on your point .

[L0oniX]

74. But ...but ...but the Taliban = Al Qaeda. The Taliban attacked us on 911!

[JaneyVee]

5. I applaud him for not buckling to neocon pressures.

Crazy to imagine how many wars we would be in if the rightwing had its way.

[Puzzledtraveller]

8. I think we are no longer able to tell the difference

as far as what waging war looks like. I think the days of military mobilization, force of numbers and boots on the ground are over. War will be waged covertly, economically, and socially through use of internet, social media etc.. War is unpopular so long as it looks like "war". It's even easier now because who needs an act of congress to destabilize and crash a foreign entity?

[JaneyVee]

12. The rightwing will gladly remind you exactly what

War looks like. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, etc.

[Puzzledtraveller]

64. Not anymore.

[1StrongBlackMan]

39. Curious ...

Do you suppose that national interests (even those you disagree with) end ... ever?

[LynneSin]

41. The rightwing doesn't want Obama starting wars

they'd rather fight Obama and make him look ineffective and fearful of using our troops.

ANd they know that if Obama started a war he'd probably plan it better than the 2 that Bush did. You know crazy things like Exit strategies so we spend the minimal amount of time in that country and get the job done. Clinton did not spend excessive time in Yugoslavia and 20 years later the country seems to rebounding just fine. Sure it's about 5 new countries now but there seems to be more peace today than back in the 90s.

Long wars means opportunities for War Profiteers to make money off our govenrment like how Halliburton and Blackwater scammed billions of our money off of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Iliyah]

114. Syria, Libya, Russia, to name a few.

USA military would probably be privatized by now alongwith majority of governmental run facilities.

It take more strength in peaceful means than war. Thank Mr. President!

[MohRokTah]

6. He's a tyrant, a hypocrite, blood on his hands EVEIL EVIL EVIL!!!

In before the anti-Obama crowd shows up.

[babylonsister]

15. Good job. You 'almost' beat them! :) nt

[freshwest]

28. Don't worry, that train's never late. MSM will be tearing its hair thinking of ways to diss it.

Last edited Wed May 28, 2014, 08:51 PM - Edit history (2)

Ooh, see the sexy little winky-winkies of those two. Oh, boy!

So Palin will finally ask Putin to marry her. They could set up a kingdom mixing Siberia and Alaska.

On second thought, Putin likely has better taste than to go for Sarah. Really...

On third thought, Vladimir, please take her, she's yours! I'm begging you...

[sheshe2]

69. +1!

[freshwest]

79. I added a picture of the love birds. KICK!!!

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Yeah, but what about our secret wars? And our secret CIA armies?

Pakistan

Afghanistan

Yemen

Syria

Somalia

Libya? Who knows? It's a secret.

[Puzzledtraveller]

9. See my reply #5

Spot on, the days of "War" looking like war are over.

[Maedhros]

30. The Administration says one thing, and does another.

http://www.thenation.com/article/179050/why-us-military-averaging-more-mission-day-africa

The numbers tell the story: ten exercises, fifty-five operations, 481 security cooperation activities.

Whenever one considers U.S. military operations, what the Government says...

For years, the US military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are small scale. Its public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on that continent, including a remarkably modest presence when it comes to military personnel. They have, however, balked at specifying just what that light footprint actually consists of. During an interview, for instance, a US Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokesman once expressed worry that tabulating the command’s deployments would offer a “skewed image” of US efforts there.

...means very little.

What the Government does is what is important:

It turns out that the numbers do just the opposite.

Last year, according AFRICOM commander General David Rodriguez, the US military carried out a total of 546 “activities” on the continent—a catch-all term for everything the military does in Africa. In other words, it averages about one and a half missions a day. This represents a 217 percent increase in operations, programs and exercises since the command was established in 2008.

The current Administration has overseen a tripling in military activities in Africa while simultaneously claiming only a "light footprint" there.

In addition, the Administration is prolonging our involvement in Afghanistan to at least 2016 and has budgeted $400 million to finance “Expeditionary Warfare; Irregular Warfare; Special Operations; Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations.”:

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/28/exclusive_new_document_details_americas_war_machine_and_secret_mass_of_contractors_in_afghanistan/

On Tuesday, following his surprise Memorial Day visit to Bagram Air Force Base outside Kabul, President Obama announced that the United States plans to keep at least 9,800 U.S. troops in Afghanistan until 2016, further delaying the end of what he calls “America’s longest war.”

But in his remarks at the White House, the president didn’t say that the nearly 10,000 U.S. troops he’s asking to remain in an “advisory role” will be augmented by a huge army of private contractors. As they have in Iraq, contractors will vastly outnumber the U.S. uniformed forces training Afghan troops as well as the special operations forces providing counterterrorism operations against what the president called “the remnants of al-Qaida.”

The role of contractors in the Afghanistan war is spelled out in a document obtained by Salon from SAIC, one of the nation’s largest military and intelligence contractors. The document, an unclassified PowerPoint presentation, shows exactly how contractors have been used in that war since 2009, when Obama endorsed a surge of 33,000 troops and a counterinsurgency strategy in the war against the Taliban. Those policies increased the U.S. presence in Afghanistan to more than 100,000 troops.

One of the PowerPoint slides defines the four “mission areas” of the company’s five-year, $400 million contract with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory, which provides contracted services to other combat commands, special forces and other parts of the U.S. military. They are “Expeditionary Warfare; Irregular Warfare; Special Operations; Stabilization and Reconstruction Operations.”

There, in black and white, is proof positive of how deeply contractors have penetrated the U.S. war machine.

[1StrongBlackMan]

38. Curious ...

Do you suppose that national interests (even those you disagree with) end ... ever?

[Maedhros]

48. Not at all.

I'm just not placing any value on the President's speech. I see too much actual policy in action that contradicts his words.

If he wanted an "anti-war" foreign policy, he would have implemented one by now.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. Isn't that what he's doing? ...

And make no mistake, "Anti-war" should not be confused with abandoning US interests abroad ... whether you agree with them (with your limited information) or not.

[Maedhros]

55. Training Syrian rebels? Training African rebels and tripling military operations there?

Sending mercenaries in large numbers to Afghanistan?

This is the same modus operandi used by Reagan in Central America. Democrats used to object to that sort of thing.

[1StrongBlackMan]

60. You don't see a difference in ...

supporting the people of a nation fighting for self-determination (through training and even through the use of mercenaries) and the supporting of despots of the 1980s?

Democrats used to be able to discern and make informed distinctions.

[Maedhros]

61. That's exactly how our operations in Central America were described.

Remember, we were funding "Freedom Fighters."

Bottom line: I don't trust any American military explanation. They have lied to us over and over and over again, and there is no real reason to expect that they will suddenly be truthful.

[1StrongBlackMan]

84. Are you attempting to compare ...

the Syrian Rebels that deposed there totalitarian ruler with the anti-communist Sandinastas? Really?

Bottom line: I don't trust any American military explanation.

This is clear ... I doubt there is very much by way of governmental explanation that you trust, period.

[Maedhros]

86. The Sandinistas opposed the Somoza Regime, which was a client state of the U.S.

The Sandinistas were socialists.

But no, I'm not drawing any direct comparisons between specific regimes. I'm simply pointing to the big picture, which hasn't changed since Reagan: the United States finances opposition groups in an effort to destabilize regimes we don't like, and props up dictatorships that we do like. And the "we" in that sentence refers not to the American people, but to the powerful interests that directly benefit from our paramilitary meddling (e.g. United Fruit Company).

I find it highly unlikely that anyone in our military command structure is concerned in the tiniest of ways about human suffering under the brutal Assad dictatorship or that such suffering is the motivating force behind arming the Syrian rebels. Were that the case, we would have not sold arms to Bahrain as they brutally cracked-down on pro-democracy demonstrators:

http://www.propublica.org/article/americas-arms-sales-bahrain-crackdown

Despite Bahrain’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the U.S. has continued to provide weapons and maintenance to the small Mideast nation.

Defense Department documents released to ProPublica give the fullest picture yet of the arms sales: The list includes ammunition, combat vehicle parts, communications equipment, Blackhawk helicopters, and an unidentified missile system.

We like Bahrain's dictator, so we help him kill his own people. We don't like Assad, so we wail and gnash our teeth about human suffering and arm "freedom fighters" to further weaken him. Bonus points for those "freedom fighters" being designated as "terrorists" prior to our need to use them.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. My bad, I meant the "Countras" ...

{Brain fart}

But the big picture is what is the alternative in pursuing our national interests ... Isolationism doesn't work and in the real world it's a razor thin line between Humanitarian aid and government destabilization.

[Maedhros]

89. My stance is this:

if our national interests require us to wage constant brushfire wars across the globe, then we need to change our national interests.

And honestly, who on an ostensibly Liberal discussion board could disagree? "Our" national interests have nothing to do with you or I or any other American citizen. Global corporations set our national agenda. How do American citizens benefit from drone strikes in Yemen? Continued access to cheap oil? Why not spend the money on military activities on R&D for electric cars instead? Instead of spending trillions of dollars on unsuccessful wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, use it to transform our national energy infrastructure to phase out fossil fuels. Anyone can see that doing so gives us better return on our investment than endless wars.

The only reason we don't do it is because "our" national interests aren't really ours.

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. I will respond ...

though I'm certain, to no effect.

if our national interests require us to wage constant brushfire wars across the globe, then we need to change our national interests.

Change our national interests? Yeah ... Okay.

The only reason we don't do it is because "our" national interests aren't really ours.

I disagree. I'm seeing a fundamental difference of perception/trust ... I Know that the national decision-makers, including the officials that I elect, have access to more information, and analysis of that information than I, so I trust they will act in my interest; whereas, you do not.

I'm good with our form of government, though there are areas/issues that I question and attempt to influence.

[Maedhros]

99. Follow the money.

It's all about transferring public wealth to private coffers. Armed conflict is the most efficient method of doing that with no questions asked.

[woo me with science]

98. "'Our' national interests aren't really ours."

Well said.

[ozone_man]

65. Sure sounds like arming the contras all over again.

It is a style difference, between putting U.S. boots on the ground and funding "rebels" to do the dirty work. Obama is arming Syrian rebels again, so this speech doesn't carry much truth. Covert actions are his style.

[Maedhros]

88. It's the same playbook that's been around since Reagan (and before).

American foreign policy has been consistent for 40 years.

[woo me with science]

10. Let us know when the pretty words translate into policy.

This administration has well over 100,000 mercenaries in Afghanistan.

*And* is escalating in Syria...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025005755
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025004518

*And* carrying out a massive military expansion in Africa...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023624852
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023796845

*And* continuing the drone slaughters in multiple countries with which we are not at war.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024377570

Be honest. We can't even tell anymore how much of our budget is being poured into warmongering anymore, it is so deliberately concealed and misrepresented in budgeting and secrecy and this travesty of a "War on Terror."

[OnyxCollie]

19. +1. nt

[Maedhros]

32. Yes, indeed.

The very identity of who we are fighting is "classified."

http://www.propublica.org/article/who-are-we-at-war-with-thats-classified

In a major national security speech this spring, President Obama said again and again that the U.S. is at war with “Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated forces.”

So who exactly are those associated forces? It’s a secret.

At a hearing in May, Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., asked the Defense Department to provide him with a current list of Al Qaeda affiliates.

The Pentagon responded – but Levin’s office told ProPublica they aren’t allowed to share it. Kathleen Long, a spokeswoman for Levin, would say only that the department’s “answer included the information requested.”

A Pentagon spokesman told ProPublica that revealing such a list could cause “serious damage to national security.”

“Because elements that might be considered ‘associated forces’ can build credibility by being listed as such by the United States, we have classified the list,” said the spokesman, Lt. Col. Jim Gregory. “We cannot afford to inflate these organizations that rely on violent extremist ideology to strengthen their ranks.”

I am so tired of this Adminstration's damned obfuscation of EVERY.SINGLE.THING.

[MisterP]

40. Libya, the Surge, the last-minute dash to keep us in Iraq, PAKISTAN, Yemen,

Last edited Thu May 29, 2014, 12:48 AM - Edit history (3)

the Philippines, plus support for Riyadh, Tegucigalpa, Doha, Manamah, Cairo
funny how FOR all these plans they were before they decided that faux peacemongering would shut us up--and if they keep the lies coming we can't keep up--from double taps to the NSA to Viennese flights to something more even I've forgotten!; it's not distraction, it's destabilization
note also how they only speak in superlatives--THE best President for Blacks in US history, THE most pro-poor, THE most compassionate, THE most anti-Wall Street and -Big Oil and -Big Pharma and -Big Insurance (they'll kick you out for demurring)
they keep forgetting that we're on the RECEIVING end of the Memory Holes--and they keep underestimating their opponents because they believe that we're as smitten, insular, and fixated as they are (it's much like creationists yelling "oh yeah, well HG Wells was wrong!" #micdrop: they can't understand that even though creationism is a cramped, eccentric theory that hasn't been updated since 1913, that's no reason evolution has to be the same!): they can't understand that someone can criticize Obama without hating or even caring about him, or that it all has to revolve around some other figure; they can't close their eyes without seeing Him, and thus suppose that others can't close their eyes without seeing--Greenwald, I suppose; Bill Watterson? Putin?
the rest are just Orwellian "I don't agree with everything he says and I'm not a cultist, but it's racist to call him a used-car salesman and there is no room for you on this board"

oh, and Somalia

[progressoid]

91. Well,

that's Nobel Peace Prize material!

[polly7]

96. +1000. nt.

[truebrit71]

104. Yup...i'm not buying it anymore...especially his continuation of 'American Exceptionalism'...

...it's all just words at this point...

[newthinking]

118. Truth hurts

[toddwv]

13. One graph.

[freshwest]

14. Thanks, Obama, for the Sanity!

[Cha]

17. Hey fresh.. check out #16.. :)

[Cha]

16. "Obama's West Point address, in two words.."

"Magnificently sane."

In a few more words, Obama's address, grounded in a mature appreciation of our limits, called for multilateralism--diplomatically whenever possible, militarily if inescapable; it called, given al Qaeda's fragmentation and dispersal, for global "partners" to suppress it; and, in a direct shot at his Republican critics, it called for a world-involved America that leads by example at home--not through climate-change denialism, or unratified treaties, or the obscenities of a Gitmo that the propagandists and paranoids won't close. -

MOre..
p m carpenter's commentary

mahalo babylonsistah~

[babylonsister]

21. Mahalo, Cha, and thanks for

p.m. carpenter's commentary. I lost track-I haven't seen/read him in years!

[freshwest]

31. That's very good! And so is the blog!

[sheshe2]

71. Now This I just Love!

Obama's West Point address, in two words
Magnificently sane.
- See more at: http://pmcarpenter.blogs.com/p_m_carpenters_commentary/2014/05/obamas-west-point-address-in-two-words.html#sthash.JMwU1wWk.dpuf

Thanks for the link Cha! Wonderful!

[Hekate]

18. But but but He didn't scrap this speech and eulogize Maya Angelou instead!

I swear I saw a poster here at DU say he should have canceled his commencement speech at West Point because the 86 year old poet had died. Should have given his major foreign policy speech some other time -- didn't say where or when, maybe to a kindergarten graduation class instead.

While I was channel cruising past the talking heads on cable "news" I heard some of them say that this was the most "dovish" (their words) speech given by a sitting president since Dwight David Eisenhower.

McCain probably popped a vein, but what did I see here?

Thank you so much, babylonsister, for your post. Eventually I hope to see/hear the whole speech online, just not tonight, as I am going out to see a play.

PS: I loved Maya Angelou and have already posted the entirety of "Phenomenal Woman" in two places at DU. But I have no pressing presidential duties.

[Whisp]

22. I saw that one too.

oiy oiy oiy.

[Cha]

33. I'm betting Maya would have approved. thanks Hekate nm

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. More amazingly ... well, almost is ...

after this policy announcement, DUers are complaining that the US continues to pursue its foreign policy interests ... in a whole different manner.

I suppose the DU agenda is for the US to draw its head, legs/feet and tail into our shell and hope like hell our enemies don't flip us over.

[Hekate]

51. Unfortunately, isolationism has never worked. We have to engage with the world.

I just finished listening to PBO's speech on White House.gov, and it deserves a lot of thought. It was exceptionally intelligent, sane, everything we could ever hope for. As he said, military might is a tool, like a hammer, but not all challenges are nails. And he said this at West Point.

This will be known as the Obama Doctrine. As always, the main obstacles will come from the RW.

I understand why the GOP will be bitching and moaning, but I don't understand my fellow DUers. At all.

[1StrongBlackMan]

54. Well ...

I understand why the GOP will be bitching and moaning, but I don't understand my fellow DUers. At all.

I suspect for the same reason ... &quot President) OBAMA!!!!"

[YvonneCa]

70. There is a libertarian...

...contingent here lately.

[freshwest]

83. The Libertarians are also going after Obama in the VOX comment section. Might lose some of those

profitable deals they have making war, anti-war warriors that they are...

And there are, as the article states, some drawbacks to his policy. No more wars, no more crusading. Let the people of other nations decide what they want to have. And we might not like what they decide.

Just sdwe do here, applying American principles but ramming our 'ideals' down their throats.

You can bet a lot of people are sharpening their knives and loading their rifles with more outrage. The world paradigm they thought was the only one possible, is ending:

The ones you are noticing are more terrified than anything else. They are lashing out because they are comfortable; and to acknowledge what is happening is a threat to that comfort.

Ignore them, for they are not the voices that will rise in the coming days, months and years. They are not the voices of our collected humanity.

They are the old voices of fear and impotence.

~ Anonymous

Pretty sure the Paul cult will not give Obama any credit for this... They'll find another reason to hate.

[freshwest]

81. The Pauls, et al, won't give him any credit for this, will they? They'd rather die first...

[truedelphi]

20. Since drones and foreign but American-supported rebels will do the fighting,

The American public never needs to know about any future wars.

There is an interesting graphic making the rounds on Facebook, that has to do with the 27 military operations our nation is supporting on the African continent.

[gwheezie]

25. I prefer the new foreign policy

I was against the afghan surge. I believed Obama looked at all the reports and advice and didn't want to be the president that lost a war, we already lost in Iraq, it would be 2 wars lost while he was president. I think he listened to the generals, presidents should not listen to the generals about what our foreign policy should be, the president should gather any information they need, make a decision and then tell the generals to make it so.

[bpj62]

111. Lost Iraq?

Can you clarify your comments please. The U.S. did not lose in Iraq. President Obama campaigned on ending the U.S. involvement in Iraqi affairs and he did just that. There was no surrender, no peace talks. We simply ended our combat operations and came home. I was against the war in Iraq from the beginning but to say we lost it is not an accurate statement at all. I also don't believe that we went in to Afghanistan with the intention of conquering it. The Taliban was hiding Al Qeada members in the hills of Tora Bora. The US problem was that Bush quickly got bored with chasing people in the mountains and decided to focus on his real target, which was the oil in Iraq. We should have been out of Afghanistan by 2005 at the latest. President Obama has listened to his generals an he has also listened to his foreign policy advisors as well. Bush only listened to his inner circle and he ignored or removed any staff officer who disagreed with his decisions. Most generals do not want to waste their troops lives.

[sulphurdunn]

29. Does this mean we can just give

the MIC the money upfront and bag the wars, kinda like we do with big banks in the hope they won't tank the economy again?

[iamthebandfanman]

42. No to militarism.. but..

yes to not withdrawing our good will from the world just because of the mistakes of some administrations (why we have elections supposedly)...

I think the united states should still strive to lead the world to human unification and play an active role in diplomatic and aid programs...

its a good thing when we lead.. if we are leading by example and for the right reasons... the promotion of 'the golden rule' (the great unifying morality) over specific religious ideology should be a part of our hearts and minds strategy with the world.

[mwrguy]

45. Best President Ever

Fuck the naysayers.

[freshwest]

62. Yes!

[jwirr]

47. This is why I voted for him. Now please follow through Mr. President.

[lovemydog]

49. Thank you President Obama

Now let's get strong majorities in Congress to help us too.

[MisterP]

52. Cegelis, Lamont, McKinney, Halter, Romanoff, Sestak, Grayson, Kucinich, Buono, Davis ring any bells?

[lovemydog]

58. Yes!

We need more like them in Congress!

[freshwest]

80. Yes, this was all done on the local level by the GOP. Fight back close to home and GOTV!

[lovemydog]

94. Most definitely, freshwest

I'm involved in local elections, in terms of voting in every one of them. This next congressional election I'm going to be even more involved. I want to help get people to the polls. Think globally, act locally!

[Todays_Illusion]

56. Libertiarians at Vox.com while selling anti-war: Attack President for anti-war policy message.

Such boors. Apparently the law from libertarians and conservatives, President Obama must not be mentioned except as an attack target.

[freshwest]

63. You have defined the situation perfectly. Thanks.

[G_j]

57. anti-traditional war

and they're working on those robots also. As a life time peace activist, my definition of anti-war is pretty simple. Certainly, smaller pinpoint wars may be less destructive. However, one of the big advantages of drones, in their eyes, is that Americans are not killed. The reality of war is changing. I applaud any moves away from solving conflicts with violence. We really need a Department Of Peace.

[IronLionZion]

59. See, no difference between the parties

so might as well sit out the election.

I'm glad someone in power is willing to give peace a chance.

[mountain grammy]

66. Sanity sounds good to me.. thanks Obama.

[freshwest]

67. VIDEO for you:

Watch Obama's commencement address at West Point

Published on May 28, 2014

President Barack Obama defended his foreign policy Wednesday during a commencement address at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York.

Also posted at the BOG.

Thanks, babylonsister for bringing this news here. This is where Obama has been leading a nation kicking and screaming for six years now. Step by step.

"This is foreign policy the Obama way."



Thanks to you for that, too:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/110222383

[Iliyah]

116. hallelujah

GOPer, Libertarian, complete right wackos kill first and take whatever resources they have.

[L0oniX]

72. Well ...it's not like he needs MIC money anymore.

I guess the MIC will give it to Hillary instead.

[sheshe2]

73. Brava, babylonsister.

Great speech!

Ough ohhhh....naysayers 5 O'clock high. Prepare for incoming..... Ooop's they are already here.

[ucrdem]

77. Wow.

The things ya miss over a holiday weekend!!

[Doctor_J]

102. When he ENACTS "the most anti-war foreign policy doctrine in decades",

including gigantic cuts in the "defense" budget, huge base closures, and layoffs of thousands of merc's, I will rec. Until then I'll file this one with "I will inssist on a public option" and "I will put on my comfortable shoes (and support organized labor)".

[truebrit71]

106. Yup. Weren't we supposed to see the "real" Obama after he won his second term...

...and he didn't have to worry about get re-elected again?

Or maybe we've been seeing the real Obama all along and we were just fed a bunch of Hope and Change in a bunch of pretty speeches..

[Doctor_J]

108. Some of us were afraid of that very thing

If he can fight for and enact one major piece of progressive or populist legislation before he's done, he might still go down in history as an actual successful Dem. Right now he's looking at Heritage Care, drones, Race To The Top, Fracking, and TPP (and proposing SS cuts, which congress won't let happen yet). Not too good

[tclambert]

109. Doesn't he understand the point of foreign policy is to identify a list of evil nations

and make up reasons to start wars with them? Unless they really do develop nuclear weapons. Then just back away slowly.

[Swede Atlanta]

113. Unfortunately this is, IMHO, just window dressing............

I think he may personally be opposed to war but he is now President.

He is President with an unprecedentedly aggressive opposition.

So while he may make good speeches about being opposed to war, he has to feed the MIC on a daily basis. He has to continue to kill innocents with drones because it makes him look "muscular". That is what the GOP like.

The GOP think the best thing since sliced bread is indiscriminate killing if they are black or brown. And if they happen to be Muslim - yeah extra points.

Obama has fallen into the trap of believing indiscriminate killing is being masculine. It is not. It is being a coward.

[KG]

115. as if.

[IrishAyes]

117. I'm not going to argue policy or anything else with the Obama haters here; YOU DON'T LISTEN ANYWAY

What I will do is throw this in your faces:

I never loved President Barack Hussein Obama MORE than now. God bless every gray hair on his head, and SHAME ON YOU!

So go ahead and dump on me for saying that. It won't matter. I'm sick of the whole lot of you. You've completely lost credibility and any shred of respect in my eyes for acting exactly like the insane GOP. Put you in a dark closet and nobody could tell the difference.