If I was to write a several hundred word diary about Barack Obama's signature foreign policy speech, ripping it to shreds based on how it was viewed through the twisted prism of some neo-con analysis, I would've bothered to read the entire speech first.
But, unfortunately, our good friend bought the neo-con spin hook, line and sinker. I'm writing this diary to unhook him and set him free.
First of all, let me start off by stating the obvious. Neo-cons can be defined in various ways, but for purposes of this discussion I think we're talking about the supporters and architects of a unilateral war on Iraq to stop so-called threats on America and to promote democracy. And, as we know, Barack Obama is the only viable presidential candidate that opposed that war and those premises from the very beginning. But I digress.
Let's check out what the neo-cons are doing, shall we? I'll focus on Mr. Kagan because he's the one that is the most disingenuous. What Kagan does is selectively cut and paste from Obama's speech and otherwise just lie about what the speech really said - and this article is the real heart of our friend's diary. I mean, just look at this paragraph from Kagan:
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?
Can you make any conclusions from that mishmash of quotations? When Obama refers to rogue nations and muscular alliances, he makes damn sure to stress that "we must use effective diplomacy" in the same breath. Notice that Kagan took that out? The "strong nuclear deterrent" line? That's from this carved-up beauty: "We can maintain a strong nuclear deterrent to protect our security without rushing to produce a new generation of warheads." In other words: No new nukes. And the rest about "seizing the moment" and a "world anew" is from Obama's ending rhetoric flourish about writing new chapters in America's history that include his father's acceptance to an American university - nothing to suggest military might. Kagan's attempt to use these quotes here starkly betrays what he's doing here.
And this was just one paragraph of Kagan's stupifyingly disengenious article. I could go line-by-line (and will do so in the comments or updates if anyone wants me to), but I'll spare you for now.
Second of all, it's not a gleeful Mr. Kagan in this article anyway, but a mocking one. He says "realists, call your doctors" at one point. At the end of the article, he accuses Obama of pandering to the debate audience last week. Kagan loves Obama? Maybe someone isn't reading the entire article either.
The point is, Obama's entire speech is replete with examples of non-military progressive foreign policy that the diarist, due to Kagan's misleading ways, misses. Obama sets out five mains points.
- End the war in Iraq he opposed to begin with. Yeah, so neo-conservative of him.
- Building the first truly 21st century military and showing wisdom in how we deploy it. Expand and better equip military, give military better benefits and care, plus more effective cultural training (like language training). Also, stresses need for international coalitions and diplomacy.
- Securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Pure security issue - but stresses need over and over for diplomacy again.
- Rebuild and construct the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats. Modernize international institutions that we belong to - esp. NATO and UN - and create others not just for military threats but also to combat threats like avian flu and global warming.
- Invest in our common humanity to ensure that those who live in fear and want today can live with dignity and opportunity tomorrow. "[D]ouble our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012 and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals...." including "a two billion dollar Global Education Fund that calls on the world to join together in eliminating the global education deficit, similar to what the 9/11 commission proposed."
Fighting global warming. Diplomacy. International institutions. Combating pandemic flu. Increasing international aid. Sure Obama wants to maintain a strong military. Yes, he made the extremely non-controversial statement that he would attack a country that looked like it wanted to attack us. The fact that he talks extensively about the military during a time of war in his first, major foreign policy address doesn't make him a Iraq-invading, Bill Kristol-loving neo-conservative. So Kagan's twist for his unsuspecting reader is this: make Obama's military talk seem like neo-con kind of talk, and obscure all that other stuff. Hook, line, sinker.
So, is Obama's "interventionism" to be feared by us? Only if you're an isolationist. I've been against the Iraq war as long as Obama. That's not my style of "interventionism." But more international aid to developing countries? More global cooperation to end nuclear proliferation? And the extremely rare multi-lateral military intervention to stop a brutal genocide? Well, that's not neo-conservatism. That's a strong, smart progressive foreign policy - and a position that other Democratic presidential candidates likely agree with. And that's why Kagan is making fun of Obama. Because that's not love you're reading in that article. That's fear. Kagan read the whole speech. And Obama's speech is a bristling indictment of Kagan's democracy-by-the-sword neo-conservative movement.