You and I disagree strongly on this exact point. Then again foreign policy isn't exactly the strong suit of American conventional wisdom, either, is it? Maybe after a couple of generations of a revitalised Peace Corps things will improve. At present it seems we have geopolitics confused with the popular board-game Risk.
Shaun , you and I have had this disagreement for over a year now .
You have to admit Obama isn't exactly singing the same tune as he was on a lot of these foreign policy positions that you find attractive.
I could argue he is much more in line with my position than yours lol.
Well, unsurprisingly I don't see it that way. I have been watching pretty closely, as have you, and it is interesting how we both feel our respective positions are reinforced by the same outcomes. My litmus test for Obama's foreign policy has been his dealing with issues relating to Israel, and AIPAC, and I condone some of his careful positioning there. The same applies to Iraq, but even the bill he authored early last year had caveats on the subject of deference to military opinion. The difference is that military opinion in an Obama administration would be based on a mission of ending the war, not continuing it.
Obama's position on Afghanistan has been consistent and, from my perspective, completely vindicated by the events of the last year, surge or no surge.
I'll vouch for Shaun, lori. He was never as far from your position as you may have assumed. It was one of the frustrating aspects of arguing with him in the primary, he was always clearly aware of Obama's position but careful with how he presented it.
