Where do I start?
The US's uncompromising stance over the past 65 years has been the reason we are in the mess we are in now.
Who organised the coup which overthrew Mossadegh and led directly to the upsurge in Islamic fundamentalism which eventually led to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran?
Who funded the Taliban to fight the Russians which led directly to the founding of Al Quaeda?
Who supported Israel no matter what which has led to the quagmire which is the Palestinian question?
Who invaded Iraq thereby providing a rallying point and haven for Islamic extremists and detabilising the region?
Aren't we glad we took a hard line on things so that the worlds would be a safer place? NOT!
This is incoherent pap and ideological drivel masquerading as analysis

You are certainly right about vigilance, Fractelle, but vigilance can also be immoral - it all depends who is running the show.

Certainly Israel is vigilant, as she proves when she knocks out any new installation that could be nuclear while though small, she has one of the most deadly up to date nuclear set-ups herself.

Though I admit that OLO is needed in times such as these, but would prefer there to be something more scientific to work on.

Such as the scientific study of power balances, for example, now only carried out in universities because outside there are so many arguments that still appear to hold water, all too often more right wing than left wing.

There is little doubt that there will be more such problems coming up, as already is happening now with us attacking Obama?

I couldn't believe how blindly biased (not to mention - incorrect) this "opinion piece" was until I read that the author works at Heritage Foundation. Then it all made sense. Who next to grace these pages? Rush Limbaugh?

Mental Note: next time heck the author's affiliation first before wasting time with right-wing riff-raffs.

Windchimer,
"Who next to grace these pages?"
How many times must I tell you...
The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind...

Bushbred

Yes, vigilance can only go so far.

Another way of perceiving the impact of this article is the swift response, by many here, to highlight its lack of objectivity, evidence and display its underlying agenda; to malign anything that even hints at moves towards an equitable egalitarian society.

I find the neo-lib response to a mere 100 days of Democrat leadership as over-reacting in the extreme.

For a final word check out Jon Stewart's take on "Baracknophobia".

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=223862&title=Baracknophobia---Obey

shal; very nicely put!!