Democrats should not have to act like Republicans to pass some test on national security. It's time to end the politics of fear.
November's election could be, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between two radically different visions of U.S. global engagement.
"I don't want to just end the war," Obama said, "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."
in 2002,Bill Clinton said <<Americans wanted someone strong and wrong, not weak and right>> Obama said in a January speech. "It's time to say that we are the party that is going to be strong and right."
"There is a popular notion that Democrats have to try to appear like Republicans to pass some test on national security. The fact that that's still the case after Iraq is absurd," says one of Obama's closest advisers. "So you break from that orthodoxy and say 'I don't care if the Republicans attack me because I'm willing to meet with the leadership in Iran. We haven't for 25 years, and it's not gotten us anywhere.'"
"This election is about ending the Iraq War, but even more it's about moving beyond it. And we're not going to be safe in a world of unconventional threats with the same old conventional thinking that got us into Iraq," Obama said
"For a long time we've not seen much creative thinking from Dems on national security, because, out of fear, we want to be a little different from the Republicans but not too different, out of fear of being labeled weak or indecisive," another top adviser says.
"I don't think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does,"
"Obama's foreign policies deal with root causes but do not misconstrue root causes as a simple fix. He recognizes that you need to pursue a parallel anti-terrorism [course] in its traditional form along with this transformed approach to foreign policy."

For more info : http://www.alternet.org/audits/80623/?page=1

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

Retired Air Force General Chuck Boyd tried to impart to a group of newly minted brigadier generals in July 2007 the fact that America has never won a war that lasted more than four years, with the exception of the Revolutionary War when they were the insurgents and it was Britain that tired of the faraway struggle.

Future military planners will have to recognize that American democracy, in which political mandates must be renewed in two-year increments, makes them uniquely unsuited to fight protracted counterinsurgency wars.

General Petraeus likes to observe that it takes, on average, at least nine years to prevail in such a war. If that measure is correct, Petraeus must know that there's little chance that a frustrated and angry American public will grant him enough time for success.

So the question is: How to extricate themselves in a way that minimizes the damage to the U.S., its allies and Iraq?

A good start would be for Washington partisans to take a deep breath and lower the volume, so that the process of talking and fighting that must accompany a gradual U.S. withdrawal can work.

Extricating the U.S. safely from Iraq will be difficult under the best of circumstances. But it will be impossible if the necessary bargaining takes place against a backdrop of continual congressional demands for a faster withdrawal.

In that situation a bad situation will get even worse. Why should
the Iraqis listen to the Americans today if they will be gone tomorrow?

As Sen. Barack Obama said, "I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."

Obama is right. The U.S. is on its way out of Iraq, but it matters powerfully how they disengage - most of all to the Democrats, who at this point seem likely to inherit the responsibility for America's security a few months from now.

Foxy!
As you can see, people are not interested very much for the future foreign policy of the USA, they do not care very much for peace or war.
They do not care very much if billions or trillions of dollars are wasted on weapons when millions of children die from hungry, when millions of children can not afford to go school or buy medicines, when the environment needs urgent attention and protection. They do not care if USA export <<democracy>> by guns only to countries which challenge or do not obey to them, that USA support many dictators and brutal regimes, that USA have put the gun, cowboy policy in the first place.

Foxy!
The most important is what Obama said, about his foreign policy "I don't want to just end the war," "but I want to end the mind-set that got us into war in the first place."
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

You argue very well. We can only hope that if Obama wins the election that he will be able to make the changes that he sees as crucial.

The last Democratic American President was Bill Clinton. During the Clinton years, the principal welfare safety nets were taken away and poverty in America increased, an aggressive missile 'defence' system known as 'Star Wars 2' was instigated, the biggest war and arms budget in history, was approved, biological weapons verification was rejected, along with a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, the establishment of an international criminal court, the Clinton administration effectively destroyed the movement to combat global warming.

In addition, Haiti was invaded; the blockade of Cuba was reinforced; Iraq, Yugoslavia and Sudan were attacked.

"It's a nice and convenient myth that liberals are the peacemakers and
conservatives the war-mongers," wrote Hywel Williams, "but the imperialism of the liberal may be more dangerous because of its open-ended nature - its conviction that it represents a superior form of life,"

You have raised some very valid questions Antonios.

We should all look at the desperation of people whose children are dying in their thousands every month and who are bombed almost every day by American and British planes.

Who will put aside the chessboard and explain that only when great grievance, injustice and insecurity are lifted from nations will terrorism recede?

"The time has come when silence is betrayal," said Martin Luther King.

"That time is now."

Foxy!
you are even better from what I thought! BUT do you believe what you write? are you ready to fight for your lovely, excellent ideas? or simple you are a good writer? I do not know you but I agree with you!
Foxy!

You write, --Who will put aside the chessboard and explain that only when great grievance, injustice and insecurity are lifted from nations will terrorism recede?-- <<"Obama's foreign policies deal with root causes but do not misconstrue root causes as a simple fix.>> BUT BE SURE I AGREE MORE WITH YOU THAN WITH OBAMA.
YOU HAVE GOOD IDEAS, YOU ARE WELL EDUCATED AND EXPERIENCED PERSON, WHY DO NOT DO SOMETHING AS AN ORGANIZATION, ETC TO PROMOTE, REALIZE YOUR IDEAS? YOU HAVE A FOLLOWER, A SOLDIER, A SUPPORTER. me! I mean that.
I have language problems plus I am very busy, two jobs but be sure I will find time for my ideas and YOUR FIGHT FOR A BETTER WORLD, BUT DO SOMETHING YOU CAN!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Dear Antonios,

I have been very active in politics in the past, both here in Australia, and overseas. - However I now have not only my health to deal with - but the added responsibility of looking after elderly parents and parents-in-law.
AS well as my own family.

Please forgive me - I am with you in spirit - and wish you all the best - but the only thing that I can give you - is my opinion, from time to time. I don't have the energy for more.

Take care.