Obama foreign policy no different from Bush

Barack Obama says “we must not rule out using military force” against Iran and Syria, and both the Army and Marines will need substantially more troops. But he promises to bully less and listen more. Whatever that means. An allegedly kinder, gentler imperialism under president Obama still means invading other countries. I’m sure someone in Iran whose home is blown up by assault helicopters will appreciate his promise to listen more.

Of course it wouldn’t be kinder and gentler at all, and his policy is no different from that of Bush for any country that would be invaded.

“People around the world have heard a great deal of late about freedom on the march,” Obama writes. “Tragically, many have come to associate this with war, torture, and forcibly imposed regime change.”

Golly, now why would anyone think that? Rather than deal with the root cause, an invasion based on lies, Obama instead ignores it, promising trust me instead, even as he supports future invasions.


  1. I had to comment since this was one of the dumbest things I’ve ever read. Saying that we shouldn’t rule out military action is a sensible thing to say. It’s completely different from saying that we need to invade.

  2. You write as if Obama is unique in this. Show me a candidate that promises no military intervention and I’ll show you, well, not a Democratic-Republican– and not the next President, either. Clinton was an interventionist, and even Cart refused to rule it out (remember the Carter Doctrine?).

    The sad fact is, what we get to choose for our next President is not military vs. non-military approaches, but the degree to which he/she has thought through non-military options as a potential alternative to military “solutions.” There are very few candidates for which that degree rises above insignificant. Once again, we’re faced with trying to identify the best of a very poor lot.

  3. Silly me, of course the imperial United States should, by dint of its innate superiority, be allowed to invade anyplace it wants. Even if the country being invaded poses no demonstrable threat.

    Of course, Vietnam, and now Iraq, are showing the stupidity of such arrogance.

  4. That’s why ANSWER is saying, let’s put a million people in the streets in DC and make it the biggest antiwar protest ever. Because that will influence the election.

Comments are closed.