Improving Obama's Foreign Policy--Seven Suggested Additions

by: Paul Rosenberg

Sat Feb 16, 2008 at 13:51


( - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)

In my previous diary, "McCain's Military Madness: Attacks Competence of Top Pentagon Brass", I argued that John McCain is wildly out of touch with military reality, as well as the will of the American people, and is actually more of a true believer in neocon-style adventurism than George Bush ever was.  Further, I said that it would only be to our advantage to have the campaign focus on military and foreign policy (not exclusively, of course!), particularly if Obama were our nominee.  I also quoted from an interview I did with McCain biographer Matt Welch, who said:

...the most prospectively frightening or worrying thing is that he [McCain] sees no downside at all to America policing the world.  He thinks anyone who sees a downside to it has a defect in his brains.

If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee you're going to have  a very clear choice on that question.

I think the single most interesting thing about Obama--to me, at least--is that he is ruining an attack campaign against  a mindset. That midset is the soft Washington consensus that always ends up endorsing war for good or for ill.

I sincerely hope that Welch is right.  Obama's continued acquiescence in voting for one war appropriation after another has sorely tested my faith.  But, here, for the sake of argument, let me embrace his interpretation, having just seen how truly dark and fearful John McCain's vision truly is. In this diary, I want to take a look at the other side--I want to look at Obama's foreign policy positions with a view toward making it even better.  In doing so, I've had in mind three things:

  1. Where is he still too beholden to conventional wisdom?
  2. Where would a stronger stand now create a claimable mandate for action that might otherwise be politically costly, if not downright impossible?
  3. Where and how could he think outside the box, to open up new possibilities that have not been seriously tried before?

The need for asking such questions is, I think, quite straightforward:

  1. The Bush Administration has so damaged our foreign policy that we need the most vigorous, no-holds-barred review and reorientation possible.
  2. 9/11 showed that even before the Bush Administration we had failed to adjust to the new realities of the post-Cold War world.  GOP attacks on Bill Clinton as anti-military and a draft dodger served to hamper his ability to initiate the sort of bold and systemic rethinking that the times required, while the collapse of the only opposing superpower left us without any feeling of urgency to take advantage of a rare opportunity for proactive action.
  3. The prolonged involvement in Iraq, deeply at odds with American public opinion, shows a strong need to find ways to bring American foreign policy much more in line with basic American values, and to enhance the participation of the American people in making decisions we will have to live with for decades to come.

In short, I am asking questions of Obama's foreign policy positions from the perspective of asking how they can be strengthened to improve the chances of getting back on track with creating a positive post-Cold War world.  
Paul Rosenberg :: Improving Obama's Foreign Policy--Seven Suggested Additions
The easiest, most natural way to critique Obama's foreign policy proposals is in terms of what's missing.  And so I offer for consideration these seven missing things:

(1) Drawing distinctions between terrorists who threaten us directly and those who do not.  While there is certainly a very real possibility that the latter may aid or abet the former, it is highly counterproductive to confuse the two, and even more counterproductive to inadvertently turn the latter into the former.

While not condoning terrorists who do not threaten us directly, such distinctions are vitally important for setting priorities, and to avoid getting drawn into morally ambiguous situations, making enemies where we could avoid direct involvement, and instead help serve as outside mediators.

(2) Drawing distinctions between terrorist means--which we should oppose across the board--and the goals which various terrorist groups may espouse.  There are no "Muslim terrorists" any more than there are "Christian terrorists,"  even if they wish to live lives very different from our own.

(3) Doing something about legitimate grievances. Legitimate grievances should not be overlooked or discounted simply because terrorists have taken advantage of them.  We should be proactive, not reactive.  We should look for problems and injustice in the world that we know in advance need to be rectified.  While it is not our job to fix everything in the world, it is only common sense for us to help others solve their most pressing problems, because, as the world's only superpower, those problems will eventually become our own if not properly attended to.

(4) Making a major platform plank out of treating our troops and veterans with renewed dignity and respect.  This includes everything from restoring the rule of law in the process of going to war to ensuring that veterans get the highest quality of care and service.  And it begins with doing away with dishonest and high-pressure recruiting techniques.  It means an end to stop-loss orders, and an end to using national guard and reserve troops as front line soldiers.  While Obama addresses some of these concerns, he does so only minimally, and absent the over-arching framework of dignity and respect:

* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle....
* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This is certainly much better than Bush and the GOP offered, but it is not enough for a Democratic President.

(5) Explicitly write the Powell Doctrine into law, and do so in such a way that it cannot simply be circumvented.  Every principle of the Powell Doctrine was violated in going to war with Iraq.  Had the Powell Doctrine been respected, we simply would not have gone to war.

The Powell Doctrine says that military force should only be used:

  1. As a last resort.
  2. If there is a clear risk to national security by the intended target.
  3. If the force used is overwhelming and disproportionate to the enemy force.
  4. If there is strong public support sufficient to last for the duration.
  5. If there is a clear exit strategy.

(Formulations vary slightly. Often added--see Wikipedia, for example--are (a) If there is a clear attainable objective, (b) If costs, risks and long-term consequences have been fully and frankly analyzed, (c) If there is genuine, broad international support.)

The only principle that came close to being met in Iraq was #3--if the mission had been defined as simply invading and deposing Saddam Hussein, with a pre-determined exit date of no more than a few months after the invasion.  However, given that there were no such conditions, none of the principles of the Powell Doctrine were honored.

(6) Take leadership in demilitarizing the world, along the lines indicated by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953.  This may not be fully practicable in the context of a campaign, but the seeds of a such an ambition can still be planted, and the rationale of doing so can be gathered from Eisenhower's his first major speech after his inauguration in 1953, the "Chance for Peace" or "Cross of Iron" speech, given on April 16, 1953.

There is a deep--if unacknowledged--contradiction in Obama's foreign policy proposals.  On the one hand, he has a set of very sensible proposals around nuclear weapons, including a proposal to "set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it"--a goal which is properly qualified this within a realist setting. On the other hand, he has a set of proposals organized under "Building a 21st Century Military" which not only takes for granted the development of "more and better" non-nuclear weapons, it promises to increase the size of the Army and Marine corps.   This latter proposal blindly ignores the fact that we still enjoy a window of opportunity extremely rare in the history of humanity--an opportunity to drastically reduce the level of armaments, and thus, the threat of war.

A template for this can be found in Eisenhower's speech.  He began by saying that "the free world weighs one question above all others: the chance for a just peace for all peoples."  He recounted how the hope for such a peace at the end of World War II had been lost as "The nations of the world divided to follow two distinct roads. The United States and our valued friends, the other free nations, chose one road. The leaders of the Soviet Union chose another."

He then laid out what those two ways were--on the one hand, a path based on cooperation, mutuality and respect:

The way chosen by the United States was plainly marked by a few clear precepts, which govern its conduct in world affairs.

First: No people on earth can be held, as a people, to be an enemy, for all humanity shares the common hunger for peace and fellowship and justice.

Second: No nation's security and well-being can be lastingly achieved in isolation but only in effective cooperation with fellow nations.

Third: Any nation's right to a form of government and an economic system of its own choosing is inalienable.

Fourth: Any nation's attempt to dictate to other nations their form of government is indefensible.

And fifth: A nation's hope of lasting peace cannot be firmly based upon any race in armaments but rather upon just relations and honest understanding with all other nations.

In the light of these principles the citizens of the United States defined the way they proposed to follow, through the aftermath of war, toward true peace.

In contrast was a vision based on force and fear:

The Soviet government held a vastly different vision of the future.

In the world of its design, security was to be found, not in mutual trust and mutual aid but in force: huge armies, subversion, rule of neighbor nations. The goal was power superiority at all cost. Security was to be sought by denying it to all others.

The result has been tragic for the world and, for the Soviet Union, it has also been ironic.

The amassing of Soviet power alerted free nations to a new danger of aggression. It compelled them in self-defense to spend unprecedented money and energy for armaments. It forced them to develop weapons of war now capable of inflicting instant and terrible punishment upon any aggressor....

And so it has come to pass that the Soviet Union itself has shared and suffered the very fears it has fostered in the rest of the world.

This has been the way of life forged by 8 years of fear and force.

What can the world, or any nation in it, hope for if no turning is found on this dread road?

The worst to be feared and the best to be expected can be simply stated.

The worst is atomic war.

The best would be this: a life of perpetual fear and tension; a burden of arms draining the wealth and the labor of all peoples; a wasting of strength that defies the American system or the Soviet system or any system to achieve true abundance and happiness for the peoples of this earth.

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road. the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

Note that this was the path chosen by the Soviet Union--but followed by the West as well.

With the death of Stalin, however, there was a chance for a new beginning,

And so, Eisenhower said,

With all who will work in good faith toward such a peace, we are ready, with renewed resolve, to strive to redeem the near-lost hopes of our day.

The first great step along this way must be the conclusion of an honorable armistice in Korea.

This means the immediate cessation of hostilities and the prompt initiation of political discussions leading to the holding of free elections in a united Korea.

He then enumerated various other trouble spots around the world, and said...

As progress in all these areas strengthens world trust, we could proceed concurrently with the next great work--the reduction of the burden of armaments now weighing upon the world. To this end we would welcome and enter into the most solemn agreements. These could properly include:

1. The limitation, by absolute numbers or by an agreed international ratio, of the sizes of the military and security forces of all nations.

2. A commitment by all nations to set an agreed limit upon that proportion of total production of certain strategic materials to be devoted to military purposes.

3. International control of atomic energy to promote its use for peaceful purposes only and to insure the prohibition of atomic weapons.

4. A limitation or prohibition of other categories of weapons of great destructiveness.

5. The enforcement of all these agreed limitations and prohibitions by adequate safeguards, including a practical system of inspection under the United Nations.

The details of such disarmament programs are manifestly critical and complex. Neither the United States nor any other nation can properly claim to possess a perfect, immutable formula. But the formula matters less than the faith--the good faith without which no formula can work justly and effectively.

The fruit of success in all these tasks would present the world with the greatest task, and the greatest opportunity, of all. It is this: the dedication of the energies, the resources, and the imaginations of all peaceful nations to a new kind of war. This would be a declared total war, not upon any human enemy but upon the brute forces of poverty and need.

Surely, if an elderly Republican President--a former general, no less--in the midst of the Cold War could think in such terms, it should hardly be too much to ask a young Democratic President--a former community activist, no less--to think along similar lines today.

(7) Democratize foreign policy-making.  The unending tragedy of the Iraq War starkly illustrates how far from democratic our foreign policy-making is.  But it's typical, rather than exceptional.  In 1998, Eric Alterman published a book, Who Speaks for America?: Why Democracy Matters in Foreign Policy, in which he first made the case that our foreign policy is deeply at odds with both what our Founding Fathers intended, and with what the American people want, and then proposed a possible solution.

The review from Publishers Weekly explains:

Alterman (senior fellow at the World Policy Institute and a columnist at the Nation) marshals history, polemic and policy prescription into a plea to "transform American politics into a truly democratic endeavor." Alterman describes how the Founders' belief in public deliberation and limited foreign entanglements gave way to a dominant executive and a "national security" state impervious to public scrutiny. In this "New World Order," the president--not Congress--wields the power to make war, and American environmental policy can be determined by unelected bureaucrats at the World Trade Organization, while the media perpetuate a "pseudodemocracy" of sound bytes and images. Far from being truly democratic, American foreign policy has become the exclusive province of an "elite" of pundits, corporations, ethnic lobbies and think tanks.

To democratize American foreign policy, Alterman proposes electing "citizen juries" reflecting the class, gender and ethnic diversity of the population, who would conduct televised hearings with policymakers and deliberate about various international issues. At first their role would be solely educational, but "over time... the system could gradually transfer key components of the making of U.S. foreign policy to the jury." Such a process would lead to a foreign policy more reflective of the values of the American people, a stronger role for the United Nations, free trade linked with workers' rights and an end to covert action and U.S. support for repressive dictatorships. This is an accessible book that makes a carefully argued indictment of the foreign policy-making process.

What could be more in the spirit of the sort of campaign Obama is already running?

Conclusion

I am certainly aware that many will say, "Why should Obama talk about any of that?  Why make himself a target?"  

My answer is two-fold.  First, forget Obama and forget the campaign.  Whether or not he would adopt any of these ideas for his campaign, are they not good ideas for us to demand of him on his election?  Let us--regardless of anything else--create an opportunity for thinking boldly and creatively about how our foreign policy should look.  We could even call this exercise something fancy, something... maybe even a bit outrageous.  I don't know.  How about, "The Audacity of Hope"?

Second, I would argue that these are actually rather popular ideas, whereas John McCain's ideas are about as popular as George W. Bush, since following those ideas is precisely how Bush got to be as popular as he is today.  In contrast, ideas associated with Colin Powell and Dwight Eisenhower are not just bound to come out on top--they're awfully hard for the GOP to demonize without further splitting their already crack-ridden base.

And please, I'm just begging the GOP to come after us and attack us for a platform plank that calls for treating troops and veterans with dignity and respect.  Go ahead, Karl Rove.  Make my day.
Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Improving Obama's Foreign Policy--Seven Suggested Additions | 45 comments
Paul (0.00 / 0)
I always find foreign policy difficult to think about, but you just spelled out a wonderful wish list.

I think some of these issues could really fit into his campaign right now, and others strike me as things that can be accomplished behind the scenes, but would be disastrous to spell out.

Specifically, nuclear disarmament and dignity for veterans are no-brainers. Both of those fit into his unity and hope themes, and I think he could draw a really incredibly distinction with crazy John McCain via nuclear disarmament.

I think the democratizing the military stuff is brilliant.  Don't know if the RNC and the media would destroy him with it, but it is the kind of original and revolutionary proposal that could be really game changing.  I'd love to see him bring it up.

Dealing with legitimate grievances, figuring out which terrorists are actually our problem, and demilitarizing the world seem to me to be vital, but just not plausible in this campaign. I think a president who wanted to could make a lot of progress once in office, cutting big budge military items and reassessing our priorities, but I just can't see those issues being part of the campaign.

Planting Seeds (0.00 / 0)
One of the most important things you can do during a campaign is to plant seeds.

This is often done dishonestly, by using broad language that suggests one thing to low-info voters, and then going off and doing something quite different.  (Most talk about "cutting taxes" falls into this category.)  But it can also be done quite honestly, I believe.

A good examle of that would simply be for Obama to say something like this:

    "We need to stop talking about a 'global war on terror' and start focusing like a laser on those who actually attacked us, and any who might attack us in the future.

    "I don't think most people care about a 'global war on terror.' They care about the fact that 6 1/2 years after 9/11, bin Laden is still alive and at large, when 6 1/2 years after Pearl Harbor, WWII had been over for almost three years."

That plants the seeds for establishing a more disciminating approach, and it does so on very legitimate operational grounds.  It doesn't go into a great deal of detail--that's for later--but neither does it give a lot of space for the GOP to attack.  After all, their failure relative to WWII is the most emotionally charged subject touched on, and any attempt to talk about something else in that brief passage can readily be redirected back to that.

[ Parent ]
at least (0.00 / 0)
someone is acknowledging why I just kind of throw up my hands on Obama.  He goes on and on about voting for Iraq yet his votes, he funds the war.  

Your wishlist seems ok but how about an overview on Hillary.  The primary is not over, it's still basically a tie and let's compare/contrast in reality, not rhetoric.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

I'll NEVER Please Everyone! (4.00 / 2)
My aim here is was part of a one-two punch against the CW that McCain as a man of vast experience, and generations of military service, would wipe the floor with poor green, inexperienced Obama.

Clinton's pitch is that she could go toe-to-toe with the likes of McCain.  My response to that is, "Maybe she could, but that doesn't really interest me."

As I see things, both Obama and Clinton are tied to the Washington consensus.  Matt Welch is a lot more convinced that Obama is opposed to it than I am.  So here, I am taking on a what-if position.  What if Matt Welch is right?  If so, what would a more comprehensive, systematic approach to breaking with the consensus look like?  And not just breaking with the concensus for the hell of it, but doing so on the basis of ideas that the concensus itself would be relatively hard-pressed to argue against in the full light of day.

Now, if you can suggest a rationale for engaging with Clinton's foreign policy views that's as intellectually rewarding to progressives as I hope this diary was, then I'm all ears.  But I have never been about doing the standard sort of campaign analysis.  My interest has always been, how do we shift the whole spectrum in a more progressive direction?

[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 1)
I can talk about trade, economics, budget, labor.  I thought from day one on the Iraq war anyone with a 2nd grade education could tell they were lying but in terms of comparison contrast, my realm is all of the above.

On NoSlaves.com I've done a couple of pieces, 1. trade, 2. higher education

and then on The Economic Populist, I'm posting information as I dig it out.

The reason I say you should dig past the speeches and rhetoric, is my experience.  Both are horrific, completely bought and paid for on insourcing (labor arbitrage by manipulation of immigration systems, corporate controlled global migration), so frankly I just wasn't paying that much attention until it became a dead heat.  Then I started digging around on other economic policy and found much to my shocking surprise, Hillary coming out ahead of Obama in these areas.  

By no means are either one of them Progressive or Populist but on my little policy comparison contrast horse race, Hillary's ahead by a head.

I think we should dig on everything but the rhetoric might not match the actual policy, advisers, agenda as I shockingly discovered on trade.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I'm Not Surprised That Clinton Is Better (4.00 / 1)
It's part of the price of establishing herself as the frontrunner.  If Obama were running a substantively progressive campaign, then he'd be running clearly to her left.  But, obviously, he's not.  So what we get from him are mostly centrist platitudes.

When I hear him say something like, "We can't stop globalization in its tracks" (I notice you caught this at your site) or I hear him talk about making US workers "the most competitive in the world" (where are they going to find housing for 10% of what they're now paying?) I just have to wonder if he has any clue what he is talking about.  Because if he does, we're in big trouble.  We're going to have some hellacious fights on our hands.

So, here's hoping he's as shallow on these issues as he generally seems.  

[ Parent ]
naive vs. knowing (4.00 / 1)
On Professional worker Visas they are the same with my vote being Obama will be worse (if there can be worse) in future due to a few endorsements and some statements.

But what is amazing to me is how many people claim Obama is naive whereas Hillary of course they tell me is an evil bitch.  ok, Obama taught constitutional law and I know for a fact he was asked to co-sponsor Durbin's bill (S.1035) reforming this program and he refused.  I know he has had extensive visits from the AFL-CIO, the IEEE, grassroots activists and his own colleague, Dick Durbin and also Bernie Sanders.  

Now what is this assumption he is naive and if he is, what is he doing running for President of the United States???

I also find hidden racism and sexism in these assumptions....
ok the black guy is naive and the white lady is an evil bitch.

Same position, same corporate lobbyists, same campaign funds, same lobbyist agenda to labor arbitrage US STEM occupations.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Unfunded war (0.00 / 0)
I know I'm almost completely alone on this front, on this blog, anyway, but I never thought unfunding the war was a good idea.  I don't mean from a political point of view, but from a policy point of view.

I guess I'm one of those who believes "if you break it, you buy it."  I was 100% against the invasion, but partially because the required follow through was so huge.

No don't get me wrong, I'm now completely on board with pulling the troops out.  Their presence is now doing more harm than good.  If we could force Bush to sign a bill to get the troops out correctly, I'd be in favor.  But we can't.  We can't pass any bill like that.  But we can refuse to pass any funding at all.

But I don't trust Bush in that situation.  It is back to the King Solomon problem: I have no doubt Bush will cut the baby in half if that is his only option.  I have no real idea how Bush would handle an unfunded war, but the potential for disaster seems very large, much larger than even the disastrous status quo.

The troops must come out eventually and it has been said that the only rational for staying would be the belief that pulling them out later will lead to significantly better results.  This logic shows that staying is a bad idea.  But this logic also shows, in my opinion, that defunding the war would be worse.

We have Iraqi allies that need to be given political amnesty  in this country.  We have nations neighboring Iraq that must be pulled into the conversation.  The withdrawal is an opportunity to change the dynamic in the middle east for the better, or worst.  I'd rather Obama or Clinton do this correctly than let Bush turn this into another clusterf@ck, even if it means another year or so of the status quo.

Again, I know everyone here disagrees with this, so flame away.  But this is what I believe and have believed since before the primaries began, and why I don't hold these votes against Obama.

[ Parent ]
You've Just Made My Argument For Impeachment (4.00 / 1)
And, since Obama hasn't gone the impeachment route, he still gets tagged as a hypocrite for going after Clinton when he's no better than her with the ball in his court.
[ Parent ]
There are about 17 valid, good reasons for impeachment (0.00 / 0)
I'll just give the first:

1) It's the only constitutional remedy to this kind of Presidency

---

The only way I think it'll happen at this point, unfortunately, is if Mr. Waxman pulls his head out of his ass, stops grilling Roger Clemens (or whichever other ex-NY Yankee he's having his committee grill), and actually pursues investigations against Bush and Cheney for FISA or Plame-gate.

[This is my one of my biggest pet peeves: Why are sports journalists so much better than 99% of mainstream news/politics journalists? Coaches and players get grilled, and then get called out for their lies -- there's actually a modicum of accountability for performance. Mike Fish of ESPN.com did more investigative journalism into the death of and coverup surrounding Pat Tillman than anything we've seen in the mainsream press on just about any issue, excepting the work of Mr. Risen and Ms. Priest.]

---

I agree with you that it does not reflect well on any of our leaders that impeachment has not been discussed.  

[ Parent ]
Well, You Know The Dave Frishberg Song, Right? (0.00 / 0)
"The Sports Page"?

"The one place to go when a fellah wants to know the score."

[ Parent ]
Iran (4.00 / 1)
I think the vote on Iran is more telling.  It is the one difference between them but also the only one that goes to the heart of what the debate is actually about.  What to do with a pre-existing disaster is a completely different issue than how to avoid a future one.
[ Parent ]
almost (0.00 / 0)
It is the one difference between them

The difference being that Clinton voted wrong and Obama didn't show up to vote.

[ Parent ]
Him showing up for FISA is also (0.00 / 0)
a big deal in my mind, too.  
[ Parent ]
Bravo! Great Article! (4.00 / 2)
Paul, this is one of the best articles you've written for Open Left.  I work in the military-industrial complex (as Eisenhower called it) and what you've written here should be the basis of a progressive foreign and defense policy.

I like Obama a lot, but I really disagree with him when he says that we need to expand the Army.  That makes no sense.  Right now we have an Army that is both too big and too small.  It's too small to occupy a country like Iraq, and the small increases that Obama is proposing wouldn't be enough to occupy a country the size of Iraq or Iran either.

However, if we aren't going to occupy foreign countries (and we shouldn't), then our Army is too large.  We deposed Saddam Hussein with a relatively small force of Army and Marines.  That suggests our Army should be smaller, as Iraq is a fairly large country (Iran is only a little bigger, I think).  

If it were up to me, I'd cut the size of our standing military by a third, with heavy cuts in the Air Force and significant cuts in the size of our Army.  As currently constructed, our Air Force and Army aren't built for the threats of the 21st Century, and what use is a huge Air Force against terrorists (or even some other countries) when it's just easier to park a carrier off the coast and use that to project force around the world.  I just don't get it.

We need a strong military, but our current military is nothing but pork-barrel spending for Republicans and conservative Democrats.  It's a travesty, because the opportunity cost of our military is huge - just think if 1/3 of our military spending were devoted to alternative energy research and promotion.  We'd be off of our oil dependence VERY quickly, and it wouldn't take much longer to make huge cuts in greeenhouse emissions.  Instead, we waste taxpayer dollars and use our military in ways that actually make us less safe.  What a travesty, and Obama's proposals aren't a dramatic enough break from the past.  Clinton's ideas are even worse.  That said, if we can win a BIG congressional majority, we can move the ideas above into the mainstream and make a lot of progress.

Army (0.00 / 0)
I actually think this leads into what will be one of the most important debates of the 21 century.  The fact is the world can use many, many more peace keeping troops in a wide variety of areas.  What should the role of the US be?  What should the role of the UN be?  Is it politically viable for the UN to have a standing army as long as it doesn't have anything big like tanks and bombers?

I don't actually have answers to these questions, but I think they are important.

[ Parent ]
Say No To The Powell Doctrine (0.00 / 0)
Nbr 5 on this list -- The Powell, actually the Weinberger, Doctrine -- is profoundly reactionary. It perpetuates military institutions and doctrine we emerged from the Great, World, and Cold Wars with.

Those institutions and the "assumptions" underlying them are deeply subversive of (a) the US Constitution as well as (b) the other six particulars in the post above.

For a serious alternative to the Clinton/Bush mess we are in today, please take notice of If We Can Keep It ... forthcoming from Chet RICHARDS at the Center for Defense Information.

Two decades of serious and critical military, political, and economic thinking are summarized in this little slide-show.

::JRBehrman

I'm Not A Great Fan of the Powell Doctrine, Intrinsically (4.00 / 1)
In fact, I orgiinally saw it simply as the military's own reactionary/protective response to the catastrophe of Vietnam--nothing more, nothing less.

However, the more I thought about it over the years, the more I realized that if actually followed, it would almost completely curtail foreign adventurism.

Thus, while it was certainly reactionary as a defense against a more thorough-going self-examination after Vietnam, if taken seriously going forward it would actually prevent a recurrance of future Vietnams, furture Iraqs.  And that is certainly what matters most at this point in time.

Sooner or later we still do need that deeper self-examination--just as we still need to come to terms with slavery, and the genocide of hundreds of Native American cultures.  But in the meantime, keeping ourselves out of further imperialist adventures is not a bad thing to do.

[ Parent ]
Wouldn't the Powell Doctrine have precluded World War II? (0.00 / 0)
Or could you just attach a rider about being attacked by a state actor?
[ Parent ]
In particular, (0.00 / 0)
WWII seems to violate 3. and 5.
[ Parent ]
Yes, But... (0.00 / 0)
you sort of get King's X when someone blasts the hell out of your premier naval base, and then their allies declare war on you in the midst of an ongoing multilateral conflict.

The Powell Doctrine was only intended to apply to wars where there was a choice.  Of course this is ultimately grounded in human judgment, yadda-yadda-yadda, but I'm sure you get the drift.

[ Parent ]
Heretic! (0.00 / 0)
Obama's Hope & Truth® Foreign Policy CANNOT BE IMPROVED.

You are a heretic and you will be excommunicated from the cult.

Anyway, they won't attack Obama for "treating troops and  veterans with dignity and respect."  Seriously, do we all have amnesia around here?

They will simply say Obama was never in the military and McCain carried a watch in his ass for three years in Hanoi while Obama was doing lines off a hooker's ass in college, or whatever.

And no... (0.00 / 0)
...it won't matter that that's what Bush did when McCain was in the Hanoi Hilton, either.

If we had rational rules and fact based campaigns, there would be no Republicans and very few Democrats elected.

[ Parent ]
Except... (0.00 / 0)
Karl Rove's already planted the "torture-crazed McCain" meme 8 long years ago.  And with McCain getting on in years, it's no longer such a slam dunk to play that card when folks are more concerned about the future than the past.

Like the song says, "It's hard out there for a pimp."

[ Parent ]
Thoughts (4.00 / 1)
(1) Drawing distinctions between terrorists who threaten us directly and those who do not.
Agreed.  This is the kind of common sense talk that I think could really help, as Republicans clearly make no such distinction.

(2) Drawing distinctions between terrorist means--which we should oppose across the board--and the goals which various terrorist groups may espouse.
I'm not completely clear where you are going on this one.  It sounds a bit like (3) below, but you seem to be saying something else.  If you are mostly saying that all Muslims are not terrorists then I obviously agree.

(3) Doing something about legitimate grievances.
I would completely reword this one and expand it.  To me, the point is we can't let terrorists dictate our actions in any way.  Sometimes their goals are obvious and sometimes their goal is to simply strengthen their own power by getting us to commit to unpopular actions.  We need to (1) do what is best for the US and (2) do what is best for others in the world.  We cannot let the terrorist make our choices for us, in either direction.  Bush has often been played like a puppet by bin Laudin.  (Not sure you can get away with the puppet line, true as it is.  But someone should push that.)

(4) Making a major platform plank out of treating our troops and veterans with renewed dignity and respect.
Agreed.  Sometimes I waver on whether this should be brought up in context of national security or in other contexts, as it is  simply the right thing to do.  When brought up in context of national security it may appear to be replacing actual security proposals with pandering.  Put it this way, within the context of national security it should be pointed out how this is vital for maintaining troop moral and recruiting.  In other contexts the moral theme can be hit harder.

(5) Explicitly write the Powell Doctrine into law, and do so in such a way that it cannot simply be circumvented.
Short of a constitutional amendment, I'm not sure what you mean, here.  Anytime congress approves force, doesn't it defacto give approval to go around laws it may be in conflict with?  Perhaps I'm wrong on this.  I like the idea anyway, I'm just not sure the "cannot simply be circumvented" part is possible.

(6) Take leadership in demilitarizing the world, along the lines indicated by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1953.
I'm less sure of this.  The biggest threats facing the world today don't have anything to do with the sizes of various militaries.  From a pure monetary and budgetary point of view I agree, but I'm less sure from a world order, security point of view.  

(7) Democratize foreign policy-making.
The Iraq war had huge support at the time and our elected congress had to approve of the invasion.  I'd need convincing this would do anything.  This isn't to say this is a bad idea and you are correct that it is completely in line with the other open-government initiatives Obama wants.

I think there is one more point that really needs to be hit home every day.  The short term goal of terrorism is to terrorize.  Every day a politician uses the threat of terrorism to flame fears, he is doing the terrorists job for him.  

There is nothing those bastards can do to us that really, seriously threaten a country like ours, but they can trick us into damaging ourselves.  This is the long term goal of terrorism.  When a bee stings a horse, it hurts, but it does no real damage.  If the horse panics from the sting, however, it can seriously damage or even kill itself if it runs off a cliff or into a river.

Some Clarifications (0.00 / 0)
A. (2) and (3) are clearly related, but differ in two respects.

First, (2) is primarily about getting our understanding straight--including the entire framework of our political discourse--while (3) is about actually doing something.

Second, (2) applies to matters of identity that don't readily fall under the category of "grievances," though they may contribute to generating grievances.

B. On (5), I think we've seen under Bush that even the Constitution is not self-executing, so I don't see the siginficance of a Constitutional amendment here.  Wish I could, but... the focus, I think, needs to be on creating embedded institutional norms and processes that will be extremely difficult and politically costly to over-ride.

So, you go through a process of creating mechanisms for evaluating whether the conditions cited in the Powell Doctrine are met.  And these mechanisms are structured so that they have deep roots in civil society beyond the coercive and inadvertant group-think reach of the usual Versailles suspects.  You also build in "devil's advocate" mechanisms.  And this becomes the new mechanism for going to war.  Then if people want to sidestep it all, you have a substantial constituency of people primed to stand up and say, "Now hold on a minute!  That's not how we agreed things would be done.  And there's a damn good reason we agreed to this."

Also, of course, you get rid of the President's ability to nationalize the national guard for overseas service without consent from the state government.

C. I'm not sure what you're not sure of wrt to (6).

You say, "The biggest threats facing the world today don't have anything to do with the sizes of various militaries."

Precisely!  That's what makes the task of downsizing militaries such a no-brainer.  Figuring out how create alternative security and conflict-resolution systems that work will be more challenging, but getting rid of arms that are already often useless--that should be relatively easy.  Not to finish, perhaps.  But to get started, and thus start building trust and confidence--that part should be relatively easy.

D.  Wrong on three counts here:

(7) Democratize foreign policy-making.
The Iraq war had huge support at the time and our elected congress had to approve of the invasion.

(1) There was not huge support for the Iraq war until after Bush made it clear we were going--at which point the "support the troops"/rally round the flag effect took over, which has nothing to do with the decision per se.

(2) Congress did not approve of the invasion.  They let themselves be snookered into signing a blank check that they damn sure ought to have known would be used that way, but that check was procured under the guise of necessity to put pressure on Saddam Hussein.

(3) My porposal is not simply to formally ratify the rush to war, but to fundamentally alter the normal foreign policy process so that entirely different sorts of decisionmaking processess are involved.  Thus, for example, the correlation between support for the war and belief in war-favoring lies would be corrected for via a deliberative process that could not conclude by taking us to war.

E.  I agree completely with your point about terrorism.  George W. Bush is bin Laden's greatest ally.  I just didn't see a way to talk about that in a natural, unforced manner within this framework.  

[ Parent ]
Some good points (0.00 / 0)
Good point on D.1.  I may be jaded on this issue.  

I was at an NBA game when we first invaded Iraq.  The announced the invasion before game began and the crowed stood and irrupted in celebration!  I wish I was a better writer so I could more clearly describe how loudly they cheered and how devastating it was to witness this.  Even though it was probably only half of those in attendance who cheered while the other half just stared in disbelief (as a poll before the invasion would show), the overall impact and emotion was unmistakable.

For C, I guess it isn't clear to me how much of the current stability between nations (which is actually quite high) is due to the existing defense spending of various nations.  How can will differentiate between knowing defense spending is obsolete versus working.  (Note I'm not talking about our defense spending, per se, but the world's.)

I think I agree with your clarified points on everything else.

For E, I think it fits into what Obama already states about using fear as a wedge, he just doesn't go far enough.

[ Parent ]
Well, Neither Ike Nor I Are Talking Going Cold Turkey (0.00 / 0)
Disarmament definitely needs to be handled carefully, and not in a vacuum.  We need to be creating alternative security and conflict-resolution mechanisms to power up at the same time we engage in disarmament.

But there were already considerable reductions in military spending since the Cold War era prior to 9/11, and most countries have not gone on a military spending spree since then, so this is a good indication, to me, that the world is mostly ready for this.

And I agree with your last remark about E.  It is pretty much a natural, logical next step for Obama.

[ Parent ]
Interesting points (0.00 / 0)
Paul obviously responded to many, but I just wanted to clarify #3. Are you saying that you think addressing legitimate grievances is equivalent to letting the terrorists dictate our actions? Because I think the opposite is true. Our inability to see that terrorist groups might have legitimate claims to go along with their illegitimate tactics (see: Hamas) makes us unable to address relevant issues (like putting pressure on Israel.) If we could recognize that just because terrorists want something doesn't mean, necessarily, that it is a bad thing would put us on the road to actually stopping terrorism. Instead we let them dictate our actions by doing the opposite of whatever they want, whether or not it is in our interests.

As for number 6, I just think you're dreaming. No one has set off an atomic bomb in a while, but nuclear disaster is still, without a doubt, the number one threat to global security. The possession of nuclear weapons by Israel, China, Pakistan, India, and North Korea is phenomenally dangerous. Looking at our current foreign policy, I can't say I trust the USA with them much more. Now, maybe you want to distinguish between nuclear arsenals and non-nuclear military foces, but we'll never disarm without destroying the zero-sum competitive military mindset that results in ever-growing spending on both.

[ Parent ]
That's Not What Mark Was Saying! (0.00 / 0)
I think pretty much everyone is on the same page with you, Sam, where it come to #3:

Are you saying that you think addressing legitimate grievances is equivalent to letting the terrorists dictate our actions? Because I think the opposite is true.

Absolutely!

As for your second point, I think it's synergistic.  We're never going to snap our fingers and make that mindset disappear like that!  But reductions have taken place since the Cold War, and we get more reductions by altering the incentive structures, and once that's gone on long enough, then we'll start to see mindsets changing, and the process will start feeding on itself.

[ Parent ]
My bad (4.00 / 1)
I now have documented evidence that my reading comprehension does correlate with how much sleep I get.

As for your second point on my second point (remember trying to have discussions like this before the Scoop platform!?), I agree with you, but I do entirely reject Mark's statement that "[t]he biggest threats facing the world today don't have anything to do with the sizes of various militaries"? I'd like to explain why:
1) As I said, I think nuclear war and terrorism are still the biggest threats to global security bar none, and the chances of them happening cannot be reduced without attacking the whole complex of institutions that make up the Military Industrial Complex.
2) Conflicts not obviously related to high military spending in the United States (Darfur, Columbia, 1000 more, etc.) are actually made possible by our military industrial complex. Brad Plumer does a good job covering one aspect of the issue: http://plumer.blogspot.com/200... The Small arms trade could be slowed or stopped if we'd get together with the other big suppliers and agree to stop it. The military lobby doesn't want that to happen, and their power to dictate our policy is, needless to say, directly related to how big our military is and how much money and access they have.
3) Other seemingly irrelevant threats, like Global Warming, are in fact related to our military spending. I don't want to dwell on it too much, but here's an article on the military's oil usage: http://www.tomdispatch.com/pos... The pentagon uses more fuel than probably any other institution in the country. Environmental destruction in war zones is under reported, but is a problem on a phenomenal scale.
4) Whatever else you think the biggest global threats are, the opportunity costs of our spending (which Mark recognizes) are truly enormous. We could, easily, put every single person in the world with aids on anti-retrovirals (which in turn dramatically reduce rates of transmission) with what the world spends on the military.
5) Placements of US bases all over the world (and Israel in Palestine) are at least partly responsible for terrorism, another threat to global security. The size of our empire is a source of instability and a useful tool and target for terrorist organizers.

So my question is, what are these global threats that "don't have anything to do with the sizes of the world's militaries"?

[ Parent ]
I Agree With Your Points Re The Sizes Of Militaries (0.00 / 0)
Although, when I first read what Mark wrote, I interpreted it somewhat differently than you do.  Too tired now to trust myself to make things clearer by writing more.

That sleep stuff's good, i'nit?

[ Parent ]
Explanations (0.00 / 0)
I think we all roughly agree on 'legitimate grievances'.  My point is perhaps too subtle, but I think we should take actions based on the reality (which includes legitimate grievances of various people), but basically ignore the terrorist's opinions themselves and not let their actions dictate our own in any way beyond what it tactically takes to get rid of them.

Just to make it more complex and subtle, the opinion of the terrorist's family's and neighbors do matter.  The best way to defeat terrorists is to take away their legitimacy as seen by their own population.  In other words, it is important that people over their see us as the good guys and the terrorists as the bad guys.  (Bush is doing heck of a job on this front, in case you didn't notice.)

As far as the size of militaries go, I think I'm correct.  The current nuclear threat is partially the result of the Russian military going down in size, leaving a variety of loose nukes unaccounted for.  Now, I'm not saying the Soviet threat going away made the world more dangerous, I'm just saying its a bit more complex than just looking at size.

The most dangerous weapons today, in terms of what are actually used, are mass produced AK-47s and small scale explosives.  The huge Chinese army isn't a problem, nor are all the ships, planes and bases around the world.  The problem is the mass production of the small stuff.

Your point #2 above addresses this and I can see how the various pieces potentially interplay, but I think it still shows the size of the militaries are not the actual problem. If you look at the Human security Report Project you'll see that interstate violence has dropped dramatically since the 1950's.  Or as Pinker pointed out:

On the scale of decades, comprehensive data again paint a shockingly happy picture: Global violence has fallen steadily since the middle of the twentieth century. According to the Human Security Brief 2006, the number of battle deaths in interstate wars has declined from more than 65,000 per year in the 1950s to less than 2,000 per year in this decade. In Western Europe and the Americas, the second half of the century saw a steep decline in the number of wars, military coups, and deadly ethnic riots.

I'm no expert, but I believe the reduction of violence comes mostly from the increase of international law and applying the principles of the Enlightenment to international relationships.  My guess is the size of the millitaries either a) don't really matter as far as international violence is concerned or b) actually help maintain the peace and prevent more wars than they start.  If the answer is a) then we want to cache in the opportunity cost.  If the answer is b) then the course is less obvious.

[ Parent ]
This Warrants A Lot More Discussion (0.00 / 0)
You're both making some very good points, and it's obvious this needs a lot more discussion than it's now getting.  I intend to post more on this in the future, and give us another shot to continue this discussion.

One thing, however, does not need more discussion--only more dissemination--and that's this observation:

Just to make it more complex and subtle, the opinion of the terrorist's family's and neighbors do matter.  The best way to defeat terrorists is to take away their legitimacy as seen by their own population.

Immediately after 9/11, Gallup International did a worldwide poll about how the US should respond--with a military response, or a criminal justice response.  There were only 3 countries (out of 35) where landslide majorities did not favor a criminal justice response--India, Israel and the US.  India and Israel, of course, have had such spectacular success using a military response to terrorism, how could we not follow their advice, right?

The hopeful thing was that in the US, only 54% supported the military option, while a whopping 16% were undecided.  This was quite unlike India and Israel, where there was landslide level support for war.

If we had had rational leadership at the time, and pursued the criminal justice option, we could have quickly captured top al Qaeda leaders and put them on trial.  We could have had a parade of witnesses for months on end from countries all over the world--including lots of Muslims--testifying about their loved ones who murdered by al Qaeda on 9/11.

The results of such a trial could have been virtually unprecedented in human history.  (We're a wired world, now, remember?)  Had we done that, terrorism would have been utterly discredited as a strategy and tactic.  It's perfectly conceivable that the name "Osama" would not be given to another child for at least two or three generations.  Instead, we turned him into a hero.

[ Parent ]
Absolutely (0.00 / 0)
I'd love to hear some more discussion about this.

Just a final thought on my point of disagreement with Mark (which it is becoming clear to me is not as significant as I had thought.)

The reason I think that the size of the military is so important is because it is, effectively, an indicator for the power of the institutions (Congress, private contractors, military, arms manufacturers, etc.) that make up the military industrial complex. Cutting the military in half will, undoubtedly, involve taking on the complex head-on, and I think little progress can be made in other areas if we don't do that. That's why, with an issue like small arms, I see it as so important.  It's not that the size of the military literally coresponds to the number of AK 47s we sell in Africa, it's that we will never be able to agree to stop doing that until we extract this tumor from our political economy that guides our policy totally immune from any rational thought or democratic influence.

I hope that clarifies my point a bit. I think we just have a slightly different perspective.

[ Parent ]
Two conversations (0.00 / 0)
We're kind of having two conversations in parallel when it comes to the size of the military.  One is the size of the U.S. military and the other is globally, the size of various militaries across the world.  Paul tied these two together when he suggested we "take leadership in demilitarizing the world."

By the way, the AK-47 is Russian.  We don't sell it (directly, at least) to anyone.  It may be a result of a military industrial complex but not our military industrial complex.

[ Parent ]
Ah, But You See.... (0.00 / 0)
It's quite telling to think of the AK-47 as an American weapon, since the US and USSR become such close mirrors of one another during the Cold War.

"Back in the US...
Back in the US...
Back in the USSR."

[ Parent ]
Like so many of your comprehensive ... (4.00 / 3)
...pieces, Paul, this is superb. Overall, I have no strong objections to anything you have written here. It's an excellent start - if a President Obama chose this far-sighted route, I could rest easy that my grandchildren would at least have a chance to live in a world of reduced warfare and reduced spending on "defense."

I do, however, feel something is missing. And that is a discussion of American empire and American exceptionalism.

You can rightly say that what you've said (and what Ike said) does address those matters, at least indirectly, and you wouldn't be wrong. But I'd like something more direct, straightforward, in this regard: Something about those 700+ overseas bases, about U.S. arms trade - both the big, advanced stuff and the megatons of small arms; something about projects like missile defense. I realize these are details and you're talking underlying philosophy, but since (despite your final caveat) we ARE talking about Obama here, it's my view that we need to go beyond what is easily given over to soaring rhetoric, which, as we all know, the Senator is excellent at.

Moreover, I think we desperately need a full-bore repudation of Manifest Destiny. I see this repudiation along the lines of explicit rejection of the Bush Doctrine as well as a full embrace of the Powell Doctrine. I know, I know, accepting the Powell Doctrine means rejecting the Bush Doctrine. But, call me jaded, I prefer everything spelled out, in detail, and in triplicate, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

Guiding the path toward the world to come (4.00 / 1)
We all know the U.S. won't be a lone super power (by any measure) forever.  What was happening naturally Bush helped along by about a generation.  The rest of the world is catching up and this is mostly a good thing.

But we do have a huge amount of say on what the coming world will be like, despite the fact that Bush pissed away much of our influence.  Right now we are mistakenly building a world where might makes right after a century of trying to build a world that uses law and process to work out our differences.

How do we guide the world to a better place?  

I'm thinking policy, but from a political point of view this might be the correct way to spin Manifest Destiny.

[ Parent ]
Excellent Points! (0.00 / 0)
I was deliberately trying for sort of low-profile/high-impact approch here, arguing for the most fundamental shifts I could think of that could simultaneously be presented in this current campaign cycle without a great deal of red-baiting-style backlash.  So, naturally, starting from such an orientation the downside is that you're likely to overlook some things that could well have been included.  (Also, there's this thing with the number seven, you know?)

I certainly think that the overseas bases could be talked about that way, and in fact should have been mentioned in at least two contexts:

First, in contrast to his proposal to increase the Army and Marines.  Obviously, if you reduce the number of overseas bases, you free up personell, and thus don't need to increase force size.

Second, base reductions are naturally related to demilitarization.  In fact, one way to turn a minus (the bases themselves) into a plus is to link base closures to arms reductions, as an added incentive for potentially reluctant regimes.

Repudiating Manifest Destiny I'm a little less certain on initially, because maybe it could be red-baited successfully, and maybe it would be more powerful not to talk about it during the campaign, but then make it a cornerstone of his Inaugural Address.  I certainly concur with the "wanting everything in triplicate" sentiment, however.

One thing I think about regarding Manifest Destiny is that it could form the foundation for the entire speech, since he could talk about our growing as a nation under that banner, and then talk about how--despite all the riches created--we had really failed to realize the potential in the land we inhabited.  How we had failed to be good stewards of the land.  How we had taken it from those who were here before us.  How we had used it to escape from certain problems, and ended up bringing those problems with us.

He could then balance a renunciation of Manifest Destiny on the one hand with a renewed committment to make good on the unkept promises made under its banner in the past.  It would be a powerful way of addressing foreign policy and domestic policy within a unified framework.

[ Parent ]
Intriguing take on Manifest Destiny (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Great post, Paul (0.00 / 0)
I love where you're going with this, not only the substance (including the followup discussion thread), but also in proposing this as a foreign policy approach that would be a great fit for Obama--in general, and especially in taking on McCain.  

I especially love the idea of the "new" Democratic candidate Obama linking himself and this moment of time back to Ike and the time in which he served.  

As a history dummy, I was fascinated by the clips of Ike warning about the "military industrial complex" in the film "Why We Fight" and learning that he'd originally planned to include "congress" in the MIC label.  

As "big message" political combat, I love the idea of having Obama backed by Eisenhower (maybe also throwing in the Powell Doctrine as you suggest) facing off against Thousand-Year War McCain and today's Republican party.  

If executed well, it has the making of a landslide--and one worth winning.  Once again, I hope Obama and his staff read your post.

Best of Barack (0.00 / 0)
Great entry! You should check out this AMAZING new website - http://www.digobama.com - which was created so people like you can submit your favorite articles, videos and podcasts about Barack and vote on them. This site is extremely new (created Monday, February 13th) and is already gaining momentum in spreading Barack's message. There are already 41 users, 97 articles, and 323 votes! With your help, this website can play an important role in helping Barack become the clear People's Choice as the next President. Thank you and Yes We Can make a difference!!!
onne of your better posts (0.00 / 0)
IMO
bye onne (0.00 / 0)
I of course mean one
[ Parent ]
Improving Obama's Foreign Policy--Seven Suggested Additions | 45 comments
MENU

Open Left in your inbox!

 

Or, subscribe to each author individually.
PREMIUM AD

ADVERTISEMENTS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

OPEN LEFT VIDEO WALL
Donna Edwards Thanks OpenLeft


Russ Feingold on the New FISA Legislation


Jon Conyers on Impeachment


Al Franken Thanks Blue Majority


FCC Commissioner Michael Copps on Pearl Jam, Net Neutrality


Darcy Burner on the FISA Legislation

More Open Left video...

LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
BUSH DOGS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © Open Left 2007-2008, Powered by SoapBlox