is this alternative to turning Iran into another Iraq supposed to make Americans feel good about Democrat hawkishness? Whoever said that an empire is at its most dangerous when it's in decline was dead right. Gawd help us all.

Mr Obama removed us from Iraq and is removing us from Afghanistan. Should action be deemed needed on Iran, there will be good reason for it. Hopefully, nothing will occur. perhaps someone other than the US will do something. Europe did matters in Libya. They will likely do what is needed. We cannot afford this.

Let's see....

Put them up in Guantanamo and prosecute them? I think we can agree that, that is a fool's pursuit.
How about telling Pakistan to round them up and deliver justice? Yeah, that's a good one!!!

Yes, there NO OTHER WAY - given that we're not willing to deliver a credible threat to Pakistan to stop using the bad guys as proxies.

In terms of the price we will pay by pissing innocents off, its NO BIG DEAL!

Over the last 50 years, we have gone out of our way to offend people of EVERY nationality out there - from Argentinians (for supporting the Brits in the Falklands) to North Vietnamese (of whom we killed millions), not to mention Iraqis in more recent times or Liberians and Latin Americans through our sponsored coups.

NOBODY has attacked the US of A. To suggest that we should only kill the bad guys when we have created a 200 yard cordon around them that is free of all living organisms is tantamount to say that we do absolutely nothing.

I seriously doubt the U.S would take the step of targeting heads of states. Qaddafi was the exception, not the rule. If we were, we would have gotten rid of inconvenient people like Mugabe years ago. The increased use on terrorists, warlords and drug lords is possible I'll grant.

"If You Like Killing People, Vote for Obama"
Really Walt, REALLY!?

Brainfart*bad day at the office =this headline

During 9/11 Boy George was reading "My Pet Goat" to children, while Dead-Man-Walking Cheney was was at the scene of the crime (in the White House bunker) conducting scheduled, simulated war-games to fool NORAD and the FAA into standing down. Isn't it time we put these guys on trial for treason and mass murder?

my buddy's half-sister makes $85 every hour on the computer. She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her income was $7314 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more on this web site... makecash16.com

most obviously, and yet unstated is that it's hard to appeal to "democracy and rights" when we are attacking/assassinating the elected leaders of other states. Our war on terror is destroying this country's greatest asset, that is that many countries/people envied and respected us. This is turning to enmity and that is dangerous. Rather than unconsciously inflating our value they will begin to see our wrinkles. And, increasingly American exceptionalism means we'll do what we want and others can "suck it." Well, the problem is that people are better students than we assume, and they too will adopt this position.

Kagan is wrong in his assessment of the world with the US as king. When we had the goodwill of the world, American dominance was a good thing. However, today we've become more like England in the first half of the last century, and defending our slipping empire. This is what caused those world wars, not multipolarity, it was more like some damaged Tennessee Williams character twisting all societal convention to keep up airs. Considering how furtive our actions are, this too is more like some tragically flawed fading flower jealously guarding a last few petals. Well, increasingly, the lunch is naked, and the 3rd world isn't so enamored with us, they're courting other suitors, and finding intriguing offers. If we get overly offended and threatened, that too will embarrass ourselves.

Mr. Walt,

When secret unlawful actions overseas become a norm, the same things will inevitably creep into and become the norm in the US, as has already happened with detention and killing (assassination) of US citizens without due process . Using drones for policing purposes is also under consideration.

If these overseas actions continue, as they will, you can kiss your constitution good bye.

To imply that military people enjoy killing other people is disgusting. War was brought to us on 9/11 and some of us in this country are not the cowardly type. COWARDS do not respond when shot at. This author is a disgusting, sleeze ball COWARD.

This article could have been written by a 13 yr. old girl...very shallow argumets that prove COWARDS are always immature little kids, unable to reasonably defend themselves.

author

This piece seems based on the idea that because the leading GOP candidates ain't speaking about what they might do in the way of sending US forces out in harm's way, that they're unlikely to do anything like that if they become president of the United States. This is a naive view and there seems no basis in fact for it.

Let's not forget compassionate conservative candidate George Bush, the guy who wanted no foreign entanglements, who sent American forces into Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and sundry other places we're little informed about.

Pointing out this obvious disparity between what a Republican candidate says to get votes, and can do later when in office. is no defense of Mr Obama. Having heard his national director of intelligence say that American belligerence and threats are driving Iran crazy, the current president has, as Mr Walt points out, threatened Iran once more in his State of the Union address.

Why do things that drive Iran (or any other nation) crazy? I don't see the sense to it.

On US Foreign Policy:

Most of the posters appear to be too young to understand that there was a time when Western civilization respected itself and was ready to bear the cost of preserving that civilization. We either believe that our values are good, and deserving of protection, or not, and thus have no basis for standing against assaults on those values.

The root problem here appears to be the multicultural ideal, that all value systems are basically inherently equal. This ideal, unfortunately, holds within it a logical flaw: Any culture that does not accept the multicultural ideal, CANNOT be equal to one that does, and the one that doesn't is more likely to be willing to pay the cost of spreading its ideals than the multiculturalists. The result is that multiculturalism is self-defeating, and unless we wish to see our culture replaced by one that is willing to engage in aggression, we have no choice but to defend our values.

Walt comes from a tradition that holds that value systems are basically irrelevant, the negative face of multiculturalism, and thus even where he can acknowledge that other cultures might have less desirable values than our own, he cannot bring himself to admit that we'll need to defend our values. By doing so, he guarantees that his intellectual tradition will bring about its own demise.

On Obama and his presidency

Obama's 2008 campaign was based on the notion that he could win by not telling the voters what he stood for. The phenomenon that Walt describes in this article is simply the foreign policy counterpart, that he will prevail internationally by not telling anyone what he is up to.

That is bad enough, but it is being done for some seriously bad reasons. In 2008, Obama managed to give many people the impression that he was a Leftist. While he does share certain ideas with the Left, Obama is far more interested in holding power than he is in any particular outcome, that is why he campaigned for the health care bill before bothering to write one.

He has also shown himself to be unconcerned with the legal limitations on his power. Walt addresses his willingness to subvert international norms in a way the hated George W. Bush would not have considered. "Told you so" isn't nearly enough to exonerate those of us who knew that Obama would be far worse in this regard than Bush. Indeed, Obama's few successes have been when he was forced to retain Bush era policies that he had campaigned against.

The UN Nexus and the Islamist-First Presidency

There was also a time when the UN generally embodied Western ideals about the peaceful settlement of disputes and the equality of states. Efforts by the OIC (which should be known as the Organization for Islamist Coercion) have made the UN into a weapon for use against those who resist Islamist aggression. Since resort to the UN is no longer available, each state has been forced to see to its own defense, even when that defies the demands of the OIC-controlled UN.

Exposing Hypocrites' long list of submissions to Islamism made by Obama is both evidence of the OIC's power in the world and reason for the US to recognize that it must defend its values. With Obama, who is an Islamist-Firster, we won't do that.

You wrote: "If we can send drones and/or special forces into any country we choose, why can't other states violate national borders in order to advance some policy objective of their own?"
I can't help but think that you haven't thought this statement through. First off: Nearly every powerful country in the world plays covert games, and surreptitiously sends in spies, Special Operations Forces, or Submarines ...whatever, into other nations' sovereign land. It has happened since the beginning of time, and I would argue, that it is only happening "more" these days because, frankly, the Media has become so hard to fool. We are constantly being bombarded with leaks, and news about covert operations that 20 years ago we would have heard nothing about. So although it SEEMS like we are getting more secretive, in reality, we are probably getting less secretive. Ask anyone in the intel community. Or Wikileaks. Or Anonymous.
Secondly: We are not sending Special Forces and Drones into "any country we choose". Generally, as is the case in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya etc. we obtain permission from the government (who then acts publicly like they've never heard of us). And although we do take things into our own hands at times, a la Pakistan; this is only because they play both sides and can't be trusted to protect our secrets and actually go through with measures that are aimed at protecting Americans.
I agree with much of what you wrote regarding Blowback, and possible sticky situations in the future. I just thought that the above statement lacked substance.

You wrote: "If we can send drones and/or special forces into any country we choose, why can't other states violate national borders in order to advance some policy objective of their own?"

I can't help but think that you haven't thought this statement through.

First off:

Nearly every powerful country in the world plays covert games, and surreptitiously sends in spies, Special Operations Forces, or Submarines ...whatever, into other nations' sovereign land. It has happened since the beginning of time, and I would argue, that it is only happening "more" these days because, frankly, the Media has become so hard to fool. We are constantly being bombarded with leaks, and news about covert operations that 20 years ago we would have heard nothing about. So although it SEEMS like we are getting more secretive, in reality, we are probably getting less secretive. Ask anyone in the intel community. Or Wikileaks. Or Anonymous.

Secondly:

We are not sending Special Forces and Drones into "any country we choose". Generally, as is the case in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya etc. we obtain permission from the government (who then acts publicly like they've never heard of us). And although we do take things into our own hands at times, a la Pakistan; this is only because they play both sides and can't be trusted to protect our secrets and actually go through with measures that are aimed at protecting Americans.

I agree with much of what you wrote regarding Blowback, and possible sticky situations in the future. I just thought that the above statement lacked substance.

As Dana Priest and William Arkin reported in their book Top Secret America, there have already been discussions in Washington with JSOC officers about expanding the targeted kill operations into Mexico as a nice short-cut instead of helping improve that country's criminal justice system.
Thankfully, it doesn't seem to have proceeded further as of yet.

With much of what you have written I agree. But I am afraid there is an underlying approval – sort of – where the coming war with Iran is concerned. And, let us be clear, it is not going to be confined to the use of drones or the mere taking out of a few individuals.
The Washington Post wrote an editorial entitled “The U.S.-Israeli trust gap on Iran”. Let me acknowledge that I was alarmed by that editorial and immediately wrote a response which The Post carried at once. It ran as follows: “This editorial represents unabashed war-mongering at its worst. Coming from a responsible journal like The Washington Post it is highly regrettable. It is downright encouragement and incitement to Israel to engage in military action against Iran NOW, knowing full well that this will pull the US into the war inexorably. Perhaps this is what you are angling for.
“It seems to me that we are witnessing USA's sliding into another war, perhaps long before the US elections, which are not due before November 2012. It is anybody's guess what another war will do for US economy and its financial debt owed to other countries. Mr Obama has been working on slippery ground from the moment he began his tenure. He managed to extricate the US from the Iraq war, with whatever consequences. He still cannot see his way to the exit in Afghanistan. His administration has resolved to give enormous subvention to Pakistan over the next five years. All this is bound to mean considerable strain on US finances. War with Iran cannot fail to bring further strain on US finances.
“It is still a moot point how China and Russia will respond if Iran is locked in war with Israel and the US. My guess is that China and Russia shall let Iran meet its doom at the hands of the US.
“The other moot point is how Iran will respond and whether it has means of retaliating against Israel in a significant manner. If it does, Israel may still live to regret its choice to take military action against Iran. Damage to Iran may not be a matter of concern to Israel or the US, but damage to Israel assuredly should concern both Israel and US. We shall wait to see how Iran responds when it has to, if it has to.”
The Post indulged in ill-concealed advocacy of war with Iran, whatever its nuanced observation that it was not yet necessary and that diplomacy should have a chance. But there was an obvious substratum of approval that Israel might resort to what has been called pre-emptive action in order to achieve the termination or serious delay in Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
In The Post editorial or in your write up in Foreign Policy there is no effort to look at the underlying causes that are causing the current difficulties in the Middle East. Let me be clear on the fact of US military power. Iran cannot hope to survive even Israel’s attack – if the US seen to be standing behind it in shining armour. This is how large wars begin. One country begins a war. Another country had already committed its support. So the second country follows the first into war. If someone on the other side had given a commitment to the other side – no one has, in this case, mercifully – then the third country joins the war on the other side. The saving grace on the present occasion is that no third country seems to be on the horizon to come to Iran’s help. So Israel shall get away with it, as it has done in all the years since 1948. The US shall without doubt earn much opprobrium thereby. But it seems, as you say, that there is going to be a wide measure of people’s support in the US to war in another distant theatre. Who cares who likes the US and Americans and why and who doesn’t? US decisions are not affected by such considerations.
The US may have its treasury bonds in China’s hands to the tune of several billion dollars. The US may feel constrained to cut down on expenditure even at the Pentagon. But the US is not down and out. It can afford another war, whatever the expenses of that war. It is not for nothing that the world refers to the US as the richest and the most powerful State in world history. That remains a fact. For the foreseeable future that shall remain the fact that will govern its foreign policy decision-making.
In the end result, we have another war on our hands. Historians and analysts shall endlessly split hairs on the whys and wherefores of decisions by several sides to that war. And so the show will go on.
V. C. Bhutani, Delhi, India, Feb 16 2012, 0625 IST

The reaction from western citizens not seemed to be that mature for the matter. Some time nations do determine the democratic behaviors. The causes of the issues we are having raised from the different behavioral Aras. A culture should be stretchable to accept and modify the new ideas.

This is true, and it will be interesting to see what Obama does with his next 4 years. I think it will be a tumultuous time on the international stage. Especially with Iran and Korea as wildcards.

Walt is right in saying that Ron Paul is not a 'credible' alternative. But why is that? Because the media have done their best to ignore, denigrate or demonise him? His policies seem popular enough, and, given more airtime, would likely resonate much more widely. Given that, his showing in the polls has been all the more remarkable. Unless we accept that 'credibility' is something other than the backing of the main stream media we'll never have a truly credible alternative to the disasterous choices we are always left with.

Just to addon:
After almost 20 years of somehow conservative Kohl (CDU) goverment in Germany, Kohl became ineffective and the limits of the conservative government became visible. Thats, when Schroeder (SPD chancellor) -Fischer (Greenies, vizechancellor and secretary of state) made it to govern Germany. Things which could never have been done by the conservative CDU government (especially Kohl) and which were before almost unthinkable for a SPD-Greenie goverment were suddenly possible:
- the first time after second WW participation on a war (in Yugoslavia) together with NATO
- the wide dismantling of the social system and economic changes for the benefit of the employers and to the disadvantage of the employed, among others creating Hartz4, the crashing of the workers unions (which now are widely ineffective), One-Euro-per-hour jobs etc.
Friends of mine think, that there is power behind which is basically running the government and that elections have no meaning et all in this kind of "democracy".
W9

And if you think Obama is bad (and he is) wait until an R becomes Prez again. You ain't seen nothing yet! Bombs away and sayonara!

You were paid to write this? By whom?

Appears that not a single democrat nor republican candidate or Obama is capable of representing and relating to the needs of over 99% of Americans.

The US government, both parties and the many ignorant, phony experts have failed Americans for the last 30 years by allowing about two dozen corrupt Billionaires, their families, corporations and puppets to control or manipulate our federal, state and local governments and the major industries including finance and banking, oil and power, news, movie, food, pharmaceutical, health care, education, manufacturing, military, etc in America and around the world.

Appreciate all comments and corrections. I'm politically ignorant, 71 and tired of the BS.

1. Finance, Banking and Mortgage Crises in America and around the World

The Federal Reserve is a "privately owned corporation" whose main goal is to make its secret owners and share holders rich. It loans billions of dollars to the US government with interests, maintaining a growing US debt of $15 trillion.

Most Americans believe that the Federal Reserve is a government department. The Fed illegally controls or influences all aspects of finance: policies, supply and circulation of money and loans, interests rates, leverage, etc.

For a documented history of the past and present financial crises, of other crises and more on the illegal Federal Reserve watch "The Secret of Oz", a documentary movie, winner of 4 film awards.

http://www.documentarywire.com/the-secret-of-oz
Written and directed by Ben Still.

Beloit International Film Festival 2010 Best documentary (BIFF)
Yosemite Film Festival 2010 Silver Sierra Award for Excellence in Filmmaking
Accolade Competition 2010 Award of Merit La Jolla, California
Nevada Film Festival 2010 Silver Screen Award
Nathan's Economic Edge, 2009 Excellent review at a world top economics blog.
British premier Oct. 1, 2010 At prestigious Bromsgrove conference

After watching "The Secret of Oz", I found it disturbing and very easy to believe. Due to my political ignorance and inexperience I'm unable to fully judge it's truth and history. My gut says it's mostly if not all true. The award list suggest that it's true. I’ve become wiser in my old age and do not believe most of what I hear or see in the various media and what is commonly accepted and considered history since my world travels and experiences have often contradicted and proved otherwise.

For more history on money, watch: documentarywire.com/the-money-masters Add www.

Of course, the corrupt billionaires are world wide.

2. The Military-Industrial-Complex(MIC) is alive and growing exponentially.

In Afghanistan:
"450 Bases and It’s Not Over Yet
The Pentagon’s Afghan Basing Plans for Prisons, Drones, and Black Ops"
By Nick Turse" tomdispatch.com/archive/175501/ Add www.

The military-industrial-complex must be replaced with a military defense system that does not feed the US imperialism. 900 US foreign military bases cost one trillion dollars a year.

--"Despite all the talk of drawdowns and withdrawals, there has been a years-long building boom in Afghanistan that shows little sign of abating. In early 2010, the U.S.-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) had nearly 400 bases in Afghanistan. Today, Lieutenant Lauren Rago of ISAF public affairs tells TomDispatch, the number tops 450.--"

"---Year after year, ever more American and NATO money has been poured into the training of a security force so humongous that, given the impoverished Afghan government, it will largely be owned and paid for by Washington until hell freezes over (or until it disintegrates) -- $11 billion in 2011 and a similar figure for 2012. And year after year, there appear stories like the recent one from Reuters that began: “Only 1 percent of Afghan police and soldiers are capable of operating independently, a top U.S. commander said on Wednesday, raising further doubts about whether Afghan forces will be able to take on a still-potent insurgency as the West withdraws.---”

3. "How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich"

"The inside story of how the Republicans abandoned the poor and the middle class to pursue their relentless agenda of tax cuts for the wealthiest one percent."

rollingstone.com/politics/news/how-the-gop-became-the-party-of-the-rich-20111109 Add www.

For further corrections to America, suggest reading Juan Cole's article,
"10 Ways Arab Democracies Can Avoid American Mistakes" at:
juancole.com/2011/07/10-ways-arab-democracies-can-avoid-american-mistakes.html Add www.

4. Take the money out of politics(federal, state and local), special interest groups and lobbying. No more secret meetings and communications between the government and special interests groups, lobbyists and all visitors.

Enough.

Anti-Semite; an Arab-hater. That makes your a racist, Zionist. How dare you google reklam ajans? call others "anti-Semites" from your Hassidic Plantation?

Hassidic Plantation? Nice rhetoric. Nice bigotry. Also, if you actually looked up the origins of the word "antisemite" you will find it was coined google reklam in Germany by a Professor Wilhelm Marr, who invented the term soley to refer to JEWS. Not arabs. However, doing this research google reklam ver would cause you to actually find facts and substantiate what you say, which apparently you are against doing.