OT, but an article that seems fairly good about the forces in foreign politics in the Obama's

[Mass]

administration (if you can get over the cattiness involved in anything written by Ryan Lizza).

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/02/110502fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

[Inuca]

1. Thanks for the link, Mass n/t

[beachmom]

2. Thanks. I'm still reading it.

It hooks into my dismay with what Obama did in regards to Libya. I voted for the realist who campaigned in 2008, not this 2011 liberal interventionist. Again, read Samantha Power's POV, which I think is extremely radical and is borne out of her guilt for not doing more while in the Clinton Administration during the Rwanda genocide. I don't see why the U.S. has to change its way in response to someone's guilt. It also has some interesting things to say about the State Dept. Again, I'm not done with the article yet, but I am glad to see that someone else has noticed how Obama's foreign policy views have changed to the point where I am uncomfortable with the direction he is taking.

Now we need an article for why Kerry has evolved as well.

Edit: also, see why this new direction is dangerous. Hello, we need to deal with China and India. I swear as time goes by, the Middle East is going to become less important, especially if we can move past oil. We need to set our own agenda as much as possible, instead of constantly reacting to events in the M.E.

[beachmom]

3. Anne-Marie Slaughter, mentioned in the article, is on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/#!/slaughteram

She left the State Dept. and is now a Professor at Princeton. But, she is more in the humanitarian interventionist camp, so she might be one to look at to understand this POV.

[karynnj]

4. She will be one of the people speaking on what the end game in Afghanistan

should look like. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=273&topic_id=169554&mesg_id=169560 Along with Hasse, so it should be a nice balance.