some foreign policy analysts assert there is unlikely to be a dramatic shift in Washington's national security positions regardless of which major candidate wins. Timothy Lynch and Robert Singh of the University of London write that none of the lead candidates have disavowed the "war on terror." They also assert Obama's "opposition to the Iraq war is empirical--'it didn't work'--rather than ideological." Full Story »
Posted by Beth Wellington
This story is well-penned, well-sourced, and totally symptomatic of what's wrong with so much written about National Security. In a word, for McMahon (at least in this article) the NS Debate begins somewhere near Tel Aviv and extends to Kabul. It totally leaves out the big picture: the globalist neo-lib approach of the 90s and the neo-conism of the 00s are both over--what should take their place? That's the Debate. Obama and McCain aren't going to answer that question the same way.
