I get to be protective of Obama when I want and I can get criticized for that as well.

Everything is written for purpose, except when it's not.

I think that those most opposed to Obama's declaration either a) already have chosen against him and so seek whatever can be spun to pile on or b) merely believe in keeping the president, whoever becomes president, operating from within a box. The world has changed, in case nobody's noticed.

[1] http://zenpundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/obamas-lack-of-sea-legs-in-foreign.html#4147438847303552180

Thanks for the input!

If I may, this hub-bub began when Obama issues a radically capitulatory foreign policy that no one serious believes he actually means, at least for the reasons he give.

Curtis interprets it as a subtle, “5G” move to make our enemies think their on the offensive because they win bargaining games.

Tom interprets it as a statement of calculated risk, if emphasizing the risk part more than Charles Krauthammer does.

My interpretation: Edwards has moved farther to the left, so Obama has to as well, if he intends to form an alliance of leftists and Clinton-haters necessary to stop Hillary's juggernaut.

Ultimately, I guess Obama's statement is no more surprising than the typical Democratic nonsense against China, or the typically Republican nonsense against immigration.

Primarily, my concern is about maneuverability. As I said at ZenPundit, I do not believe Obama plans to hand over to renegade regimes the keys to the White House; given that, then, how would a change in the Obama direction for foreign policy shake up the board, create initiative, perhaps even confuse those renegade leaders? It would be a new field for them; they would need to quickly learn the new rules. This isn't about handing over American keys or capitulating to every demand made by Chavez et al., in order to make them feel like “winners.” However, their reactions to such dialogues could be insightful, and their attempts to reposition and “take advantage” of the situation could indeed lead to some openings for our own jujitsu maneuvers.

The 4GW diplomatic style of giving ultimatums before meetings occur — strong arm tactics, really — are merely us trying to stay within a box while keeping them within a different box. It severely limits what we do; it is a form of hatred in conflict, too linear. [1] And really, it doesn't fool anyone.

Whether Obama could take full opportunity out of his proposed approach is a different subject.

[1] http://www.fifthgeneration.phaticcommunion.com/archives/2007/02/a_kinder_gentler_war.php

When is your view on Nixon's trip to China, and the “hateful” (?) “in a box” diplomacy on both sides that preceded it?

Curtis, allowing an “enemy” to take the initiative makes sense in cases where we own the rules of the game. However, the system only operates according to our rules in the Core, and not the Gap. That's both a national security reason that we need to shrink the gap, and cause of many thinkers' exasperation with Obama.