As my last post made mention of Obama's foreign policy, specifically his boundless faith in the power of talk, I feall I should at least try to figure out what his foreign policy is.

Normally there would be no problem figuring out what a candidate's foreign policy is. Most candidates go to great lengths to explain their positions. However, as I have pointed out before, Obama ran a largely content-free campaign for much of the primary season. Until the Wright faisco forced him to start taking a handful of firm stands on positions, the only platform we had was his written platform, "Blueprint for Change", itself rather vague, to say the least.

His "Blueprint" follows the Clinton campaign model, emphasizing domestic over foreign policy, giving only 6 pages to defense and foreign relations in a 64 page document, with half of one page taken up by one of the many Obama quotes which litter the document. The platform itself is rather nebulous, as is most of Obama's platform. Even for a high-level overview, it is remarkably vague. It does clearly promise to bring the troops home, and there are platitudes about fighting terrorism and an equitable settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but the only things which come through clearly are Obama's dedication to a nuclear free world, a limitless faith in his ability to negotiate, and a commitment to sending lots of money overseas.

As his platform itself tells us nothing beyond Obama's belief that he will be able to either talk or bribe world leaders into being nice, I suppose we need to turn to Obama's few concrete statements. However, doing so leads only to more confusion.

Obama's first real statement was simply an expansion on his platform. This is Obama's notorious promise to engage in unconditional talks with any world leader. As this drew such scorn he later modified it, but at the time it was clear that he meant just what he said, that any dictator, state sponsor of terror, anyone at all, could have access to the president of the US without any conditions attached. The possibility that this would grant legitimacy to dangerous regimes, or that ti could be used to stall US response in critical situations apparently never entered Obama's thoughts. As in his "Blueprint" it appears that his faith in negotiations, most specifically his ability to negotiate, is unlimited.

Following that came Obama's first really puzzling foreign policy statement, his promise to invade our ally Pakistan to get Osama. He quickly let this one drop, but followed it up with an even more puzzling promise, to return to Iraq if al Qaida set up operations there. As was pointed out at the time, al Qaida was already involved in Iraq, but Obama again, just pretended he had never made such a stupid statement. It set up a few amusing japes in the alternative press, but somehow the MSM missed both "gaffes" and concentrated on John McCain's supposed Middle East "gaffe" instead.

On the economic front his foreign policy was just as puzzling, promising to oppose NAFTA while his aide told Canadian officials that ti was just "campaign rhetoric". Apparently even Obama's explicit statements cannot be trusted to show us his real foreign policy. However, as they are all we have, I suppose we will have to take them at face value.

Obama was then caught up in the Wright fiasco to the exclusion of all else for quite a while, leaving his foreign policy even more up in the air than it was before. But, once the dust cleared, Obama was back to foreign affairs, and busy throwing out puzzling inconsistencies with increasing frequency. Claiming Iran is a tiny nation and no threat, followed immediately by claims that it was a grave threat. He followed this up by promising to continue blockades of Cuba, though allow remittances of money by family members. Though what they would do with US dollars during an economic blockade is not mentioned.

However, throughout all of his back and forth, and all of his inconsistent statements, there is one thread that is always present in Obama's foreign policy. That is his belief that if he just talks to a foreign leader he will be able to make them see the error of their ways. It is not an unusual position, it is something we have seen before, the arrogance of the persuasive man. Obama has been so successful in his own life using his powers of persuasion that eh just can't believe it will solve all problems everywhere.

But that error has led to disaster. The Byzantine belief that negotiations and tribute could keep alive their flagging empire was proved false in 1453. The Venetian belief that they could talkt heir way out of European politics ended with Napoleon's troops erecting the "liberty tree" in the plaza in front of St. Mark's. Europe's faith in the League of Nations, and Ethiopia's belief in European promises, allowed Mussolini to march through that nation without any European opposition. Chamberlain's faith in the power of talk kept Europe from ending Hitler's ambitions in 1938 rather than 1945. And finally, there is that impotent debating body known as the UN, which has passed countless resolutions yet accomplished real change only when a nation has agreed to lend them military force to make those words a reality.

Talk can sometimes solve problems, but it is not the only solution, many times it is not a solution at all. Often those who are so confident in their own ability to persuade others are actually easily deceived. Those who face them, seeing their preening confidence in their own ability to talk, play up to it, promise the moon, and then continue on with their original schemes.

Which is what is dangerous about Obama. He is so convinced that talk will solve everything that it would be very easy for Iran or Venezuela to agree to whatever he asked while secretly continuing with their plans. Obama, so sure of his abilities, would not even consider that they might have lied, giving them more time to prepare for their eventual betrayal. An excess of confidence can be a very dangerous thing. And in this case, not just dangerous for Obama himself, but for the entire nation.