<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: No Reset Button in Foreign Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 19:25:43 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Nikolas Gvosdev</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-431156</link>
		<dc:creator>Nikolas Gvosdev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/#comment-431156</guid>
		<description>Very true, yetanotherjohn, that the new president both inherits situations from the previous incumbent but also has the power to make changes. What does concern me, in both campaigns, is not recognizing that other countries are not going to return to some sort of status quo ante. Russia, China, India--all three are not going to assume their 2000 position. Proposals that the U.S. might make on climate change or Iran that might have won acceptance in 2000 or even 2003 or 2004 are no longer going to be seen as sufficient. I don&#039;t think that the campaigns have quite appreciated that it is going to be very difficult to turn pages back.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very true, yetanotherjohn, that the new president both inherits situations from the previous incumbent but also has the power to make changes. What does concern me, in both campaigns, is not recognizing that other countries are not going to return to some sort of status quo ante. Russia, China, India--all three are not going to assume their 2000 position. Proposals that the U.S. might make on climate change or Iran that might have won acceptance in 2000 or even 2003 or 2004 are no longer going to be seen as sufficient. I don't think that the campaigns have quite appreciated that it is going to be very difficult to turn pages back.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: just me</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-430942</link>
		<dc:creator>just me</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 11:45:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/#comment-430942</guid>
		<description>I agree that removing all troops from Iraq or moving them to another danger zone is impractical.

It doesn&#039;t take a genius to know that a quick pull out of Iraq creates more problems than it solves, and the president will get to own the debacle that follows.

Those hoping the troops come home within the first few months of an Obama presidency are in for a surprise if that is what they expect.

Foreign policy is definitely something that comes with the house, when you guy it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that removing all troops from Iraq or moving them to another danger zone is impractical.</p>
<p>It doesn't take a genius to know that a quick pull out of Iraq creates more problems than it solves, and the president will get to own the debacle that follows.</p>
<p>Those hoping the troops come home within the first few months of an Obama presidency are in for a surprise if that is what they expect.</p>
<p>Foreign policy is definitely something that comes with the house, when you guy it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-429813</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:28:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/#comment-429813</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;He could order all US troops back to the US, US troops into Zimbabwe, etc. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

Theoretically, yes.  Practically, no.

The former would be so politically irresponsible that it would kill his presidency.  The latter would not only be unpopular but constrained by Iraq.

McCain and Obama would likely differ somewhat in how they handle both of those crises.  But it wouldn&#039;t be night and day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>He could order all US troops back to the US, US troops into Zimbabwe, etc. </p></blockquote>
<p>Theoretically, yes.  Practically, no.</p>
<p>The former would be so politically irresponsible that it would kill his presidency.  The latter would not only be unpopular but constrained by Iraq.</p>
<p>McCain and Obama would likely differ somewhat in how they handle both of those crises.  But it wouldn't be night and day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: yetanotherjohn</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/comment-page-1/#comment-429809</link>
		<dc:creator>yetanotherjohn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 17:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/06/no-reset-button-in-foreign-policy/#comment-429809</guid>
		<description>Yes and no. Whomever is president will certainly have as their starting point what has gone before. They will start with a NATO established, the panama canal not under US sovereignty, the Iraq/Afghanistan war in progress, etc.

What the new president can do is make a radical shift. He could order all US troops back to the US, US troops into Zimbabwe, etc. There is a brake on this in the form of congress, but the president has wide latitude on foreign policy. 

The real question is how aggressively the new president is willing to move in a changed direction.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yes and no. Whomever is president will certainly have as their starting point what has gone before. They will start with a NATO established, the panama canal not under US sovereignty, the Iraq/Afghanistan war in progress, etc.</p>
<p>What the new president can do is make a radical shift. He could order all US troops back to the US, US troops into Zimbabwe, etc. There is a brake on this in the form of congress, but the president has wide latitude on foreign policy. </p>
<p>The real question is how aggressively the new president is willing to move in a changed direction.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
