The world is getting more complicated.

Do you want more belligerence from the next administration? That’s the central foreign policy question for the next President. No matter how you approach that question (whether we can afford it, whether we have the troops to back up our threats, whether we have the standing to convince people without force, etc.), it will drive the course of the American hegemony for the next decade.

Probably should keep paying attention to this. John McCain wants to keep escalating the situation. I don’t think that’s what we should do… experts seem to agree, and stuff like this isn’t going to help our economy.

Worth reading — a good rundown on why keeping Georgia out of NATO might not be out of sync with a general desire to add more nations to NATO. This is Hilzoy laying out her specific position, but the arc of her post talks is relevant in many other situations. Often, sound policy can’t follow a simple slogan and is fraught by apparent contradictions. We live in a world full of grays, and trying to fit a black and white frame on it often doesn’t work.

There are days where I think I should just have a permanent box with the feed from Obsidian Wings. Would save me some typing.

Anyway, this post is about McCain’s shifting positions on some key foreign policy issues. Basically, it seems like his positions on things he considers “central” to his foreign policy vision either change constantly or are not coherently explained by his advisors and spokespeople. Both point to inconsistencies in message and, at best, indicate that we have no idea what a McCain foreign policy would look like. Not good at this stage of the game, and not confidence inspiring if one considered foreign policy the key issue of this campaign. Of course, he’s said he doesn’t really understand the economy, so I’m not really sure why you’d vote for him since the most pressing policy issues facing America fall in those two categories.