And yet liberals and anti-war types should not declare the new president a kindred spirit too hastily. As Obama himself said in the now famous 2002 speech denouncing the Iraq adventure: "I am not opposed to all wars." It's true that he avoids the phrase "war on terror". But that is not because he thinks there is no war to be fought. His disagreement with Bush was that the latter had failed to define America's enemy clearly. -Jonathan FreedlandThis should not surprise anyone who has read about Barack Obama's opinions or anyone who is reading Daniel Larison (if you aren't, you should start now). But the MSM has largely ignored this very important point until now. Obama is a hawk who will merely tilt USA foreign policy slightly. Yes he is for diplomacy with Iran and Syria, but Bush was for diplomacy with Iraqi Sunnis and North Korea; both of which are certainly in the same league as Iran and Syria. So it's not that much of a change. If diplomacy were to fail, Obama has constantly refused to rule out military action against Iran. On the subject of Pakistan and the Taliban, Obama has been more hawkish than the Republicans, favoring strikes within Pakistan itself.
It will be interesting to watch how he acts once in power, but big changes should not be expected. Except, of course, in the tone and general attitude.