Reading Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama's outline of his intended foreign policy posture in the most recent issue of Foreign Affairs was for me much like that moment when the drowning swimmer finally reaches the surface and takes a first gasp of fresh air.

After nearly 7 years of hardline neo-conservative driven foreign policy fueled by militarism, unilateralism, preemptive strike madness, nuclear build-up fundamentalism, sprinkles of theology, oil greed, torture, and infused with bold, unrestrained imperialism, Obama's message, while containing points on which I have sharp disagreements, is pure oxygen.

First, I will try to do justice to those portions of Sen. Obama's essay that I think are positive. Then I will elaborate some criticisms briefly. Before that, however, I must say that it is my belief that extremist ideologies, whether espoused by religious fundamentalists hiding in the borderlands of Pakistan and Afghanistan or by white supremacists in Oklahoma City or implemented by the civilian leaders of the most powerful military in the world, that fuel and legitimize terrorist violence against non-combatants for political or economic gain, should be exposed, and the global forces for liberation, peace, democracy, and justice should be rallied to stop them.

For five years the world has lived with Bush's putting into practice the conservative right-wing philosophy that prefers military force and coercion over all other forms of engagement with other countries. We have seen the outcome of the right-wing mantra that 'either you with us or you are against us.' We have witnessed the results of Bush's preemptive wars coupled with global bullying dressed in the fig leaf of the 'coalition of the willing.'

We have been angered by his use of torture in the name of ending violence and establishing democracy. We hardly need any more years of war, let alone the decades the Republicans are demanding, to learn how we and the world will end up if we continue to pursue the course Bush and the extremists in the Republican Party have laid out for us. The bombs exploding in Baghdad, Beirut, and Gaza are the daily results of this right-wing calculus of power and force.

As Obama notes, 'In the wake of Iraq and Abu Ghraib, the world has lost trust in our purposes and our principles.' Bush's ideology, his agenda, and his actions are at the heart of his failures.

The strongest element of Obama's essay is its philosophical stance. Far from a philosophy of weakness or surrender, Obama's vision is one of strength through what he calls 'common security.' If implemented, it would realign US foreign policy with basic international principles which this country helped found. Far from retreating from the battle against terror, it is a philosophy that, unlike Bush and the neo-con ideology, seeks to strike at terrorism, not simplistically at its effects and thus add fuel to the fire, but at its root causes. Obama's ideas are based on a responsible and intelligent apprehension of certain fundamental global realities and presents some common sense ideas that may help turn a corner from the hatred and violence that ignites both terrorist ambitions and, in my view, Bush administration policies.

The US, in Obama's view, has a vital role to play on earth. That, despite the best efforts of the Bush administration, this country is still capable of accomplishing a 'mission' of 'global leadership,' and that America retains 'great promise and historic purpose in the world.' But, Obama says, 'America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America.'

Because 'the world shares a common security and a common humanity,' Obama insists, we have to learn and turn into practice the basic principle that 'the security and well-being of each and every American depend on the security and well-being of those who live beyond our borders.' The implication of this statement, of course, will have right-wing pundits and the Republican presidential candidates, who have committed themselves to continuing and expanding Bush's war on Iraq, wringing their hands and stamping their feet over bleeding hearts and pussy footing around.

Maybe it seems little more than a liberal platitude, but after the world has lived with the drunken frat boy logic of 'nuke 'em all' that lurks but thinly veiled behind the foreign policy of the Bush administration, Obama's ideas hint that America is capable of rationality again.

Because of its looming presence in our lives, the Iraq war and its 'responsible end' appears to be the heart of this foreign policy statement. Obama argues that launching the invasion of Iraq was a 'diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck us on 9/11.' Describing the war as a 'strategic blunder' that was incompetently prosecuted, Obama asserts that the war 'has made it immeasurably harder to confront and work through the many other problems in the region.'

in Iraq now, no 'military solution' can be found to end the 'civil war.' Indeed, only a political solution sought and worked out by Iraqi leaders 'can bring real peace and stability.' And the only leverage available to US for ensuring that a political solution is sought, Obama argues, is the occupation force. Withdrawal of US troops will force Iraqi leaders to come to a political settlement much sooner than an open-ended occupation.

But redeployment has to be combined with a broad regional diplomatic plan, Obama adds. In addition to good faith steps of closing US bases in Iraq, this efforts should include direct talks with Syria and Iran to broker security arrangements, a two-state settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, mediation of Lebanon's tenuous relations with Syria, diplomatic resolutions to border disputes between Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (including the dispute over Kashmir), and securing the continuing commitment of all regional powers to hunt down Al Qaeda. (Specific statements in regard to these issues made by Obama are a source of sharp disagreements I have that will have to be addressed elsewhere.)

But diplomacy and force are not the only tools available to the international community to help accomplish these lofty but achievable goals. Economic aid. '[C]ombating the terrorists' prophets of fear will require more than lectures on democracy,' writes Obama. 'America must make every effort to export opportunity – access to education and health care, trade and investment.'

'America,' he continues, 'must commit to strengthening the pillars of a just society. We can help build accountable institutions that deliver services and opportunity... . In countries wracked by poverty and conflict, citizens long to enjoy freedom from want. And since extremely poor societies and weak states provide optimal breeding grounds for disease, terrorism, and conflict, the United States has a direct national security interest in dramatically reducing global poverty and joining with our allies in sharing more of our riches to help those most in need.'

Economic, civic, and political development in regions influenced or dominated by terrorist groups is the starting point, not threats and carpet bombing. The latter, the cornerstone of Bush dogma, fuels terrorists' ambitions, while the former strips them of their appeal.

Obama calls for a serious investment in education and fighting disease globally led by the US, and commits to expanding aid to AIDS programs and establishing a Global Education Fund. Aid dollars will help build infrastructures for health and education programs that could lay a basis for turning the hearts and minds of the marginalized towards hope rather than fear and violence.

But Obama, again unlike Bush who convinced most of us to view the problems of our neighborhoods, schools, cities, and towns as unrelated to the rest of the world, refuses to view foreign policy as isolated from domestic policy. 'We will not be able to increase foreign aid,' Obama states, 'if we fail to invest in security and opportunity for our own people. We cannot negotiate trade agreements to help spur development in poor countries so long as we provide no meaningful help to working Americans burdened by the dislocations of a global economy.'

Missing from Obama's broad outline are knee-jerk threats against the 'Axis of Evil' or jingoistic posturing against China. In fact, Obama believes that China can play a positive role in promoting serious diplomatic efforts in Asia to reduce threats and encourage economic cooperation.

Obama's comments about nuclear weapons proliferation appears to be a qualitative departure from long standing US policy on nukes. Obama asserts a comprehensive plan for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. One, by reaching out to Russia to dismantle existing stockpiles, and two, by making peaceful nuclear energy technology available with accountability and oversight vested in the International Atomic Energy Agency. But, in addition to this not so new proposal (it is a basic feature of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty authored by Kennedy and signed by Nixon), Obama will press for ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and bans on producing new nuclear weapons materials.

Obama calls for 'de-emphasiz[ing] the role of nuclear weapons' and rejects producing 'a new generation of nuclear warheads.' Global security and human survival depend on it. Removing the basis of the desire some states have for getting nuclear weapons is a more reasonable security strategy than fueling nuclear arms races with threats and preemptive nuclear strike postures.

But states and global actors are not the only potential threats. Humanity is also threatened by global climate change. The issue is certainly worthy of the focus given by Obama in his paper. International efforts to create binding emissions caps combined with trade and aid projects tied to sustainable development are some of the things Obama predicts can help us avoid environmental catastrophe.

What I don't like most about this essay is probably more abstract than the concrete proposals and philosophical positions I found to be positive. For example, in various sections of the essay, Obama claims the tradition of FDR and JFK, specifically linking some of his foreign policy aims with Cold War programs of the latter, which while they had innocuous sounding mission statements, were little more than tools for intervention by multinational corporations and the US government into the internal affairs of sovereign countries. To what extent will aid programs established by an Obama administration serve similar purposes? Fortunately the specific conditions of the Cold War no longer adhere, but the reference remains troubling.

Sen. Obama also makes statements such as this one: 'I will show the world that America remains true to its founding values. We lead not only for ourselves but also for the common good.' Such a platitude only requires a moment of thought to tease out the contradictions. What exactly are our founding values? On one hand, liberation from empire and its intervention and domination, equality of all people, democracy, securing rights for all, access not just to abstract opportunity but the material basis and actual tools for economic, political, and social power are all 'founding values.'

But ours is and has been a class divided society based on capitalism, so slavery, conquest, racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and violence also appear in our history as founding values, if they indeed are not still valued. The global corporate drive for profits that risks human life and health, the environment, the security of communities, and equality seldom respects our more positive 'founding values.' Indeed, many believe that this drive for profits is also among our values. Clearly, these are, for the most part, the values Bush and his ilk have adopted and worn like badges of pride over the last seven years.

So when Obama speaks of the leadership and the historic mission of the US, what exactly is he promising that will ensure that these latter negative 'values' are not perpetuated? This question isn't answered satisfactorily in this essay.

I suspect that Obama understands that his words are little more than thin symbols when read outside of existing social conditions and apart from the balance of political forces contending for predominance in our country. I suspect that he understands that the specifics behind these words do not depend on the forceful claims and hopes of a single man or woman elected to the presidency. I doubt strongly that Sen. Obama believes in rule by fiat, and I cannot detect anywhere in this essay the sentiments that led Bush to claim that the government is his, to joke about dictatorship, or to insist that he is the 'commander guy' and the 'decider.'

We as democratic-minded people, as a broad people's coalition who favor the spirit and letter of the most positive 'founding values' will have to give Obama's words life and meaning, by our action, activism, our common unity to end the reign of those who favor the negative. We can start now by continuing to demand an end to the war and by voicing our call for a new direction on election day 2008. But, of course, it should not end there.

To conclude, I am buoyed in my hopes for interpreting Sen. Obama's words in the most positive way, not by his oratory or his voting record or his statement on this or that issue, but by a seemingly minor thing as the title of his most recent book: The Audacity of Hope. It nagged at me for the longest time. I haven't read the book yet. Nor have I read reviews of it. But when it came out last year, I noted it and put it on my to-read list for some time down the line when I got around to it.

Recently, I started reading his first book, Dreams From My Father, originally published in 1995, which I highly recommend. It was while reading this book that I got it. What does 'the audacity of hope' mean, and why does it give reason to believe in Sen. Obama's words? All people have hopes. But who are the people who must be audacious in their hope?

Whose side does that sentiment put the junior Senator from Illinois on? Think about it.