Obama is set to release his National Security Strategy today.
The text of the document is out:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf

I haven't read it yet, but from the President's West Point speech and John Brennan's speech at CSIS yesterday, I think it is overall pretty good.
Brennan yesterday:
http://csis.org/files/attachments/100526_csis-brennan.pdf

Clinton and Mullen will both be out today, Clinton at Brookings and Mullen at the National Press Club to officially launch it.

The emphasis is on a strong U.S., but with allies to help, continuing the fight against al Qaeda, adapting as we see fit, and reengaging with the world.

It's time to get these wars wrapped up, as our power has been drastically neutered by them as it has emboldened rogue states like N.K and Iran because they know that no amount of posturing or tough hawkish language can change the fact that we are already fighting a 2 front war, and can't handle opening another front with either of them.

It would be much easier to carry a big stick and influence behavior if the U.S military were unoccupied as other countries might take the threat of a military option from us more seriously.

Does it repeal the Patriot Act? If not, it's not good enough. Patriot Act needs to go.

If the words "International Order" is mentioned in the doctrine it a socialist mentality to fuck America

And it only took three responses to this thread to bring out the wingnut. I think we should read it first before we denounce it as "socialist", as if you even have a clue.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: Obama is set to release his National Security Strategy today.
The text of the document is out:
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/twn_up_fls/National%20Security%20Strategy.pdf

I haven't read it yet, but from the President's West Point speech and John Brennan's speech at CSIS yesterday, I think it is overall pretty good.
Brennan yesterday:
http://csis.org/files/attachments/100526_csis-brennan.pdf

Clinton and Mullen will both be out today, Clinton at Brookings and Mullen at the National Press Club to officially launch it.

The emphasis is on a strong U.S., but with allies to help, continuing the fight against al Qaeda, adapting as we see fit, and reengaging with the world.

That's a good idea- those Christian white guys have been causing trouble long enough.

I read it, it doesn't look too bad. It does say International Order a lot in the document, so belly isn't wrong.

stlouiedipalma wrote: And it only took three responses to this thread to bring out the wingnut. I think we should read it first before we denounce it as "socialist", as if you even have a clue.

I did not denounce it as "socialist" hell it was not even released yet. I just provide a clue that would determine its content. Was I wrong? Did the term “International Order” come up ... Was I Wrong?

Belly35 wrote:

stlouiedipalma wrote: And it only took three responses to this thread to bring out the wingnut. I think we should read it first before we denounce it as "socialist", as if you even have a clue.

I did not denounce it as "socialist" hell it was not even released yet. I just provide a clue that would determine its content. Was I wrong? Did the term “International Order” come up ... Was I Wrong?

Define international order?

From my indications, it is operating within the established international structure to solve multinational problems like terrorism/ Iran/ Iraq/ North Korea, etc.

These include:
NATO
EU
G20
UN
UN Security Council
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty
IAEA
Nuclear Suppliers Group
etc.

I'm not under any impression for creating some new "world government under socialist rule" order is meant.

I've listened to Mullen, Gates, Clinton and Brennan and Obama at West Point and have just got my impression. To me, from reading other people as well, the best comparison is to Ike.

This is the part I was worried about with the new National Security Strategy.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/05/27/homegrown.terror/index.html

The "Homegrown Terrorist". Just sounds like another way to take more freedoms away from US citizens. This line disturbs me the most..... "The strategy is built around protecting "four enduring U.S. national interests -- security, prosperity, values, and international order."...... Where's the protection of liberty, you know, the principle we were founded on, the only nation in the history of the world to be founded on freedom? Sounds like an expansion of the US PATRIOT Act, quite possibly the worst law since we had Sedition Acts.