He helped write a lot of the Federal Guidelines on those subjects.

But these are issues a president must deal with daily, can't pick and choose. Questions will be ask and they deserve a answer.

...the nomination of my party as your President. *

...it makes supporters' relationship with Bernie's here a little tenuous, but it's something which is not only inevitable that he directly challenge Bernie's lead in the polls, but necessary if he's going to get any real traction in this contest.

and sorry about that. Now having a friendly discussion with my cousin, who's 'not happy' about MO'M's PAC's 'face off' with Bernie; said it's 'typical dirty politics.'

...I was almost dreading a moment like this, because these are issues I've spent over a decade here advocating for. He laid out a dynamic and responsible agenda and outlined an impressive set of priorities which mesh very well with my own views of foreign policy, international affairs, and notions of national security. Very relieved that I can fully support him on these.

The more I hear, the more I like.

He echoed Obama on ISIS.

He identified Iran as a major threat to us, and he supported what any sane person would want: a verifiable agreement under which Iran would commit to not developing nuclear weapons.

And he even managed to mention Benghazi without, of course, blaming Clinton for anything that happened there.

This speech doesn't give me a real sense of how hawkish O'Malley might be if he were President. I hope he elaborates more even if that involves taking some controversial stands on things.

After President Barack Obama asked Congress for new war powers to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, MSNBC rounded up the reactions of several potential 2016 presidential candidates from both sides of the aisle, including former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley.

The reaction among Republicans was generally that the three-year authorization for the use of military force against ISIS shouldn’t have a time limit, should have identified the enemy as “radical Islam,” and that it shouldn’t have a restriction against the use of ground troops.

O’Malley’s concern was the opposite. In a Facebook post O’Malley stated that “the new AUMF should address ISIS specifically, and mitigate any unintended consequences by including clear language on the use of ground troops and the length and terms of engagement.”

http://www.baltimorefishbowl.com/stories/omalley-criticizes-obamas-anti-isis-war-plan/

Pres. Obama is firmly against a time limit in his AUMF proposal or any measure which would restrict his ability to employ ground troops if he saw fit.

Fact is, Sanders is saying exactly what O'Malley said in his speech, arguing for more nations in the region to take responsibility for the fight against ISIS:

Like many Democrats, Sanders has vocally opposed deploying US combat troops to Iraq or arming Syrian rebels. But he's been pretty comfortable with the US bombing campaign against ISIS: "I have supported U.S. airstrikes against ISIS and believe they are authorized under current law," the senator said in a February statement, and wants regional Arab powers to take the lead in waging an international ground war against ISIS.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/potential-2016-candidates-weigh-obamas-war-request

I was talking about his speech, as you know, not the statements you quote. There O'Malley said that the U.S. should work with partners to "contain, degrade and ultimately wear down and defeat ISIS." That is pretty much Obama's approach, no? That is why I said he echoed Obama. Maybe I should have been more specific.

...O'Malley emphasized cooperation, 'new relationships,' and 'better intelligence.' This administration has been at it a while. He's not talking about the former one when he makes these criticisms, like "the U.S. must avoid mission creep". If he meant to convey approval with Obama's approach, he would have said so.

"Addressing threats like ISIS will require new relationships & better intelligence"

"We must create a more far-sighted & a more pro-active foreign policy based on engagement & collaboration"

"Our nation's security and our children's security demand we be more engaged with the world around us, not less."

"...time to overhaul the 1947 national security act"

"...re-imagine how the CDC identifies potential future threats" through a new National Security Act"

""We tend to wait until the only options left to us are military options."

but it is easier said than done.

I don't see any new approach here, just boilerplate stuff about wanting "cooperation" and "better intelligence" and "new relationships." Maybe O'Malley actually does have some new and exciting strategies for getting more partners in the fight against ISIS, or getting better intelligence, but I haven't heard them yet. I am all ears though.

edited to add: I do like the emphasis he is placing on international development.

...it's almost as if you're contradicting that here.

I think you're straining to criticize this speech and you're failing, in my view; more like flailing. More detail will come out later in the campaign. For now, this is a reasonable address which emphasizes cooperation and a reexamination of how we define threats to national security. That's very promising and deserves more than cynicism.

Rather than just telling me I am failing and flailing, why not explain what you find innovative or exciting about O'Malley's views on national security? Then maybe I will learn something and come to agree with you.

You say that O'Malley says that "it's not enough." So what exactly does he think Obama is doing wrong in the fight against ISIS? And please don't say, "O'Malley thinks Obama should get more cooperation from other nations," because, as you know, Obama has tried to get such cooperation. So it is pretty empty to say that he should get more cooperation unless one explains how to achieve that goal.

...claiming there wasn't any daylight between his and Obama's view.

I gave my view and I've heard your own dismissive one, despite where I've highlighted important distinctions. I've had enough of this. Follow the campaign and find out what you say you want to know. In the meantime, you have the ONLY major foreign policy speech of the campaign. We'll see if the others make more of an impression on you.

on how to deal with ISIS that are substantially different from Obama's--or so I could claim if I cared about who is right here. Maybe we really don't even disagree. You point out that O'Malley wants more cooperation with other nations than Obama has achieved so that the US can play a smaller role. You are right that, if it could be achieved, that would be a big difference between O'Malley and Obama. To me, though, that is not a difference in approach as opposed to a mere hope that O'Malley would achieve more cooperation than Obama has managed to achieve. At the end of the day, though, it doesn't really matter whether we call it a difference in approach. What matters is whether O'Malley has any good ideas about how to do better than Obama in securing partners in the fight against ISIS. Maybe he does and maybe the specifics of his approach will emerge in a later speech, or in the debates. I hope so.

Setting our little trivial disagreement aside, so far I haven't seen any truly innovative, interesting ideas on military policy from Sanders, Clinton, or O'Malley. My guess is that Sanders would be the least hawkish, but I am really uncertain how hawkish O'Malley would be.

I do like O'Malley's emphasis on international development. I think he is right to recognize the crucial role that international development can play in promoting global stability and peace.

Cheers.

There are a number of differences between O'Malley and Sanders.

Thank you, bigtree, for your link to O'Malley's presentation. And also thank you for your insightful analysis of it.

Here is the c-span video of his speech at the Truman Project:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?326811-1/former-governor-martin-omalley-us-national-security