The bipartisan consensus on foreign policy which had existed since 1950 and had been the single greatest accomplishment of the Truman administration, permitting continuity in the application of U.S. power in the world. It had been dearly bought not merely with doctrines of nearly every conceivable nature but also with a greatly enlarged defense budget, which built a pork barrel, and an ideological constituency, for expansion and military spending. Despite nuanced differences over defense matters and diplomacy, that unity among executive, Congress and public was the greatest precondition for the continuity of postwar foreign policy. (pp. 121-122)
The defense budget continues to be enlarged and the pork barrel continues to be filled. There remains an ideological constituency (military-industrial-congressional-infotainment complex) for invasions and occupations of all stripes (more commonly called wars - but invasions and occupations are far more technically correct terms).
No longer are there "nuanced differences over defense matters and diplomacy." There are politically calculated partisan differences. Much of the support given to Obama was based on his "promise" to "end the war in Iraq". He had read the mood of the voters, as evidenced by Democratic victories in the 2006 elections, to be against the war in Iraq, and thus did he stand against that war. The implosion of the financial and housing markets beginning in August, 2008 pretty much sealed the deal for Obama, even though he chose to be a standard bearer for GWB's TARP program, thus clearly aligning himself with the Wall Street interests.
But in order to have credence with the military-industrial-congressional-infotainment complex, Obama decided he would need to be a war partisan to show his bona-fides as a war monger. And thus did he promise to make Af-Pak "his" war.
As in all of Obama's efforts to establish bipartisan agreement, this too has failed him. The military doesn't like him (they would have been far more comfortable with McCain) and neither does Fox News. Obama's anti-war constituency has become very skeptical of his rhetorical double speak. It is as if the emperor has no clothes.
In so many ways, things have changed, not one wit from the days of Nixon's fall. As Kolko writes
The core of Washington's eventual political problem was the contempt of the decision makers for the Congress, press, and public - a manipulative relationship that was to produce a deepening mistrust that was to culminate in Watergate and the collapse of the congressional-executive unity. (pg 122)
