<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"><channel xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"><title>RedState</title><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/28/mickey-kaus-barack-obama-and-humanitarian-imperialism/feed/</link><description>Conservative News &amp; Politics</description><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2026 08:08:28 -0400</lastBuildDate><item><title>Mickey Kaus, Barack Obama, and 'Humanitarian Imperialism.'</title><description>&lt;![CDATA[&amp;#8220;Humanitarian imperialism&amp;#8221; is the phrase Mickey&amp;#8217;s come up with to describe Whatever The Heck It Is We&amp;#8217;re Doing These Days In Eurasia,  and it&amp;#8217;s a good one.  It&amp;#8217;s also one that implies a constant, low-level  state of war that goes a good deal beyond the one that we&amp;#8217;re in now; and  I should make a distinction here between the Bush and the (unstated)  Obama Doctrines.  The Bush Doctrine assumed that, under the right  conditions, a long-term war could be over: &amp;#8220;as they stand up we will stand down,&amp;#8221; and all that.  The Obama Doctrine  &amp;#8211; as described by Mickey &amp;#8211; assumes that war will be what he called  &amp;#8216;routinized&amp;#8217; &amp;#8211; and accepted, as part of the cost of doing what is pretty  explicitly Imperial business.  And by Imperial Mickey explicitly means  something very, very Victorian, which is ironic on a variety of levels.]]&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 28 Mar 2011 11:00:48 -0400</pubDate><creator xmlns="dc">&lt;![CDATA[Moe Lane]]&gt;</creator><enclosure url="" type="image/jpeg" length="123" /><link>https://redstate.com/moe_lane/2011/03/28/mickey-kaus-barack-obama-and-humanitarian-imperialism-n38444</link></item></channel></rss>