More Edwards speech

I want more elaboration:

We must be clear about when it is appropriate for a commander-in-chief to use force. As president, I will only use offensive force after all other options including diplomacy have been exhausted, and after we have made efforts to bring as many countries as possible to our side. However, there are times when force is justified: to protect our vital national interests, to respond to acts of aggression by other nations and non-state actors, to protect treaty allies and alliance commitments, to prevent terrorists from acquiring nuclear weapons, and to prevent or stop genocide.

Yet we must remember the complementary relationship between military force and diplomacy. Too often during the past six years, this Administration's diplomatic efforts have left the U.S. with two unacceptable options: do nothing or use force. We must do better than that. We should always seek to solve problems peacefully, preferably working with others. Yet one of the oldest rules of statecraft is that diplomacy is most effective when backed by a strong military. That does not mean, however, that every problem needs a military answer; far from it.

Bolding mine. Everytime I hear this from a politician, I hope to hear it followed by an explanation of what they think our vital interests are and the circumstances under which we should deploy our military to protect those interests. I never do. And that's a shame because it's possible to define "vital interests" and threats to those interests so liberally that it's impossible to determine what, in that politicians mind, a situation requiring military force might look like.

Politicians, of course, are well trained not to speak to hypotheticals, so it's almost impossible to get them to elaborate on these points. Which is perfectly predictable I suppose, but it's also a huge dodge and incredibly detrimental to the public's ability to understand the people who want to be their elected leaders.

Update: On the plus side, Edwards did say in the Q&A that he doesn't think military force is a smart idea in Darfur, but that he supports other humanitarian misisons backed by no-fly zones. Which is something I could get behind.