A: "I think that will turn out to be counter-productive. The two big recruitment tools that we have given violent extremists are Guantanamo Bay and American boots on the ground. I believe that we should work instead in collaboration with and in cooperation with the other nations, especially of that region. That's when we're strongest as a country.

...I couldn't have stated a better position myself.

Has he taken a position on whether the President or Congress has the power to put the nation in a state of war? Has he said anything about how he would decide if the benefits of a possible war would justify the predictable killing of innocent bystanders?

I ask these questions not to fault O'Malley. I am worried that the crucial questions that should be asked of any candidate for CIC will not be asked.

...if he's consistent with his early efforts, we'll see a white paper with more specific proposals from O'M.

I do see an outline of a less reflexive tendency to war from O'Malley, which is the essence of the autocratic engagements we've seen from the Bush administration and Pres. Obama's own stated interpretation of his impetus to commit forces. In calling for a new National Security Act in a foreign policy address in June, O'Malley stresses his priority for military involvement would follow more 'engagement' and cooperation' balancing the use of our 'military, diplomatic, and economic tools.'

"No threat probably better illustrates the unintended consequences of a mindless rush to war — and a lack of understanding — than the emergence of ISIS," O'Malley said. "We are still paying the price of a war pursued under false pretenses and acquiesced to, in the words of Dr. (Martin Luther) King (Jr.) by 'the appalling silence of the good.'"

"No fighter jet or troop battalion will keep us as safe as a vibrant economy, a strong democracy, & a growing middle class," he said. "The greatest power we possess as Americans is just that: the power of our principles."

That is, as you say, a great start.