Political Rumble: Foreign Policy Edition
by HKS Democratic Caucus & HKS Republican Caucus on October 15, 2008 in Political Rumble
From the left…
Evan Maher, MPP ‘09
John McCain wants national security to be the predominant frame in this year’s presidential election. McCain and his campaign should be careful what they wish for.
Although the economy may dominate the remainder of the election season, Barack Obama is also the superior candidate when it comes to national security - despite McCain’s supposed strength on these matters.
As Kennedy School students, we probably want to start by comparing the candidates’ policies. Most basically, Obama represents a departure from the failed Bush administration foreign policies that have resulted in a disastrous war of choice in Iraq, a nuclear North Korea and a near-nuclear Iran, a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and an enormous decline of American influence in the world. John McCain’s policies represent more of the same.
Obama promises to end the war in Iraq. McCain is willing to maintain an indefinite military presence there. This is despite Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s calls for a phased withdrawal of troops that more or less matches Obama’s plan. Even President Bush now supports bringing home U.S. troops under a euphemistic “general time horizon.”
While perfectly willing to use military force when appropriate, Obama will utilize our entire statecraft toolkit - in particular, aggressive diplomacy. McCain likes to ridicule Obama for his willingness to sit down with Iranian leaders, but the Bush administration’s recent dispatch of a top ambassador to meet with the Iranians again suggests that Obama’s policies may be better suited for the real world.
Obama promises to refocus our strategy to defeat al Qaeda, which has regrouped on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. In 2003, McCain suggested the U.S. just “muddle through” in Afghanistan and called it a “remarkable success” in 2005. Even today, the national security platform on his campaign Web site does not include a strategy for Afghanistan.
But campaign policies only count for so much. In the most important U.S. foreign policy decision of the last decade, Obama was right and McCain was wrong. McCain insisted Saddam had WMD and the Iraqis would greet us as liberators. Obama argued that Iraq did not pose an imminent danger to U.S. security and represented a distraction from our real threat: al Qaeda.
In the most important decision a presidential candidate makes, choosing a qualified VP, again, Obama got it right and McCain got it wrong. Obama chose an articulate foreign policy expert. McCain chose someone whose stunning lack of knowledge and interest in international issues would be amusing were she not a 72-year-old’s heartbeat away from being leader of the free world. Indeed, McCain’s reckless judgment put country last.
Dealing with crises is a given in foreign policy; maintaining composure is not. Oliver Wendell Holmes’ famous description of FDR - “Second class intellect. First class temperament.” - underscores the importance of emotional intelligence and balance in political leaders. Barack Obama is famously unflappable, responding to the various crises of the last year - Reverend Wright, the Russia-Georgia conflict, economic meltdown - with characteristic calm.
John McCain has an infamous temper and treats those who challenge him with contempt (see the first two debates). His over-the-top rhetoric towards Russia during the Georgian crisis was in contrast with nearly every world leader, including President Bush, who called for calm. Even the former Republican secretary of state, Colin Powell, dismissed McCain’s “we all are Georgians” statement and said that U.S. interests call for a less emotional, more business-like approach to Russia.
Or you can take it from another Republican, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran: “The thought of [McCain] being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”
On temperament, judgment, and policies, McCain worries me, too. Barack Obama will do a far better job of keeping America secure and restoring our standing in the world.
From the right…
Michael Polyak, MPP ‘09
America’s greatest threats and opportunities are global, so it is critical that presidential candidates get foreign policy right. Senator John McCain has worked to protect America and uphold its standing in a dangerous world throughout his distinguished life. Now as a presidential candidate, he understands the importance of diplomacy and has made it the foundation of his foreign policy. When it comes to the nation’s most pressing challenges, McCain offers the best way forward.
Iraq. Senator McCain does not want American troops to be in Iraq one day longer than is necessary. McCain hates war. He’s lived it. But he understands that an unconditional withdrawal set to a rigid timetable would only embolden our enemies by giving them a date to declare victory.
In Iraq, General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency strategy is working. Enemy attacks have declined dramatically over the past year, and the security gains have created space for political and structural progress to occur. Iraq’s allies must seize this opportunity to help spur economic development, job creation, and civil society growth. In this environment, civilian and economic initiatives provide the essential glue for keeping the peace in Iraq.
An unconditional withdrawal would forfeit these strategic gains, essentially pulling the plug on a life raft just as the coastline appears. Moreover, the instability caused by early withdrawal could spill throughout the Middle East, igniting regional conflict. Such a scenario would threaten America’s allies and its vital interests, possibly requiring an even greater commitment of American blood and treasure in the long run.
To clarify another point, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki does not favor Senator Obama’s plan for Iraq. The Iraqi and U.S. governments agree that Coalition Forces should withdraw from Iraq under a general time horizon, but that this process should be adjusted according to evolving conditions. This is quite different from Senator Obama’s plan of unconditional withdrawal.
Afghanistan. We need more troops in Afghanistan, but this cannot come at the expense of security in Iraq. We must succeed in both places. As we consolidate security gains in Iraq, we’ll likely be able to divert forces to Afghanistan, but doing this based on a timetable rather than conditions would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
That said, Afghanistan needs help now, and this is why diplomacy is so important. A failed Afghanistan poses a risk to the free world, not just America. Therefore, the next president must employ robust diplomacy to shore up greater economic, civilian, and military commitments from NATO members and other allies. McCain will do just that.
Iran. Senator McCain wants a peaceful resolution to Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. He favors multilateral diplomacy, but he responsibly believes that this should occur in a structured format - with preconditions - and not at the presidential level. In testament to this issue’s vital importance, famed diplomat Henry Kissinger firmly sided with McCain’s Iran position in an interview immediately following the first presidential debate.
Russia/NATO. The recent conflagration in Georgia reaffirms the importance of NATO in the post Cold-War era. Rather than suggesting moral equivalencies, the next president must firmly back our allies and work to keep NATO strong. He must uphold a constructive relationship with Russia, while making it clear that America stands behind its friends. In response to the Georgian crisis, Senator McCain did exactly that.
Other threats topping the foreign policy list include terrorism, WMD proliferation, Kashmir, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, to name only a few. In the face of these tremendous challenges, Senator McCain’s policy positions are sound, and he has the experience, judgment, and credibility to get it right. All he needs is your support.
Comments
Got something to say?
