![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Obama on Foreign Policy
Sep. 18th, 2008 01:44 pmSo, yesterday's post was about the economy. Today's post is foreign policy, and I plan to post tomorrow about health care. After that I'm taking requests.
The Bush diplomatic doctrine appears to be "don't talk to countries we don't like." Judging by the McCain camp's insistence that they won't commit to meet with NATO ally Spain, apparently the "McCain Change" is now we don't talk to friends either! Moving from (alas all-too-accurate) snark to serious discussion, I'd like to look at Obama's foreign policy regarding several countries in my preferred order of importance.
Afghanistan
The Republicans don't like to talk about Afghanistan. This is probably because people like Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman JCS Mike Mullen say the current strategy isn't working and have long stated that we don't have adequate troops in the region. Obama recognizes that, and wants to reduce our presence in Iraq in part to free up troops for Afghanistan. Obama also understands that part of the Afghanistan problem is Pakistan, and if they don't get with the program, we will have to do it for them. In fact, we already are, something that Bush and McCain criticize Obama for proposing.
Iraq
I was for the war in Iraq, and would like to win it. It appears that The Surge (tm) worked, so can we go home now? That's a bit of a rhetorical device, but even the sovereign and duly-elected Iraqi government would like us to leave. So why are we arguing about this?
No, I don't know why Obama doesn't just say "the surge worked and let's go home." Here's the kicker - if the current situation is too fragile to leave, did The Surge (tm) really work? If not, under what set of conditions can we leave?
Iran
Iran bothers me, but not we can deal with them the same way we've dealt with thuggish regional bullies before - containment. If Iran really wanted to destroy Israel, their President (who, by the way, is not in command of the military) would not be seen on national TV holding a vial of enriched uranium. Nor would they be building long-range missiles. No, if the Iranians were serious, the first indication of their nuclear capability would be anonymous mushroom clouds over Israeli cities.
Missiles and public bomb-making are tools of extortion and deterrence. We should try containment and diplomacy first. If that fails, then we can still go military. But let's face it - right now the US military is too tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan to pose a credible threat to Iran. Instead of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick," we're "speaking loudly and carrying a little stick."
At any rate, that's my understanding of Obama's foreign policy. His official platform is available to read here.
ETA This article is not entirely on point, but well worth a read: A Conservative for Obama.
The Bush diplomatic doctrine appears to be "don't talk to countries we don't like." Judging by the McCain camp's insistence that they won't commit to meet with NATO ally Spain, apparently the "McCain Change" is now we don't talk to friends either! Moving from (alas all-too-accurate) snark to serious discussion, I'd like to look at Obama's foreign policy regarding several countries in my preferred order of importance.
Afghanistan
The Republicans don't like to talk about Afghanistan. This is probably because people like Defense Secretary Gates and Chairman JCS Mike Mullen say the current strategy isn't working and have long stated that we don't have adequate troops in the region. Obama recognizes that, and wants to reduce our presence in Iraq in part to free up troops for Afghanistan. Obama also understands that part of the Afghanistan problem is Pakistan, and if they don't get with the program, we will have to do it for them. In fact, we already are, something that Bush and McCain criticize Obama for proposing.
Iraq
I was for the war in Iraq, and would like to win it. It appears that The Surge (tm) worked, so can we go home now? That's a bit of a rhetorical device, but even the sovereign and duly-elected Iraqi government would like us to leave. So why are we arguing about this?
No, I don't know why Obama doesn't just say "the surge worked and let's go home." Here's the kicker - if the current situation is too fragile to leave, did The Surge (tm) really work? If not, under what set of conditions can we leave?
Iran
Iran bothers me, but not we can deal with them the same way we've dealt with thuggish regional bullies before - containment. If Iran really wanted to destroy Israel, their President (who, by the way, is not in command of the military) would not be seen on national TV holding a vial of enriched uranium. Nor would they be building long-range missiles. No, if the Iranians were serious, the first indication of their nuclear capability would be anonymous mushroom clouds over Israeli cities.
Missiles and public bomb-making are tools of extortion and deterrence. We should try containment and diplomacy first. If that fails, then we can still go military. But let's face it - right now the US military is too tied down in Iraq and Afghanistan to pose a credible threat to Iran. Instead of "speaking softly and carrying a big stick," we're "speaking loudly and carrying a little stick."
At any rate, that's my understanding of Obama's foreign policy. His official platform is available to read here.
ETA This article is not entirely on point, but well worth a read: A Conservative for Obama.
