Thursday, September 11, 2008

Foreign Policy

Apparently Sarah Palin said today that she'd be willing to go to war with Russia. According to an Associated Press story:

Asked whether the United States would have to go to war with Russia if it invaded Georgia, and the country was part of NATO, Palin said: "Perhaps so."

Pressed on the question, Palin responded: "What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against..."

Her talking points seem to reflect the militant neoconservatism that has prevailed over the last several years. I don't have the energy to debate neoconservative foreign policy right now. But I have to admit that rhetoric (from either party) about protecting sovereign nations sometimes strikes me as hypocritical, considering that we have a history of interfering in the affairs of democratic countries ( the 1973 coup against Chile's Salvador Allende, the 1954 coup against Guatemala's Jacobo Arbenz, the 1953 overthrow of Iran's elected prime minister, and the attempted coup against Venezuela's democratically elected Hugo Chavez in 2002 ).

Anyway, let's take this opportunity to contrast the stated foreign policy positions of the two major candidates.

Barack Obama's website has this to say about his foreign policy:

The United States is trapped by the Bush-Cheney approach to diplomacy that refuses to talk to leaders we don't like. Not talking doesn't make us look tough – it makes us look arrogant, it denies us opportunities to make progress, and it makes it harder for America to rally international support for our leadership.

Obama is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.

When Obama articulated this position in an early democratic debate, others derided him. Of course, now even the Bush administration admits that its obstinacy against talks with Iran wasn't working and has since met with Iran.

John McCain's website doesn't address foreign policy directly. It focuses instead on national security, saying that we need to increase the size of our military and be prepared to fight. Here's an example:

In a dangerous world, protecting America's national security requires a strong military. Today, America has the most capable, best-trained and best-led military force in the world. But much needs to be done to maintain our military leadership, retain our technological advantage, and ensure that America has a modern, agile military force able to meet the diverse security challenges of the 21st century.

The word "diplomacy" doesn't seem to appear anywhere on his issues pages. He's been known to joke about bombing Iran by singing "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boys song, Barbara Ann.

The Economist put it this way:

Many Americans see him as a warmonger, a man who would be happy to bomb Iran if that is the only way to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, who is more than ready to confront Russia, and who supported toppling Saddam Hussein before George Bush was elected and New York and Washington were attacked. This fear is surely overdone: even though Mr McCain is presumably more minded than Mr Obama to attack Iran, neither the joint chiefs of staff nor most of his advisers think that is a good idea. But it is not a completely unreasonable worry. Mr McCain needs to find ways of correcting this perception, rather than making jokes about bombing.

The contrast seems clear. If you believe that we should be predisposed toward military action, vote for McCain. If you believe that we should be more willing to engage diplomatically, vote for Obama.

8 comments:

Al and Jenny said...

I don't want to cause problems...but I don't think either approach is right. I think it has to be a melding of the two. In my opinion I don't think that some of these other world leaders are reasonable at all. And so to try to talk/friendship them through everything is ridiculous.

But I don't think that we need to be war hungry either and jump at every chance to be the hero and save everybody.

However, it is scary to have somebody in the white house that has no military experience at all and who does not value the importance of having a strong military and in fact at times actually seems unpatriotic. At the very least anybody that is running for president of the U.S. of A. should have a strong love of our country. Isn't that vital?

Alex said...

I'm curious where the accusation that Obama is unpatriotic came from? What evidence is there to suggest that he's unpatriotic?

Jed Eastman said...

Not "causing problems" at all. In fact, I really appreciate your willigness to discuss. To the point of Obama not valuing a strong military, part of his foreign policy plan is actually to enhance the military by training more special operatives, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines, and other points you can read on his official website. Your point on military experience is fair, I don't disagree with you that military experience definitely would seem to help prepare one for the Commander-in-Chief position, but I don't necessarily think it's vital. I, however, do disagree with your point on lack of patriotism. Listening to many of Obama's speeches, reading his books, listening to his ideas about America suggests to me he's got all the patriotism you can ask for. Disagree? I'd love to hear why. Thanks again.

Kim said...

The "evidence" that he's not patriotic comes from several places. He doesn't wear a flag on his lapel. He's been known to not put his hand on his heart during the pledge or anthem. His wife has said that she's proud of her country for the first time. His pastor has said quite harsh and infammatory things about America and its notorious history regarding race relations and opression of minorities. All of these have been put out as "evidence" purporting that Senator Obama is not a patriot. I think what is fair to say is that he's not an arrogant nationalist. Americans generally have what I call the high school football player mentality. They're the big guys, tough, popular, girlfriends, cars, generally get what they want, generally little concern for those of "lower" classes. Our nation, its population, and its leaders have held this view, especially recently after we were brutally attacked. This arrogance on the world stage has led to more hatred pointed at America than at any time in our history. This arrogance has squandered the world's sympathy that was felt after the 9/11 attacks. This arrogance led us into an ill conceived war. This arrogance has led to the imprisonment without cause or representation of thousands of innocent human beings.
What Senator Obama proposes is a departure from the arrogant foreign policy of the last 8 years. Americans cling to this mentality because they like to feel strong and powerful, they like to feel like the popular and tough football player on the world stage. Ideas like consideration of the views of countries like Iran and humility in the advancing of the American agenda on the world stage don't play well in America because of this arrogance. The political right has relabeled this arrogance as patriotism and they're using these ideas to paint Sentor Obama as non-patriotic.

Alex said...

As long as we're talking about patriotism, I'm with Howard Zinn's definition of patriotism. Check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCs3nOF964k and http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Zinn/Kinder_Gentler_Patriotism.html.

Al and Jenny said...

Wow. Sorry for getting everybody riled up. I can see that I am alone her and fighting my own battle...which is fine...I'm not in this for a heated battle. Just wanted to voice a different opinion on the matter. I'm not as well read on politics as any of you and I don't pretend to be. I'm just the average American housewife that had something to say. I'm gonna back off now. Matt, those are a lot of the examples I am talking about. Thanks for sharing them.

I will disagree with you on some of your points though. We have been waving our flag and singing the anthem proudly in all of my 30 years of life and well before that. It's not something new or something that we need to be ashamed of or apologize for since or because of 9/11 and the war in Iraq. From football players, to students, housewives, the elderly, rocket scientists, supermodels, and whoever else you want to name, it is something that unites us together as a country no matter what race, age, sex, political views,etc. We are not the only country that shows patriotism through displaying our flag, hands over hearts, etc. Far from it. I lived in Europe for 4 years and visited several countries for extended periods of time. Other countries hang their flags on buildings, banners, pins, bumper stickers, have anthems, sing along to the anthem etc. I never think of it in a negative light that they are proud of their country. Just the opposite.

Kim said...

Agreed. I didn't mean to insinuate that patriotism is a bad thing. I served in the Navy for 6 years and got chills every time I stood at attention and saluted our flag during the anthem. I wore my uniform with great pride.
As you said well, many other nations are proud of their countries. I served my mission in Canada. They are very proud of their country. My time in Canada showed me that there are really good people in the world who don't always appreciate or agree with what America stands for or does in the world. I met a lot of people who viewed America as an arrogant world dictator.
My point is that there's humble patriotism and arrogant patriotism. I don't agree with militant, nationalistic patriotism that leaves no room for other perspectives. I also think it's very unfair to characterize Senator Obama as unpatriotic. I would say he's a more humble patriot and I very much agree with that.
PS - Don't say "just a housewife". When I was in med school and residency it was always clear to me that my wife worked harder and longer than I did. Keep your opinions coming.

Al and Jenny said...

Crazy. My husband is a 4th year med student in the throes of applying for residency programs. It's always nice to hear of those that are in or have been in the same situation and understand all that it took to get there. Thanks for the comments.