« What Everyone Should Be Talking About Today | Blog Home Page | McCain on the Threat from Iran »
September 26, 2008Macro and Micro Foreign Policy
After watching tonight's debate between Senators Obama and McCain, I couldn't help but feel as if we were watching two men argue over the obvious distinctions in their foreign policy positions, rather than the finer and more nuanced differences that may ultimately define their actions abroad. Leaving the political analysis aside, I think both senators did a decent job of articulating their macro-vision of the world, while regrettably failing to truly distinguish their foreign policy platforms from one another.
Senator Obama seemingly attacked the Kirkpatrick Doctrine of supporting non-ideological and more malleable authoritarians over totalitarian regimes that conflict with the interests of the United States. He referred to Pervez Musharraf as "our" dictator; chiding President Bush's Pakistani policy as a 20th Century approach to bilateral relations. But if Senator Obama really believes this, why would he approve of targeted attacks in Pakistan; the same kind of attacks approved by President Musharraf? Would American troops be exchanging fire with Pakistani troops today were "our" dictator still at the helm there?
Senator Obama did manage to express his foreign policy rationale, and rather well, actually. Speaking on the American presence in Iraq, Obama said "we have weakened our capacity to project power around the world." There's a fine argument to be made here, but it'll be interesting to see if Obama can come up with stronger details to substantiate that reasonable view on Iraq. Does the senator, for instance, want the United States to mirror the activities of China in Africa and Latin America, as he appeared to hint at this evening? What would that entail? Would he advocate the use of American forces in equally contentious and sectarian regions if done so in the name of American security? It’s clear that he wants a stronger presence in Afghanistan, but beyond that, his tactical approach remains vague.
Senator McCain encountered his own micro-dilemmas tonight. He forcefully and compellingly painted Senator Obama as the "Yeah, but" choice on Iraq, while his own position came across as forward looking and optimistic. McCain successfully linked failed and failing states to the promulgation of global terrorism, but he had missteps on the finer details of this fine point. He referred to pre-Musharraf Pakistan--a clear stumbling block for both gentlemen this evening--as a "failed state," which isn't entirely accurate. McCain still insists that Iraq is the central front in the greater war on terrorism, while Obama continues to insist that the true front is in Afghanistan. Both men stuck to somewhat parochial and partisan lines on the origins of the global terror threat. Obama--looking to reroute the focus away from Iraq--believes that a very specific cabal of radical criminals attacked the United States in 2001. McCain, focusing on a "central" front, continues to argue for a global war on terrorism; something greater than a mere band of extremists tucked away in the mountains of Waziristan.
But both men do agree that al-Qaeda is the gravest threat facing the American people today (Obama said as much). They both, clearly, believe in an active and--when appropriate--unilateral America in the conflict against terror and extremism. I get the impression that each candidate would agree that failed states serve as incubators of extremism, but neither has truly outlined what they would do differently to confront this. Winning in Iraq, while certainly a worthwhile expectation, doesn't accomplish this alone. Neither does withdrawal. If Senator Obama wants to see more discretion, who does he propose we target in that discretionary unilateralism? If Senator McCain believes Iraq is the central point in a broader strategy, what does he think about the spillover theory in teetering regimes such as Yemen’s?
Both of these gentlemen are good at macro arguments on Iraq and Afghanistan, but they get a failing grade when it comes down to the details. Both explained why current American behavior abroad is either faulty or noble, yet neither has outlined their endgame. We know how both senators would approach the war on their first day in office, but we don't yet know where they see the world on their last. Adventurism overseas can be explained to the American people if objectives are made clear. The candidate who accomplishes this may win the foreign policy debate in 2008.
Share