"Blank page" Palin to be the new agent of the neocon agenda

As her public statements have made obvious, Sarah Palin is thin on knowledge, but fast to repeat the talking points (and the errors) of her tutors.

Think Progress has picked up on some great articles explaining why some of her statements sound so familiar: Palin has been embraced by neoconservatives as the vehicle to move their agenda forward. That includes tapping a long-standing neocon and former Executive Secretary of the National Security Council under W., Steve Biegun, as her foreign affairs trainer.

From the Telegraph:

A former Republican White House official, who now works at the American Enterprise Institute, a bastion of Washington neoconservatism, admitted: "She's bright and she's a blank page. She's going places and it's worth going there with her."

Newsweek also has a list of the Bush aides called in to move Palin from zero to hero in the weeks before the election.

TP's M. Duss has an assessment that is right on target:

In a way, neoconservatism is a perfect fit for Palin. It’s an ideology is built upon a reflexive skepticism toward scholarly expertise, tending toward more emotionally satisfying — not to mention politically profitable — policy answers than the boring, reality-based stuff offered by analysts who have spent their entire careers studying these questions. The presentation of Palin as a rebel reformer is of a piece with the neoconservatives’ presentation of themselves as rebel intellectuals, and resistance to their ideas is offered as proof of the corruption of American governing institutions, rather than proof that their ideas are just really, really dumb.

Palin’s simplistic, moralistic answers to complicated foreign policy questions shouldn’t be taken as evidence that she’s not smart, she clearly is. Rather, Palin’s simplistic, moralistic answers stem from the fact that neoconservatism is a simplistic, moralistic ideology, one unsuited for actual governance, as the last eight years should have demonstrated beyond all doubt.

A sometimes doddering president supported by an aggressive and moralistic VP who, in turn, is surrounded by advisers of questionable character and competence.

Sound familiar?

Oops, one less "National Security Credential" for Gov. Palin

A lot has been talked about "readiness" and "experience" this campaign. Symbolic gestures like visits to war zones have been used to communicate national security cred. But these photo-ops can be put in perspective by dishonesty and ignorance.
Unfortunately, the Republican Vice Presidential nominee displayed both.

1) Sarah Palin did not set foot in Iraq. Her campaign aides said on her behalf that she visited a "military outpost" in Iraq. The evidence now shows that she was at a border crossing in Kuwait, and the records show that she was not granted permission to step across.

2) On September 11, 2008 she told a group of soldiers deploying to Iraq that they will ‘defend the innocent from the enemies who planned and carried out and rejoiced in the death of thousands of Americans.’” “America can never go back to that false sense of security that came before September 11, 2001,”. People still say that?

Barack Obama has consistently told the same line since before the invasion, that it was the wrong decision for the wrong reasons. He is temperamentally and intellectually far more qualified to be commander in chief than his opponents.

McCain flips, Palin flops

Sam Stein at HuffPo dug up an interesting debate point used by McCain in October 2007:

"I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time."



As luck would have it, here's an example to validate the point he was making - a painful-to-watch clip of Palin bluffing when she doesn't know about the Bush Doctrine (of pre-emptive self-defense):



ABC News did a great fact check on Palin's answers in the Gibson interview. The only statement verified as "true"? That Russian territory can be seen from Alaska.

The Economist agrees: McCain shows poor judgment

That vaunted bastion of free-market economics, The Economist, has published an article outlining what McCain's VEEP selection says about his poor decision-making.

Mr McCain’s appointment also raises more general worries about the Republican Party’s fitness for government....

The Palin appointment is yet more proof of the way that abortion still distorts American politics. This is as true on the left as on the right. But the Republicans seem to have gone furthest in subordinating considerations of competence and merit to pro-life purity. One of the biggest problems with the Bush administration is that it appointed so many incompetents because they were sound on Roe v Wade. Mrs Palin’s elevation suggests that, far from breaking with Mr Bush, Mr McCain is repeating his mistakes.

Words matter, Governor Palin

Imagine you are on your third date with someone. After the waiter picks up the check, there is an awkward silence. You get the sense they probably like you more than you like them, and you don’t see much future. Can you just blurt out: “Do you see us going anywhere, I don’t.”??? No, of course not. It might evoke an emotional, irrational reaction in the other person, or it could force both of you into committals that you don’t want to make on the spot without reflection.

At the dinner table you must be careful since people are involved, just two people. In the international arena, lots of people are involved. Thus words matter.

When a serious candidate for vice president speaks in a cavalier tone about war with Russia, still equates the invasion of Iraq with the forces of 9/11, and lacks understanding of how the Bush Administration has perverted the art of statecraft, there is cause for concern.

Note that Obama and Biden may agree with her on some issues, but they would not handle a sensitive hypothetical in a campaign. It’s one thing to study briefing books. It’s another thing to be educated and traveled. But you’re not ready to be a world leader until you possess a certain maturity. What John Kerry called a “global test”.

Think Miss Manners or Emily Post for Diplomats. Sarah Palin doesn’t have that savior fair. Even John McCain is questionable. Remember “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” sung to the melody of the Beach Boys’ Barbara Ann?

Resource (mis)allocation

Three stories this week illustrated how the McCain/Bush foreign policy is failing our military structure and national strength in general.

First, Bob Woodward reports how President Bush ignored the advice of his military chiefs at the Pentagon and surged five brigades that we could ill afford to use. The Washington Post and his new book show that the narrow-minded view of Iraq has drained needed resources from our force and from Afghanistan. Speaking of Afghanistan...

That leads to the second major story this week. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said that "I'm not convinced we're winning in Afghanistan," and that "frankly, we are running out of time." Barack Obama has said from 2002, that we should focus of ridding al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, and rebuilding a viable state should be the only priority. Even before John McCain, he called for additional brigades to go to Afghanistan.

Lastly, tonight Sarah Palin gave an interview (link, link) that raises concerns about her knowledge and judgment. As Thomas Friedman says, a president or vice president needs the judgment to decide when the two two smartest advisors disagree.

She cavalierly discussed the possibilty of having to fight Russia over Georgia. With what resources Governor? McCain and Bush have advocated stretching our resources too far while cutting taxes on the wealthy.

Declaration of Support by over 290 Former Diplomats (Updated)

EXPERIENCE SPEAKS OUT: FORMER US DIPLOMATS FOR OBAMA

We are a diverse group of 292 former Foreign Service officers. Each of us has had extensive experience in implementing the international affairs and national security policies of both Republican and Democratic administrations. We have first hand knowledge of the grave multiple challenges of the Cold War, a period of peril but one in which the United States wore with honor the mantle of leadership. In cooperation with other democracies, and dialog with countries that were not, our nation found solutions to problems which seemed intractable. Senator Obama can place our nation again in that position of trust, credibility and respect.

With him, we call for a return to the successful reliance on bipartisan cooperation at home and close coordination on the use of active diplomacy with our friends and allies abroad, to face the challenges posed by those who are neither. We have watched with profound regret the frequent, costly failures of the current administration to apply these fundamental principles.

We, the undersigned, are firmly convinced that new American leadership is critical at this juncture in world history. We urge Americans, regardless of party affiliation, to select as our next president Senator Barack Obama, a leader with courage, intelligence, energy, a fresh perspective and a focus on the future. We believe based on our long foreign policy experience that he has the qualities needed to restore American leadership, credibility and respect in the world, the persona to make bipartisanship a possibility once again, and the judgment and vision to set our nation on the path to a better future.


Declaration Signatures

Abbott, Luisa
Abbott, Wilson Lynn
Adair, Marshall
Ahlgren, Charles S.
Apsler, Ruby
Arndt, Richard T.
Arnold, Terrell
Austin, Sheldon
Aylward, Rayna
Ayers, Patricia Connor
Baldyga, Leonard
Bahl, Byron
Baker, Robert
Barnes, Ambassador Shirley Elizabeth (Ret.)
Barnett, Elizabeth
Barry, Ambassador Robert L. (Ret.)
Bathrick, David D.
Battle, Ambassador Vincent M. (Ret.)
Bay, Janice Friesen
Beebe, James
Bennett, David C.
Benson, Raymond E.
Bentley, Robert
Berrington, Robin
Berry, Ann R.
Bigge, Joan
Binns, Ambassador Jack R. (Ret.)
Bitondo, Ron
Blane, Dianne
Blaney III, Harry C.
Blodgett, Steve
Booth, Richard
Bouton, Norman
Bova, Michele
Bowers, Gerard
Bresler, Ralph
Bridges, Ambassador Peter S. (Ret.)
Broderick, Amelia Fitzjohn
Brungart, Robert
Brynn, Ambassador Edward (Ret.)
Bumbrey, Sallybeth M.
Bumpus, James N.
Burleigh, Ambassador A. Peter (Ret.)
Butler, Letitia Kelly
Byrnes, Jill F.
Byrnes, Shaun M.
Cahill, Ambassador Harry A. (Ret.)
Calingaert, Michael
Carr, Robert K.
Cecil, Ambassador Charles O. (Ret.)
Cheek, Ambassador James R. (Ret.)
Cheshes, Ambassador Martin L. (Ret.)
Chester, Geraldeen
Chester, George
Chock, Alvin Keali'i
Clark, Jennifer
Clear, Taylor JESSE
Coe, Robert
Coffey Jr., Fred A.
Cohen, David
Coker, Irv
Conly, Jonathan
Coon, Ambassador Carleton S. (Ret.)
Coon, Ambassador Jane Abell (Ret.)
Cooper, Ford
Cotter, Ambassador Michael (Ret.)
Cronk, Ambassador Edwin (Ret.)
Crumpton, Sandra Ann
Curran, Ted
Cutler, Ambassador Walter L. (Ret.)
Czuczka, George
Dameron, Ambassador William H. (Ret.)
Darkins, William C.
Davidson, Duane
Davnie, William F.
Dawson, James W.
De Pree, Ambassador Willard A. (Ret.)
Dembro (née Mercurio), Sharon
Demitz, Sherwood H.
DiPaolo, Donna M.
Doggett, Clinton
Dolan, Daniel
DuBose, Robert
Duline, Charlene C.
Dunford, Ambassador David J. (Ret.).
Easum, Ambassador Donald B. (Ret.)
Ehrman, James
Eicher, Peter
Eisenbraun, Stephen
Elam-Thomas, Ambassador Harriet (Ret.)
Ely, Michael E. C.
Engle, Ambassador Gregory W. (Ret.)
Fairchild, Albert E.
Farley, Vince
Farrand, Ambassador Robert W. (Ret.)
Ferch, Ambassador John A. (Ret.)
Fernandez, Aurelius
Finberg, Donald
Fischer, Ambassador David (Ret.)
Flannery, Terence
Fromowitz, Sam
Frederick, David
Fry, Samuel
Gaines, William
Garon, John
Garon, Patricia
Gary, Phil
Gary, Viviann
Gerlach, Frederick H.
Gerson, Leslie
Gong, Richard D.
Gosende, Robert R.
Grant, Gail Milissa
Gray, David L.
Gray, Victoria
Gregory, Bruce
Gregory, Jerry
Gulliksen, Gail
Gunning, John
Haahr, James C.
Hardy Jr., Howard W.
Harrod, John P.
Harrop, Ambassador William (Ret.)
Harter, John
Hartman, Jan
Hatton, Charla
Head, Al
Heaphy, Eileen M.
Hill, Ambassador H. Kenneth (Ret.)
Hirsch, Ambassador John L. (Ret.)
Hoganson, Jerome
Holfeld, Joyce M.
Holmes, Brooke
Holmes, John W.
Hornblow, Michael
Houlahan, J. Michael
Howard, Barbara D
Huggins-Williams, Nedra
Hughes, David
Humphreys, Liam Jackson
Hutcheson, James W.
Huxtable, John A.
Illing, Robert
Johnson, Joe B.
Johnson, Charles N.
Johnson, Ambassador Darryl N. (Ret.)
Jones, Ambassador George F. (Ret.)
Jones, Ralph T.
Keene, Douglas R.
Keiswetter, Allen
Kemper, Joseph M.
Kendall, Harry
Kiesling, John Brady
Kilgour, Mary C.
King, Wayne
Korff, Michael
Korky, Ann
Kuchel, Ambassador Roland K. (Ret.)
Kushlis, Patricia
Kushlis, William J.
Laroche, Dick
Lambert, Lynne
Lanpher, Ambassador Edward Gibson (Ret.)
Latham Jr., Ernest H.
Leidel, Ambassador Donald C. (Ret.)
LeMaistre, Alice
Lerner, Patricia J.
Levin, Ambassador Burton (Ret.)
Lewis, Ambassador Samuel (Ret.)
Lippe, Michael
Loftus, Gerald
Lundin, John
Lundy, Walter A.
MacManus, Elizabeth Keys
Magee, Ambassador Charles T. (Ret.)
Mahan, Val
Malloy, Edward M.
Martin, Thomas M.
Marks, Ambassador Edward (Ret.)
Marwitz, Toni
Matheron, Ambassador Richard C. (Ret.)
Matthews, Wade
Mattox, Henry
Maule, Robert W.
Maushammer, Robert J.
McCoo, Millie
McGuire, Ambassador Kevin J. (Ret.)
McGuire, Harriet
McKee, Richard
McKniff, Joan
McNeil, Ambassador Frank (Ret.)
Meeks, Bill
Meer, S. Ahmed
Miller, David Norman
Molldrem, Vivikka
Monblatt, Steve
Monk, Amy
Monk, David B.
Moore, Alice
Moser, Leo John
Mueller, Richard W.
Murphy, Peter K.
Murphy, Sandy
Myrick, Ambassador Bismarck (Ret.)
Nagy, Ernest
Nance, William B.
Nethercut, Richard D.
Norris, James
Oakley, Ambassador Robert P. (Ret.)
Oakley, Phyllis
O’Connor, Thomas E.
O’Donnell, Thomas J.
O’Farrell, Paul
Oglesby, Donna Marie
Olds, Suzanne
O’Neill, Rosemary D.
Orley, Ray
Palma, Carole
Parker, Donald
Parker, Norma J.
Patterson, Sue
Peck, Ambassador Edward L. (Ret.)
Perrin, Patricia E.
Perry, Ambassador Jack R. (Ret.)
Pomeroy, Thomas Alexander
Pope, Ambassador Laurence (Ret.)
Powers, Robert A.
Precht, Henry
Rackmales, Robert
Ransom, Marjorie
Reeber, Mary K.
Reinhardt, Ambassador John E. (Ret.)
Richmond, Yale
Rose, Victoria
Ross, Sherman
Rucker, Robert L.
Savage, John
Schacknies, Rosina
Schaffer, Ambassador Howard B. (Ret.)
Schertz, Mary Lou Kate
Schiff, Stanley
Schoonover, Ambassador Brenda (Ret.)
Schwartz, Deborah R.
Sebastian, Ambassador Peter (Ret.)
Segars, Ambassador Joseph M. (Ret.)
Senser, Robert A.
Serwer, Daniel
Sharpless, Ambassador Mattie R. (Ret.)
Sheinbaum, Gilbert
Sinding, Monica Knorr
Sinding, Steven W.
Smith, Ambassador Pamela H. (Ret.)
Smith, Paul R.
Spalding, Peter
Spiro, Joel
Springer, Richard L.
St. John, John J.
Stahnke, Paul K
Stern, Robert
Sterner, Ambassador Michael (Ret.)
Streeter, Alvin
Stefan, Adrienne
Sundquist, Alexandra
Sutton, Gerald
Svengsouk, Thvanh
Swain, Diana
Takahashi, Lorraine
Tetro, Robert
Tompkins, Tain
Tomseth, Ambassador Victor L. (Ret.)
Tongour, Nadia
Tonkin, Thomas
Troy, Carl
Tuch, Hans N.
Turner, Linda
Usrey, Gary
Villareal, G. Claude
Vincent, John
Virden, Dick
Von den Steinen, Erwin
Weinland, Helen
Wells, Sharon
Wheeler, Evelyn
White, Robin L.
Williams, Albert N.
Williams, Nicholas
Williams, Ambassador Richard (Ret.)
Wilson, Dwight
Wolcott, Peter
Wood, Susan
Wozniak, Robert
Zelle, Susan W.

(Updated from original post on 8/20/08)

Palin's Top Foreign Policy Experience Exaggerations!

Given that the McCain camp is manufacturing distortions and outright lies faster than most of us can keep track of, I thought I'd do a quick outline of the campaign's top exaggerations of Palin's FP Experience:

1) Alaska is close to Russia!


2) She has "command" over Alaska's National Guard units



3) Negotiating fishing treaties is significant FP experience (see the post from 9/5/08)


The US Center for Global Engagement has a more detailed look at her scant actions related to international relations during her short tenure as Governor.

While some are laughing at the absurdity of her nomination, according to today's Politico, GOP foreign policy experts are not happy with McCain's decision.

A strong case for Obama's foreign policy strengths

In case you missed it, you should take a look at Gov. Bill Richardson's convention speech in Denver. It focuses entirely on foreign policy and does a great job of outlining Sen. Obama's national security credentials.

Here's an excerpt:

After 9/11, John McCain turned his sights toward Iraq—a country that had nothing to do with 9/11—and called for a full-scale invasion. Barack Obama foresaw chaos. John McCain said we'd be welcomed as liberators, and that Iraq would pay for its own rebuilding. John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right!

Barack Obama was among the first to call for a timetable for responsible withdrawal. But John McCain, to this day, condemns the idea. The Iraqis are calling for a withdrawal timetable, but John McCain would keep us in Iraq for 100 years. John McCain is wrong. Barack Obama is right.

And Barack Obama saw the foolishness of embracing Pakistan’s Musharraf. John McCain thought we should support the dictator and let him take care of the Pakistani terrorists. Musharaff is now gone, and the terrorists are stronger than ever. John McCain was wrong. Barack Obama was right.

[...]

Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe we must fight the terrorists—not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to be—like Afghanistan and Pakistan. We must lead a global effort to secure loose nuclear materials, not where we imagine them to be, but where we know them to be, in Russia, and the countries of the former Soviet Union.

It's time we had a president committed to fighting poverty in the Third World and ending the genocide in Darfur; who leads international efforts to stop global warming, strengthens our friendship with Mexico and Latin America, and stands behind Israel with full-time diplomacy to achieve peace in the Middle East; a president who ends the global scourge of AIDS in our time and sets an example of moral leadership by following our constitution, shutting down Guantanamo, and ending torture

Watch the video below, read the entire transcript here.

Carville: McCain has blown his advantage on FP

James Carville, who famously ushered Bill Clinton to victory in 1992, has released an Op-Ed in today's Financial Times. It's a quick read and effectively argued. Here are the key points:

In all my years in national politics since 1982 there had been one constant until August 29. It was that the Republican party cornered the national security market.

He goes on:

Then Mr McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. We often say September 11 2001 changed the world (and it did); we can now say August 29 2008 changed the future of the Republican party for ever. To pacify some talk radio blowhards and the pro-life crowd, the party has thrown away 60 years of successful branding.

Fish me a terrorist

As long as the McCain campaign wants to make Palin the poster child of the republican ticket instead of the Arizona Senator himself, we'll take them up on the offer.

This is a politician with zero foreign policy experience. And you won't believe the Republican's latest attempt to try and hide that. GOP strategists are now claiming that her foreign policy experience stems from "fishing issues" between Alaska and Russia.

Even the FOX News anchor cannot take such absurdity (and that says a lot):

Palin: Swagger and lipstick, but not much foreign policy

Sarah Palin's speech at the RNC has endeared her to those seeking a "pit bull with lipstick" to head up McCain's attack strategy against a formidable (and honorable) Democratic ticket.

For those of us interested in responsible American leadership in foreign policy, there really wasn't any "there" there. I've culled a transcript of the speech for substantive elements related to foreign policy. That is, not empty talking points or jabs at Senator Obama, but affirmative statements of Republican governing philosophy and strategy related to foreign policy.

There's nothing new in the speech, but here we go:

1) McCain was in the military, her son is, too. McCain wants continued occupation of Iraq, where her son will serve.

"He's a man who wore the uniform of this country for 22 years, and refused to break faith with those troops in Iraq who have now brought victory within sight.

And as the mother of one of those troops, that is exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief. I'm just one of many moms who'll say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way."

2) Alaska has oil that can substitute for foreign oil.

"That pipeline, when the last section is laid and its valves are opened, will lead America one step farther away from dependence on dangerous foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart...

With Russia wanting to control a vital pipeline in the Caucasus, and to divide and intimidate our European allies by using energy as a weapon, we cannot leave ourselves at the mercy of foreign suppliers.

To confront the threat that Iran might seek to cut off nearly a fifth of world energy supplies ... or that terrorists might strike again at the Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia ... or that Venezuela might shut off its oil deliveries ... we Americans need to produce more of our own oil and gas."

3) Negotiating with rogue states is inappropriate.

"Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay ... he wants to meet them without preconditions."

4) Un-uniformed militants do not merit legal rights or protections.

"Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America ... he's worried that someone won't read them their rights?"

I'll let you all take her on in the comments....

Don't miss Harry Reid's Oil Speech

"The history of the last 100 years has been a toxic mix of oil and war."

Of all the speeches I saw last week, Senator Reid's oil speech best articulated the Party's view of the role of oil in distorting power globally and within the United States. It is forceful, rational, and clearly articulates why a democratic administration is vital to break the power of oil interests.



While McCain is clearly beholden to Big Oil, the speech clarifies why McCain's VP selection would please them. Sarah Palin, in the words of a Republican surrogate, is "CEO of America's largest oil state". Her husband was employed by the oil industry, she opposes wildlife protections that might impede oil exploration in Alaska, and she is a key linkage between the industry and the push for a petro-centric energy policy extending at least another four years. While her claim to fame in Alaska has been her willingness to squeeze the Big Three oil companies for increased tax revenue, she's far from a crusader for breaking our addiction to oil. Quite the contrary.

Full transcript of Reid's speech is here: http://www.demconvention.com/harry-reid/

In case you were living under a rock for the past week...

Here's the next President of the United States accepting the Democratic nomination:

A foreign policy shot in the dark

You might have heard that John McCain selected a hockey mom -- a woman, he'd want me to emphasize -- as his VP candidate. That's pretty much all the McCain camp wants you to know about her (in a futile attempt to attract certain women voters): she's a mom, she's a loving wife, she's a woman, she drives kids to all kinds of sports practices, and she's not a man.

But let's look at the area John McCain himself consistently tries to make - to his detriment - the main battleground of this campaign: foreign policy.

The Wonk Room took a look at OnTheIssues.com and realized that for the categories "on war and peace" and "on foreign policy", there is a big BLANK for Gov. Palin. Yup, nothing recorded for anything foreign policy related. Is that encouraging in any way?

As an interested voter, one might want to look up some background on Gov. Palin's foreign policy experience. The nonpartisan Center for US Global Engagement compiles such information for political candidates. A paragraph outlining Gov. Palin's foreign policy 'experience' mentions, and we quote, "recognizing International Education week in Alaska." She must really have a lot to offer in the field if that makes it on a brief synopsis of her previous positions and engagements.

Ok let's get to the specifics. How about Iraq? She joined his ticket, but Gov. Palin is seemingly unaware of McCain's Iraq plan. Unaware!? Really? At least she might have made up her own mind by visiting the region. Oh wait - she's never been to Iraq.

It is clear that by trying to make news with an unknown, surprise VP decision, McCain is undermining the issue he claims to hold so dearly.

Sorry, McCain, we haven't remained hypnotized by your surprise pick of a former beauty queen. And Americans won't let themselves be either.

How will Sarah Palin lead the war on terror?

Conservative writer Andrew Sullivan today compares the VP selections of Joe Biden and Sarah Palin and put the choices into stark relief:

One pick is by a man of judgment; the other is by a man of vanity.

She may be a fine person, but she's my age, she has zero Washington experience, and no foreign policy expertise whatsoever.

McCain has just told us how seriously he takes the war we are in. Not seriously at all.

More here.

Cheers to Biden

Let me be the first here at FPPfO to applaud Obama's selection of Joe Biden as his running mate. I echo Ezra, Moira, and Mark (particularly the latter's point about Biden's active support for UN peacekeeping), but it is Steve Clemons I will quote here:

Obama's decision to get someone to bolster his foreign policy/national security credentials seems like a darned smart move to me. We are entering a period of enormous national security challenges abroad and economic challenges at home. It's much easier for Obama to requisition the econ experience needed to promote health care, infrastructure, education, support for those hit hard by the real estate sub prime crisis, and the like.

National security advice is much more tough. It takes years of absorption of what the world has been doing to itself to understand how to organize an effective, disciplined strategic course for the United States -- particularly at a time when the Bush administration has wrecked whatever global equilibrium previously existed.

I had worried that selecting a VP because of his/her reputation as "strong" in foreign policy/national security issues might give legs to the perverse argument that Obama was "weak" in this department. Buying into that narrative, in my eyes, could represent capitulation to this key election tactic of the Right -- one that, thus far, much of the public has been inclined to buy into. I realize now, however, that bringing Biden into the fold means that Team Obama will be will be aggressively challenging McCain on foreign policy, not attempting to cover up weaknesses.

And if Biden is an attack dog, by all means, let him loose. God knows there's plenty to attack.

(p.s. Center for U.S. Global Engagement has put out this useful snapshot of Biden's foreign policy record.)

Zingers Are Not Good Foreign Policy

In an op-ed in today's Washington Post, renowned foreign policy commentator David Ignatius criticizes Sen. McCain's tendency to give provocative speeches - which often turn out to be plain reckless - when discussing foreign policy issues.

As Ignatius explains, zingers don't make good foreign policy, however much Sen. McCain loves to deliver them.

Relating this troubling approach to foreign affairs to recent events, Ignatius slams Sen. McCain for encouraging Georgia to believe America would back them up in a crisis.

"That expectation was naive, and it was wrong to encourage it. It was especially wrong to give a volatile leader such as Saakashvili what he evidently imagined was an American blank check."

Ignatius concludes with the sober reality often forgot by Sen. McCain:

"The rhetoric of confrontation may make us feel good, but other people end up getting killed."

McCain: Counterproductive and Presumptuous on Georgia

Sen. McCain announced this week that two of his closest allies, Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), would travel to Georgia's capital of Tbilisi on his behalf, after a similar journey by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

After months of accusing Sen. Obama of being too presidential - merely for meeting with world leaders and delivering a major speech in Berlin - look who's actually stepping out of bounds.

As a presidential candidate, you do not send emissaries to foreign countries to try and resolve disputes. We've got an entire executive branch already working on it.

As Larry Korb, former Reagan Defense Department official, puts it:

"We talk about how there's only one president at a time, so the idea that you would send your own emissaries and really interfere with the process is remarkable. It's very risky and can send mixed messages to foreign governments. . . . They accused Obama of being presumptuous, but he didn't do anything close to this."

Our Troops Prefer Obama

Here's something that John "I was in Vietman therefore I understand the soldiers better" McCain does not want voters to know: US troops deployed overseas have contributed to Sen. Obama's campaign nearly six times as much as they have to McCain's. That's not even close.

Current score: $60K to $10K.

In fact, according to an analysis of campaign contributions by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, members of the armed services overall -- whether stationed overseas or at home -- are also favoring Obama with their campaign contributions in 2008, by a $55,000 margin.

It is clear that the majority of our troops, even in the midst of the challenging environments they find themselves in, still find the time to make whatever contribution they can afford to express their support for Sen. Obama to be the next Commander-in-Chief.

Sen. Obama Speaks on the Situation in Georgia

Sen. Obama delivered a statement today regarding the recent developments between Russia and Georgia. The Senator condemned Russia's unjustified escalation of violence, called for Medvedev's government to halt its bombing campaign, outlined the need for deep international involvement to solve the crisis and expressed a clear vision for the future of US relations with both countries involved.

Read his statement in full here.

Here's a passage worth sharing up front:

Going forward, the United States and Europe must support the people of Georgia. Beyond immediate humanitarian assistance, we must provide economic assistance, and help rebuild what has been destroyed. I have consistently called for deepening relations between Georgia and transatlantic institutions, including a membership action plan for NATO, and we must continue to press for that deeper relationship.

The relationship between Russia and the West is long and complicated. There have been many turning points, for good and ill. This is another turning point.

Let me be clear: we seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation, but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security.

GOP Foreign Policy Expert and Former Congressman Endorses Obama

Former Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) has crossed party lines to endorse Sen. Obama.

Rep. Leach, who voted against authoriing military action in Iraq in 2002, has extensive experience in foreign policy issues, ranging from having served in the House International Relations Committee for more than two decades to his past as a foreign service officer.

In an email to CQ Politics, Leach explained:

While I have a great deal of respect for John McCain ’s record of public service, I am convinced we need a new approach to world affairs. The tarnishment of the American brand could have long-term consequences unless new policies are put in place. Seldom has the case for an inspiring new political ethic been more self-evident.”

McCain will be a war president

Pretty chilling, but it reminds us about the stakes of the election this year.

Huffington Indicts John McCain's National Security Cred

From Arianna:

every day between now and November 4th voters should be reminded that:
McCain has been among the most ardent supporters of the war in Iraq -- the most disastrous foreign policy decision in American history.
McCain falsely claims that, from the beginning of the war, he called on former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to resign. He should have, but he didn't.
McCain thinks it's "not too important" when American forces come home from Iraq.
McCain has repeatedly claimed that Iran was training members of al-Qaeda in Iraq, showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the key players in the war. He doesn't understand the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, and even after being corrected he still doesn't get it.
McCain falsely claimed that the surge was what led to the Anbar Awakening, even though the Sunni revolt against al-Qaeda in the province began months before Bush even announced his plan to send more troops to Iraq.
McCain falsely claimed at the end of May that American troops in Iraq were down to "pre-surge levels" (brandished as proof that the surge was "succeeding") -- even though two-thirds of the additional surge troops were still in Iraq. And, when called on his mistake, he refused to acknowledge that he was wrong.
McCain falsely claimed that the war in Iraq was "the first major conflict since 9/11" -- either forgetting about the war in Afghanistan or deeming it not major enough. This is not all that surprising, since McCain's policies on Afghanistan -- the real central front in the war on terror -- have been all over the map. Indeed, McCain first attacked Obama's policy on Afghanistan, then adopted it for himself.
McCain has a long history of paying lip service to supporting America's troops but voting against their interests. His handling of the new GI bill was the latest example of his hypocrisy: he consistently and vocally worked to defeat it, then, once it passed, tried to take credit for it.
Need more proof of why McCain is not "ready to lead"? Do you want a president who thinks there is an "Iraq/Pakistan border"? Who believes Darfur is in Somalia? And that Czechoslovakia is still a country?

How Bush/McCain policies weakened America

On January 20, 2001 Bill Clinton handed George W. Bush a solvent government with an economy that distributed resources at its best levels ever. The country had the currency of trust and admiration, a full military force, and a positive attitude towards the environment. The five issues below are the results of Bush's policies and that John McCain intends to continue.

Not getting off oil:
No leverage in dealing with Russia
Stuck in the Middle East
An economy exposed to a global demand and speculation about oil
Oh...and a melting planet

Weakening dollar:
More foreign control of our economy
Lack of buying power for Americans

Lack of moral credibility:
The Russian UN Ambassador retorting our UN Ambassador over Georgia "I'd like to say straightaway that regime change is an American expression" [very embarrassing as a proud American]

Tying down the Army and Marines in Iraq:
Little leverage in other hot spots
Higher deficit (see below)
Losing a grip on Afghanistan, the heart of the al-Queda movement
Putting back American defense years

Lack of Fiscal Responsibility:
Borrowing from other governments and losing leverage
Weaker bargaining position for trade deals
Weakening American businesses vis-a-vis their competition

pssst, vote Obama

I Swear I'm Not Getting Paid for This Post

Us at the FPPfO blog are here because we believe in Sen. Obama's foreign policy credentials. Not because we're eagerly awaiting the next prize we could win by writing another post.

Apparently, in order to have people blog in Sen. McCain's favor, the campaign has resorted to offering prizes to those willing to "spam" blogs and websites with McCain talking points. This is not a joke, and please try and contain your laughter as you read this:

People who sign up for McCain's program receive reward points each time they place a favorable comment on one of the listed Web sites (subject to verification by McCain's webmasters). The points can be traded for prizes, such as books autographed by McCain, preferred seating at campaign events, even a ride with the candidate on his bus, known as the Straight Talk Express.

I had to bring it up as a contributor to a truly grassroots, people-driven, blog supporting one of the presidential candidates. Sen. Obama can count on the energy, passion and support of people across the country. Apparently McCain needs to bribe Americans in order to support him online. Hey - maybe if you vote for him on November 4th, you'll get a cool bandana!

$trengthen the dollar, $trengthen America

First praise for Barack by Condi Rice, now......the Wall Street Journal editorial page! More than anything else, the fall of the dollar quantifies the decline of American power and prestige for the last 8 years. A strong currency, and a lack of a government fiscal deficit, gives a country more leverage in global affairs. Barack Obama understands this, and can relate it to the American people. Barack linked a strong dollar in plain language to everyday life: "If we had a strengthening of the dollar, that would help" reduce fuel costs."
The WSJ tears into the Bush Administration's policies, and shows that their weakening dollar policy hurts people in daily life as well as weakens America's standing in the world.
Barack Obama understands that the patriotic thing to do is to be fiscally responsible and make America attractive for investment.

We can protect the country and the Constitution

"The Assault on Terrorists" was the smartest description I have heard of the conflict going on between most major countries in the world and a network of violent political criminals. "The War on Terror" is a conception as tortured as its use of the English language (see Orwell's famous essay). Terror is a fear, an emotion. War cannot be waged against an emotion.
War is a (sometimes) legitimate use of policy. To brand terrorists as warriors gives them a status beyond that of the criminals they are. It helps them do what international terrorists do, which is use spectacular violence to conduct a publicity campaign and sometimes effect political change.
"The Assault on Terrorists" was uttered by Barack Obama at an event I attended last year. It summed up the notion that military, intelligence, and law enforcement resources will all be used, but it is not a war.
Today, we find out that Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden's driver, will get only 5 or 6 months with time served. His trial shows that the Bush Administration's belated attempt to put this conflict in a legal framework is very clumsy. Newsweek quotes a former Bush Administration lawyer as saying: "In terms of global perceptions, it's really been the U.S. system that's on trial more than individual terrorism suspects". We look bad in the eyes of the world, here is today's Times of London, not a liberal paper.
The terrorists have scored political points on the United States! When terror and fear goad the government into altering our Constitutional framework, that is the biggest capitulation of all to the terrorists.

Bringing the "Big Lie" home from Iraq

ANALYSIS

Stung by the overwhelming success of Obama's international tour in July, the GOP has increasingly turned towards ridicule and fatuous criticism to pull Obama off-message. To distract the media and the electorate from real issues, the McCain camp has paired derisive commercials (a la Paris and Britney) with outlandish claims (the "race card"). Unfortunately, it's been effective, and pulled Obama down in the polls.

What link does this have with foreign policy? I think we can trace the "Big Lie" tactic to what we've seen before, when it was used by the Bush Administration in their push for the invasion of Iraq.

Given the way that the US went to war against Iraq, we can safely say that Neo-conservatives accepted the Leninist justification of propaganda as a tool to achieve what they see as an entirely moral objective. Nor do I feel it's a stretch to conclude that the rise of neo-cons in the GOP has led the entire party to embracing the utility and morality of the Big Lie in achieving the GOP's vision for the 21st century. The results have been terrible for American foreign policy. The Big Lie technique is equally pernicious and bad for America when it's used for electoral gain.

In the case of Iraq, Democrats faltered in the face of grandiose lies and distortions. Similar to how comedy and sarcasm can undermine the GOP's obtuse idealism and moralism (see, for example, the Daily Show), audacious lies and gimmickry put Democrats on our heels.

As supporters of Obama, how can we more effectively respond to the "Big Lie" tactics used by McCain?

1) Humor: Obama recently made some strides by mocking the GOP.

2) Shaming and pointing out McCain's failure to be honorable.

3) Truth-telling in response to deception, although that seems irrelevant when speaking to those who are intentional know-nothings.

4) Counterattack.

As we move into the convention, the question of dealing with the Big Lie is looming over the delegates. They'll debate how hard we should hit McCain. Whether to bring up his age, his wealth and privilege, his Vietnam service and confession, and his marital history. And, of course, they'll argue over whether Hillary is the person who can help us do that.

Hmmm, Condi surely is not against Barack

She seems to praise Barack more than McCain in this article. The main point is that the Republican Secretary of State and former National Security Advisor has debunked her party's main storyline about Barack, namely the smear that he is not seasoned to be Commander in Chief.

This is big, and we need to repeat it in the "echo chamber" that is the new media. This is the key passage:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says the nation would be safe under a Barack Obama presidency and that she is ruling out a shot at the vice presidency under either Obama or Republican John McCain.

In an interview with Politico and Yahoo News released Thursday, Rice was asked if she would feel secure with a president Obama. "Oh, the United States will be fine," she responded.

John Bolton's War Obsession (Pssst, McCain, at least someone's on your side)

Guest post by PD:

Former UN Ambassador and prominent neocon curmudgeon John Bolton penned yet another op-ed in The Wall Street Journal earlier this week repeating his well-worn line that talking to Iran is a waste of time when there's plenty of good bombing we could be doing right now. Bolton explains that

"Every day that goes by allows Iran to increase the threat it poses, and the viability of the military option steadily declines over time."

Did I miss something? Should "the viability of the military option" be the determining factor here? I know it's important, and the question of whether we can successfully achieve our military objective should be a key part of our strategic calculation, but the fundamental question is whether we should attack at all, and Bolton ignores that fact. The United States is the strongest military force in the history of mankind. As soon as the question becomes whether we can achieve our goals militarily rather than whether we should, we cease to become the great standard-bearer that America has been for the last two centuries.

Call me provincial, but wasn't there a time when we settled our conflicts with other countries without needing to resort to military force?

Among the abject failures and countless blunders of the Bush administration, few are more miserable or absolute than the failure of the doctrine of preemption. Saddam Hussein's regime had to be overthrown, the neocons argued, because the threat he posed was so great that his mere existence was intolerable--irrespective of whatever practical threat he did (or did not) pose to the US. But hasn't this doctrine buckled under the weight of its own ineptitude at both the theoretical and practical levels?

Bolton also says that Iran's first goal is "to possess all the capabilities necessary for a deliverable nuclear weapon," and that "is now almost certainly impossible to stop diplomatically." But North Korea and Libya provide perfect examples of why that logic is faulty. Their nuclear weapons programs were not nipped in the bud--they were walked back from the edge through smart, tough diplomacy. North Korea tested a nuclear weapon in October of 2006--the first nuclear test of the 21^st century. And the international community--with US leadership--has gotten Pyongyang to agree to disarm.

That is why it is so critical to engage Iran diplomatically. Because though negotiations may not be the silver bullet for changing Tehran's behavior immediately, there are only two other alternatives: continuing the previous three decades of isolation, which have clearly not worked, or attacking Iran militarily, which both Iraq and Afghanistan have shown would be catastrophic for the country and the region.

For voters in the 2008 election, John McCain has made it clear that he's unwilling to try good-faith negotiations with Iran. So he is therefore left with two bad alternatives. And for Obama, my opinion is this: if John Bolton disagrees so strongly with your plan to talk with Iran, then you're probably doing something right.

The Iraq Equation

Any viable polity must have security and an economy. Those are always the main issues in any country, and in countries with democratic elections, those two issues dominate discussion. So it is true with Iraq.
Their economy is dominated by oil, yet there is no deal on sharing oil revenue throughout the country. Over a third of the oil is on the black market, and the New York Times is reporting this evening that there is a $79 Billion surplus, some of which is sitting in a bank in New York. So we are no where close to an oil deal
As for security, there is improvement as of this writing. A number of factors including General Petraeus' successful tactics, more troops, the balkanization of Iraq, and the implosion of al Queda in Iraq have led to a more secure environment. There is little to suggest why it could not flare up very quickly.
But we all know that we need a new political order. That is the end game. As the previous post noted, we just learned that there will probably be no elections this year. No surprise.
It's simple really, just an equation:

Security + an Oil deal = a Political order

Security is tenuous, and an oil deal is non-existent. So we are not close to a political deal, and a successful venture in Iraq.

Iraq Blowback

Over at the Washington Note, Steve Clemons has posted a video which speaks volumes about the need for military disengagement in Iraq. As Clemons puts it:

American soldiers are too distant from the fate of Iraqis and on a systems basis can't ever act in their interests. Acting in their own interests -- and America's in a perverse way -- means lots of taxis will be squashed and many innocent Iraqis killed.

And this leads to blowback, just as it would if it happened in the U.S.

Check the video out for yourself.

Iraqi Elections Postponed. Again.

The latest news from Iraq today—Iraqi lawmakers have failed to reach an agreement on the status of Kirkuk, thus ensuring that provincial elections will not occur this year.

As the Washington Post notes:

Several Iraqi lawmakers said U.S. pressure could throw Iraq into further political chaos.

"The Americans are pushing for the elections at any price, and that is incorrect," said Mahdi al-Hafidh, a Community Party lawmaker. "The country is not quiet, and there is not a good climate for this election."

"There's no way to find a solution to a 100-year-old problem in days," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish legislator. "Mr. Bush is pressing the Iraqi politicians to make a fast deal, but this kind of pressure will have a negative result on Iraq's situation.

Yet another indication that the Iraqis themselves must find their own solutions in order to govern effectively. Our troops could stay in Iraq for 100 years and they wouldn’t be able to get to the root of many of the countries' troubles. Today's Iraqi problems require an Iraqi solution, and a political one at that.

Low Road Express

Not exclusively foreign policy related (but somewhat, as the majority of the most recent dirt coming from the McCain Camp has been regarding Sen. Obama's trip overseas), but check out the Obama Campaign's new website on how Sen. McCain is taking the low road of politics and carrying out baseless, false and dirty attacks on Sen. Obama: www.lowroadexpress.com.

How we can win the military community this November

This piece in the Huffington Post demonstrates that Democrats can win the military vote. We need to engage them, it's quite easy.

-The military believes in taking care of your people. That's the Democrat's ethos!

-Providing health care for your household. So do Democrats!

-Supporting education because the value of an educated force is worth it. Ding Ding!

-Take care of the veterans who protected us. We believe in that, in social policy in general!

-War is the foreign policy tool of last resort, it's hell. Here here!

Beware of email smears

There is currently an email hoax that falsely claims that Barack Obama was rude to the troops in the Gulf. I got the email, and after a few moments of searching key words, I found this Army Times article exposing this as a lie.

Please be vigilant and make the effort to squelch these things if they come into your email inbox.

Challenging McCain Supporters

Following up on the previous post, when canvassing, calling radio shows, or conversing with undecided voters, we need to challenge the weaknesses in John McCain's arguments.

Our foreign policy is tied to fiscal responsibility. Our deficit will be about $550 Billion, yet McCain claims he will not enhance revenues (although Sunday on Stephanopoulos he contradicted this). Ask: How will he do this without cutting Medicare? How is is patriotic to depend on foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds to buy T notes and not raise taxes on Americans?

Iraq: How will you continue to pay for this? How will you replenish the regular and reserves?

Rule of Law: Why is McCain letting terrorists goad him into destroying the Constitution? Does McCain believe what happened to him in Hanoi is a legitimate form of intelligence?

The Flip-Flop Express

There's no denying that John McCain has always been a darling of the media. From his insurgent run against George W. Bush in 2000, and through to this year's general election, the MSM has wholeheartedly, and unabashedly embraced McCain's image as a maverick who stands his ground and bucks his party.

But wait a second. The "maverick" McCain is no more. In perhaps the most egregious case of flip-flopping in political history, he's changed his stance on Iraq timetables, immigration reform, hunting Bin Laden, the Bush tax cuts, domestic oil drilling, troop levels in Afghanistan, campaign finance reform... and way too many more to name. And keep in mind we still have over three months until the election, folks.

But, thankfully, Media Matters for America is calling for an end to this love affair.

In the words of Arrianna Huffington, "It's time to end the romantic notion of John McCain that the media are still clinging to-- and file for divorce."

Amen.

McCain Shamelessly, Desperately Trying to Smear Obama's Trip

It's amazing how far a candidate will go in desperation.

Taken away by the jealousy of a veteran whose rightful thrown as a foreign policy icon is being taken away by a young, rational, smarter fella, Sen. McCain and his surrogates have been trying with all their strengths to stay in the news cycles and remind voters that they're still there. For the past four days now, Sen. McCain and his allies have accused Sen. Obama of snubbing wounded soldiers by canceling a visit to a military hospital in Germany because he could not take reporters with him.

An article in today's Washington Post - along with countless other pieces - discusses how the McCain campaign is insisting on propelling this accusation, despite no evidence that the charge is true. Plain and simple.

There is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

Despite serious and repeated queries about this latest Republican invention, the McCain team keeps on rolling, desperately trying to make this appear to have the slightest bit of truth.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Oh no?

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

McCain camp: stick to positive campaigning, you're really bad at making up stuff.

FPPFO's Foreign Policy Recommendations for the Democratic Party's 2008 Platform

As part of the Obama campaign's initiative to have Americans across the country contribute to the party platform for the current election cycle, Foreign Policy Professionals for Obama organized six platform meetings each tackling a different aspect of foreign policy. Each meeting, gathering experts in the field and enthusiasts from all different walks of life, discussed, debated and agreed on language that should help guide the party's vision on a particular foreign policy topic. These recommendations were submitted on behalf of FPPFO to the Obama campaign for consideration for the 2008 Democratic Party Platform (note: the "Advancing Women Living in Poverty Worldwide" platform meeting was co-sponsored by Women for Obama).

The final recommendations are provided below. Enjoy, and thank you to the many, many, many of you who contributed to this fascinating and groundbreaking process.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Refining American’s Role in the World

In today’s interconnected world, domestic problems require international solutions. At this moment, America has a unique opportunity to redefine how those outside our borders perceive us and to engage the rest of the world in a new approach that emphasizes our common humanity. We can once again take a leadership role in addressing the major challenges of our time both domestically and abroad thereby enhancing our security, economic prosperity, and welfare at home.

Our country’s prosperity and wealth are directly intertwined with the global economy and depend on free and fair trade as well as working for the global good. Our security must be paramount but can only be achieved through cooperation with other nations and engagement in peace-building efforts around the world. The U.S must recognize that an increasing domestic and global demand for energy resources will require our leadership in innovative approaches and collaboration with global partners to develop alternative energy sources and consumption patterns. We must respect the values that have been the foundation of our nation by renewing our commitment to human rights and the rule of law and complying with our international obligations.

The Middle East
Restoring US Relevance Through Diplomacy: the New Approach - The U.S. should engage in a robust foreign policy that aims at leveraging the full potential of our influence to promote sustainable economic and social development in line with the aspirations of and priorities set by the people of the region. This New Approach to U.S. relevance in the Middle East would utilize all avenues of engagement including principled, direct government talks, citizen diplomacy, and cultural and educational exchanges, as well as all of our strengths, not only in the military field but also in energy and development, among others. In doing so, America should lead in solving the host of conflicts afflicting the region by restoring and mastering its role as mediator.

Reengaging Fairly and Effectively to Resolve the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict - The U.S. should embark in constructive and energetic engagement from day one on a path toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This engagement recognizes the need for mutual security for both parties and supports the strengthening and development of civil society and political institutions as necessary to the long-term viability of peace. The Democratic Party recognizes that peace requires support for an economically and politically viable Palestinian state. The U.S. should firmly reject the use of violence as a problem-solving mechanism in the conflict, and should remain committed to restoring America's effectiveness, fairness, and respect for human rights in the region. This commitment includes affirming the rights of refugees to be repatriated or compensated.

Iran - Recent behavior by the Iranian leadership defying the international community over its nuclear program is unacceptable. That said, the U.S. should engage in direct talks with the Iranian government in an effort to resolve the standoff. The Democratic Party rejects the failed policy of isolation, and America should work towards normalizing diplomatic relations with Iran in an effort to help the country become, once again, a constructive member of regional politics and of the international community.

U.S. Engagement in Africa: Challenges and Opportunities
With clear strategic goals, consistent policy, and attentive leadership, America under a Barack Obama administration will have the chance to engage Africa as never before. An Obama administration should:

• Help accelerate Africa’s integration into the global economy, through increased American investment in key agricultural, SME, and other initiatives;

• Increase security on the continent by revitalizing multilateral diplomatic initiatives, in order to bring chronic conflicts to an end, mitigate political crises, and prevent the outbreak of new fighting. Included within these efforts is the need for robust diplomatic engagement with China;

• Promote democratic accountability across the continent, but not as an externally-imposed, specifically American concept, but rather as an endogenous solution to some of Africa’s chronic political problems;

• Clearly and unambiguously re-anchor America’s assistance and development efforts within the civilian agencies most properly motivated and mandated to conduct these policies. Development specialists, rather than military or security agencies, should lead America’s development efforts in Africa; and

• Pursue regional approaches to policy in Africa.

NATO and Europe
A close partnership with Europe is one of the most important bedrocks of U.S. foreign policy. The Democratic Party believes that countries on both sides of the Atlantic must reaffirm their commitments to collective security, but must also collaborate and develop new capabilities and partnerships to address 21st century challenges such as stabilization and reconstruction operations, nuclear non-proliferation, energy security, climate change, radical extremism, global health issues, drug trafficking and global poverty.

NATO is the most enduring security alliance of democracies in history. At its 60th anniversary summit in 2009, it is imperative that the alliance revisit its overarching strategic mission to address the increasingly global challenges of a post-Sept. 11th world. The United States must work with its NATO allies to guarantee stability and growing prosperity in Afghanistan – the central front of the war on terrorism. The alliance must also remain open to qualified countries desiring to join its ranks.

Furthermore, we believe that the strength of transatlantic relationship will be reinforced by a strong European Union. Greater European integration is in the interest of the United States and the world.

Democracy and Human Rights
Support for democracy and human rights is compatible with our ideals and interests. Democratic government contributes to human development, mitigates conflict and extremism and helps foster stability. This, in turn, contributes to U.S. national security.

We recognize that democracy will look different in different places, but that peoples around the world share its core values and practices. Consistent support for democracy and human rights will restore U.S. credibility and leadership in the world.

An Obama Administration should:

• Demonstrate respect for rule of law at home by closing Guantanamo Bay and ceasing torture-like practices and abroad by adhering to international treaties;

• Work with allies and international institutions to promote respect for human rights;
  

• Ensure that U.S. policy, diplomacy and assistance are linked so that they mutually reinforcing;

• Integrate democracy and human rights into broader development initiatives; and

• Engage the private sector as an accountable partner in countries where they invest.

Advancing Women Living in Poverty Worldwide - Co-sponsored by Women for Obama
Over 50 years of experience around the world shows that women are key to building lasting peace, health and prosperity in our country and throughout our global community. Improving the lives of women and girls is not only a moral imperative but is also smart economics. Investing in women is effective because women invest in their families and communities, ending the cycle of poverty and creating healthier, wealthier, and more democratic societies. To further this vision, an Obama Administration should:

• Create an agency, free of political and military demands, to deliver U.S. assistance to poor developing countries effectively and efficiently, evaluated to ensure that development efforts reach the needs of women as well as men in developing countries. The new agency could support an Interagency Council on Women to coordinate and ensure the maximum benefit of U.S. efforts to help women and girls worldwide.

• Renew our partnership with the global community to advance women's lives and reduce poverty through frameworks, such as the United Nations Millennium Development Goals and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and restore funding to the United Nations Population Fund.

• Ensure that we reflect American citizens' desires to help others in the most effective, lasting way possible by focusing U.S. assistance efforts abroad on alleviating poverty as an end in itself.

• Work in partnership with other nations to make the elimination of violence against women, the advancement of women's human rights, the promotion of good health including reproductive health, and the ability to secure women's economic empowerment central to any development investments.

Bring foreign policy home

Following up on the previous post, Obama supporters are key to transforming our party's brand on national security. We must connect foreign/defense policy to the American people in plain English. Political communication is about concrete language to spur critical thinking; in other words translating law & policy prose into campaign poetry.

Obama's basic theme seems to be engagement that integrates all levers of soft power with hard power. As last week's world tour showed, the people of the world want to admire America. The best way to empower ourselves is to lead by example.

-Fiscal responsibility means that we are less dependent on other countries for loans (T-notes). That means lower interest rates for you and a stronger country.
-Adhering to the rule of law will give us leverage in diplomacy. It also gives you more freedom here. A President Obama will snoop on terrorists, not you.
-Treaties, and abiding by them, actually allow us to set our own agenda in the world. That means more markets for your company and safer travel all over.
-And of course, coming home from Iraq will save fiscal and military resources. It also brings home more guardsmen to handle domestic emergencies in your home state.

Obama Foreign Policy to Pay Domestic Dividends

Guest post by PD:

In another impressive display of both his domestic and foreign policy acumen, Obama yesterday laid out exactly how his radically rational approach to rebuilding America's image abroad will reap tangible benefits here at home--and soon.

Obama kicked off a week focused on economic issues by highlighting this year's record $482 billion budget deficit--adding to Bush's other economic high-water mark: increasing the national debt by over $3 trillion in 8 years. In a stunning display of economic sanity, Obama pointed out that the ill-devised and poorly-executed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--which cost the taxpayer over $12 billion per month--might be causing us to neglect some of our needs here at home.

"When you think about the big problems we face here at home, they're connected to the problems we face abroad," he said before the "Unity: Journalists of Color" conference. Redeploying troops from Iraq and sharing the burden in Afghanistan among the international community, Obama argued, would "free up money to keep folks in their homes" and provide funds for needed infrastructure and domestic projects.

Echoing the sentiments from his recent speech in Germany, Obama said: "The world is waiting for the United States to reengage." This, coming on the heels of the Bush administration's latest co-opting of Obama's plan for diplomatic negotiations with Iran, I would say hints that Obama may just have that special kind of momentum in a political campaign that only comes from being right.

Rebuilding America's image abroad--which no one can argue is more likely to happen under a President McCain than under President Obama--will pay dividends not only in peace and security for our children's generation, but here and now, and to the tune of $3 billion per week not spent on an unnecessary war.

Times Tables

Judging from the Bush-McCain crew's pathetically desperate avoidance of the word "timetable" -- the "straight-talker" tacks incoherently from ridicule, to acceptance, and back to denial, while the lame duck feels safe beached on a "general time horizon" -- one could be excused for assuming that the entirety of the debate on the Iraq war is being squeezed to fit within the pages of a day planner. The word "timetable," of course, is a stand-in for the diametrically opposed Iraq policies of the two candidates, but this word -- its mildness, the notion that represents a switch that can simply be turned on or off -- does not begin to capture the width of the gulf separating Obama and McCain's philosophies regarding the war.

Calling for a timetable is not just a rhetorical tool. It is not simply a box to be checked on a candidate's platform, now that it is clear -- if it were not obvious to all but the most obstinately near-sighted before -- that Iraqi leaders and people want us to leave. Merely uttering the word should not be allowed to become a plaything of political expediency, to be granted extra legitimacy with Maliki's explicit use of the term.

The debate over the Iraq war is not about "timetables;" what is at stake is the potential to end the most disastrous imperial misadventure in recent history, to save thousands of American and Iraqi lives, to deprive would-be terrorists of their most celebrated cause , to begin to rebuild America's strained ties with the rest of the world, and to signal a new way of conducting foreign policy, one that does not arrogantly ignore analysis, diplomacy, and popular opinion.

This is far too much to fit on a timetable.

Alert: Now McCain supports a 16-month withdrawal timetable!

Unbelievable. Sen. McCain is finding himself so isolated and proven wrong so many times on foreign policy issues that he's just all over the place.

You won't believe, it but after lambasting Sen. Obama for more than a year now for even considering a phased, careful withdrawal, based on conditions on the ground (see here, here and here), Sen. McCain said he thinks the 16-month plan is "a pretty good timetable."

Watch it to believe it:

Being a good neighbor

Latin America is our neighborhood, and Time Magazine has documented serious slippage in America's military security and political stability in the region. Oil is the core problem with Hugo Chavez contracting to buy Russian arms and using his oil wealth to gain influence in Central America. India and China are interested in drilling near Cuba, and Iran is building alliances in the area. Lastly Russia, itself pumped up by oil prices, has hinted about flying bombers out of Cuba.

Here is Barack Obama's plan for full engagement in Latin America. And of course, getting off oil will be central to national policy making, come January 20.

Watch Obama's Berlin speech

Read the transcript here.

Obama's trip has demonstrated his FP credentials

A column in today's Washington Post analyzes how successful Sen. Obama's trip overseas has already been so far, especially in terms of bolstering his foreign policy credentials.

David Broder shows how developments in just the last few days, involving Iraqi Prime Minister Al Maliki and President Bush among others, have proven Sen. Obama right and Sen. McCain wrong:

"suddenly, long-standing Obama policies -- direct talks with Iran and a 16-month timetable for withdrawal -- seemed to be ratified by events.

"Obama is pulling off this trip in great style and thereby has enhanced his Oval Office credentials."

Sen. McCain, in contrast, "looks like the odd man out in the ongoing foreign policy debate," with all other major players - including a certain W - seemingly running away from his positions.

It seems like the tables are starting to turn for Sen. McCain's foreign policy credentials, and mark my words, this trip will be the beginning of the shift in public perception as far as who'd be a better commander in chief.

Jewish leader: "Israel has no reason to fear Obama"

Jack Rosen, Chairman of the American Jewish Congress, penned an op-ed this week praising Sen. Obama's foreign policy credentials and arguing that those who say that he has limited Middle East experience, and therefore might not be as reliable a friend to Israel, use "faulty reasoning."

Rosen, a hardcore Bush-Cheney campaigner in 2004, points out that Sen. Obama actually has more experience in Middle Eastern affairs than "Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush combined at comparable points in their pursuit of the presidency."

In his official capacity [as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee], Obama has made three previous trips to the Middle East, Eastern Europe and Africa. including one to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories as well as Kuwait and Iraq in January 2006; a trip to Russia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan focused on strategies to control the world's supply of conventional weapons, biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction; and one to South Africa, Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Chad.

How about that, Joe Attack-Dog Lieberman?

Obama's momentum on FP

There's an excellent analysis today in the Washington Post on how the Senator's trip to the Middle East has dramatically shifted the terms of the debate. He's demonstrated his credibility with key leaders in the region, shown that his prior analysis of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan is right on target, and has already moved discussion to planning for a post-occupation Iraq. In short, he's proven himself.

Sen. Barack Obama, on his first and likely only overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has remade the campaign's foreign policy playing field, neatly sidestepping Republican charges that he has been naive and wrong on Iraq and moving to a broader, post-Iraq focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In essence, Obama has declared the war in Iraq all but over.

The article, by Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman, is well worth a quick read.

McCain wrong on Iraq. Again.

Sen. McCain is trying to make this election all about Iraq and national security. As FPPfO has always said, we welcome that approach, as Sen. Obama’s track record in this area is much more convincing than the Arizona Senator’s.

But for someone who’s so intensely betting on his credentials as a foreign policy expert to lead him to the White House, he surely gets a lot of stuff wrong.

In an interview with CBS News, Sen. McCain tries to demonstrate the success of the surge in Iraq by bringing in Colonel McFarlane: because of the surge, we were able to protect a major Sunni Sheikh who had contacted the Colonel, and this led to the Anbar Awakening.

As MSNBC’s Olbermann puts it, Sen. McCain is either wrong or lying. Colonel McFarlane briefed the media on the Anbar awakening on September 29, 2006. Dates don’t add up, do they? No, they don’t: the surge was announced in early 2007.

Funny thing: CBS never aired that piece of McCain’s interview, literally covering up his mistake. You can read the transcript of the interview yourself.

Watch Olbermann’s coverage:

Is the Straight Talk Express in Reverse gear?

Congresswoman Heather Wilson is a McCain surrogate. To her credit, she has serious national security street cred, but that also means that it's doubtful she made a misstatement when she speaks about the War in Iraq.
Today, she said that McCain might actually have the ability to bring troops home before Obama.

"He'd like troops to come home earlier than 16 months if the conditions allow it," said Congresswoman Heather Wilson of New Mexico, on a conference call with reporters just now. "Senator Obama has said it's a 16-month timeline no matter what."

If this weren't about a hollowing military, broken families back home, and losing a grip on Afghanistan, I'd be laughing at the Republicans. But this is real world folks.

Obama's foreign media "problem"

You may have noticed Sunday's odd complaint piece about Senator Obama in the Washington Post. It's the lament of a foreign journalist who hasn't received a one-on-one interview with the man himself, even after writing a "sympathetic (and widely read) book in German about the Illinois Senator".

Despite earnest protests and foot stomping, it seems that yet another journalist has loved and been spurned by the Senator's campaign. I can't imagine his open letter will play well with Obama's staff, particularly because the op-ed opens with a tacit threat to punish the Senator by revealing a "dirty little secret" to the "adoring public" in Europe. The secret?: that this particular journalist can't get an interview.

I understand why this fellow feels jilted. After all, he works for a major outlet and has a job to do.

However, Obama's campaign is truly grassroots in practice and in philosophy. That means that the media's role as an intermediary isn't as valuable to the campaign as journalists would like it to be. Broadening the government's constituency and breaking out of normal political practices is the core goal of the Senator's campaign and, in my opinion, an excellent indication of how Obama will govern.

It's also important to realize that the media failed the American people before and during the Iraq invasion. Journalists were cowed by the Bush Administration. They were more interested in selling stories and advancing their careers than being responsible caretakers of the Fourth Estate. As a result, I think that most Americans aren't sympathetic to (even foreign) journalists complaints about lack of access to a candidate who tries to speak directly to the grassroots.

So bind your wounds and move on, my friend. There are plenty of fish in the sea.

UPDATE: Politico has a story about how this "lack of access" certainly hasn't stopped the foreign media from writing obsessively about Sen. Obama...