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...

Dubya flips on timeline, McCain left holding bag

After months of pandering to the "victory with honor" crowd, McCain is once again a policy maverick, but not in a way he anticipated.

This weekend, the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government agreed to the principle of a withdrawal timeline, breaking with years of Bush stonewalling calls for a planned withdrawal from Iraq. That sent McCain's advisers scrambling to explain why their candidate is the odd man out (to borrow language from The Politico), holding a position from which even President Bush has backed down.

Opposing a timeline once made strategic sense, but only when Iraq was a fractured shell unable to defend itself from trouble-making by Iran and foreign insurgents aligned with Al Qaeda. But with Iraq now finding its feet and facing two critical elections in the next two years, the principle of a timed withdrawal makes much more sense. Agreeing to a departure time table will blunt debate over "the occupiers" during the Iraqi election cycle and hopefully push radicals to the margins. It will also allow for a very predictable transition of power following those elections.

McCain now has a choice to make. On the one end, he can cling to a hawkish mentality that may have a place in a discussion about war, but not in a responsible debate about post-war reconstruction. On the other, he can agree that a timeline is a good idea and one with with Iraqi support, a move that essentially concedes Obama's decision-making ability and foreign policy knowhow.

My bet? He'll attempt to get out of making a tough choice by co-opting Obama's position and opening a debate on minor details of the time table. For example, by adopting the long-lived Republican "tough father" archetype, he can demand "results" and "accountability" from the Iraqis in exchange for withdrawal.

It's a losing formula, however, since Obama's plans for Iraq have coincided with the evolving situation there. It's a fact that shows that Obama has done his homework and is well prepared to manage the biggest foreign policy challenge of this election.

Zakaria Analyzes How Critiques to Obama's FP Approach Are Misguided

Newsweek International editor Fareed Zakaria addresses criticisms of Sen. Obama's foreign policy positions in his latest column. He writes that while "John McCain and his campaign, conservative columnists and right-wing bloggers all paint a picture of a liberal dreamer who wishes away the world's dangers," these critiques are "off the mark."

Zakaria goes on to analyze Sen. Obama's worldview, showing why he has demonstrated a wider understanding of global affairs than the current administration:

Obama rarely speaks in the moralistic tones of the current Bush administration. He doesn't divide the world into good and evil even when speaking about terrorism. He sees countries and even extremist groups as complex, motivated by power, greed and fear as much as by pure ideology. His interest in diplomacy seems motivated by the sense that one can probe, learn and possibly divide and influence countries and movements precisely because they are not monoliths. When speaking to me about Islamic extremism, for example, he repeatedly emphasized the diversity within the Islamic world, speaking of Arabs, Persians, Africans, Southeast Asians, Shiites and Sunnis, all of whom have their own interests and agendas.

Obama never uses the soaring language of Bush's freedom agenda, preferring instead to talk about enhancing people's economic prospects, civil society and—his key word—"dignity." He rejects Bush's obsession with elections and political rights, and argues that people's aspirations are broader and more basic—including food, shelter, jobs. "Once these aspirations are met," he told The New York Times's James Traub, "it opens up space for the kind of democratic regimes we want."

Zakaria concludes by comparing McCain's and Obama's foreign policy views more directly:

In the end, the difference between Obama and McCain might come down to something beyond ideology -- temperament. McCain is a pessimist about the world, seeing it as a dark, dangerous place where, without the constant and vigorous application of American force, evil will triumph. Obama sees a world that is in many ways going our way. As nations develop, they become more modern and enmeshed in the international economic and political system. To him, countries like Iran and North Korea are holdouts against the tide of history. America's job is to push these progressive forces forward, using soft power more than hard, and to try to get the world's major powers to solve the world's major problems. Call him an Optimistic Realist, or a Realistic Optimist. But don't call him naive.

The Prophetic Strategist versus the Rambling Tactician

What a week for foreign policy shifts. On both Iran and Iraq, the Bush Administration seems to be coming around to the Obama position. Changing facts on the ground will force Senator McCain to follow. low level talks with Iran have finally begun, and the Administration is now thinking of a time line. In fact Prime Minister al Maliki said that Senator Obama's 16 month plan is the best.

On a deeper level, the Iran and Iraq policy shifts reveal the personal qualities of Barack Obama, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Senator Obama is innately a strategic thinker who naturally blends all types of perspectives. President Bush and Senator McCain are tacticians. They grab onto their own narrow agenda, and twist and turn with changing dynamics to keep doing whatever they want to do.

The Presidency is about the personal qualities, not resume qualifications. Barack called it on a number of foreign and domestic issues, and in the coming months the American people will see him as a man vision and action.

Obama's 300

They say that you can estimate the effectiveness of a presidency by how the candidate manages a campaign. Not only how a message is spread, volunteers mobilized, and money raised, but also who is selected to inform decisions and the style of decision-making displayed by the candidate.

Which is a reason why we can take heart in Obama's approach to foreign policy. According to an article in today's New York Times, Obama has developed a major advisory network that complements his good judgment with seasoned foreign policy leadership experience.

Most of them, like the candidate they are working for, distinguished themselves from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy camp by early opposition to the Iraq war. They also tend to be more liberal and to emphasize using the “soft power” of diplomacy and economic aid to try to advance the interests of the United States. Still, their positions fall well within centrist Democratic foreign policy thinking, and none of the deep policy fissures that have divided the Republicans into two camps, the neoconservatives and the so-called pragmatists, have opened.

How does this affect the rest of the campaign? I suspect, for example, that a 300-strong cohort of foreign policy advisers will free Obama to choose a swing state executive without international chops. For example, Tim Kaine of VA, Kathleen Sibelius of KS, etc.

Paki- what?

Top U.S. intelligence officials have repeatedly warned that Al Qaeda is operating in “safe havens” in one country in particular, a country often left out of the US foreign policy discourse: Pakistan.

Yet, the "National Security" page on McCain's website has no mention of the country.

In contrast, Sen. Obama advocated for a serious focus on Pakistan already back in the early primary days, and was criticized by the McCain campaign - among others - as a result.

Sen. McCain likes to tout his national security credentials, but it looks like he needs to stop worrying only about Iran and Iraq and get a refresher on America's national security priorities.

Obama's Iraq position? Consistent, thank you very much.

Sen. Obama has focused a lot on the Iraq War in recent speeches, and some on the right have accused him of flip-flopping on the issue.

Politifact, a campaign fact-checking initiative associated with Congressional Quarterly, analyzed Sen. Obama's speeches and statements about Iraq and found that Sen. Obama has not wavered in his statements throughout the campaign.

The report concludes by saying:

Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama’s position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign’s statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.

No more petty 'silent treatment' with Iran

Now we learn that the Bush Administration will attend talks with an Iranian nuclear envoy. To be exact the Administration says “This is a one-time event and he will be there to listen, not negotiate,”. OK, whatever.

Talks are not a sign of weakness, communication is a tool of national security policy making that has been lacking across the Middle East in the last 8 years.

John McCain is now painted as more ideologically extreme than Bush when it comes to basic diplomatic communications. He can no longer posture that Senator Obama's willingness to talk to the Iranians is bad for security. Our campaign now has the leverage to paint John McCain as an ideologue, not a policymaker.

A future President Obama will formulate a coherent policy for the region using all of America's levers of strength.

Sen. Obama to discuss National Security in Indiana on Wednesday

Press release from the campaign:

Barack Obama to Visit Indiana Wednesday
Will Hold Summit on National Security with Senator Evan Bayh, former Senator Sam Nunn at Purdue University

Indianapolis, IN - Barack Obama's Indiana campaign announced today that Senator Obama will return to the state on Wednesday to hold a Summit on Confronting 21st Century Threats at Purdue University in West Lafayette.

Senator Obama will be joined by Indiana Senator Evan Bayh and former Georgia Senator Sam Nunn. The summit discussion will include issues related to nuclear non-proliferation, bioterrorism, cyber security and emerging national security threats. The panel will also include two renowned experts on bio security-Dr. Tara O'Toole, Center for Bio Security at the University of Pittsburgh, and Dr. David Relman, Stanford University Medical School--and two cyber security experts--Paul Kurtz, a former senior member on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council, and Alan Wade, former Chief Information Officer for the CIA.

Senator Obama serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and in 2006 worked with Indiana Senator Richard Lugar to pass legislation expanding U.S. efforts to detect, interdict and destroy weapons of mass destruction.

A Bold Vision for US Foreign Policy

Senator Obama gave a compelling speech on how the war in Iraq has distorted America’s foreign policy, cost it thousands of lives, tarnished its image and emptied its treasury. The Senator then pledged that he would swiftly end the war and reorient America’s approach to the world to address the challenges of terrorism, nuclear proliferation, climate change and energy dependence.

In his remarks, Sen. Obama said that he would look beyond the immediate crisis in Iraq.

“As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy — one that recognizes that we have interests beyond Baghdad, in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin,”

“I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

What a breath of fresh air. Listening to McCain speak, it sometimes seems as though America's foreign policy jargon is limited to three words: Terrorism, Iran and Bomb.

Here's Sen. Obama's 38-minute speech:

McCain still aligned with Bush, even if he isn't

McCain is in a tough spot. How do you support a dumb war, align yourself with its bungling managers, then try to position yourself as an antiwar hawk? Evasion - just challenge the very language of the question!

We've all watched McCain shed his maverick credentials as he aligned himself with the Bush Administration's handling of the war, but sometimes it helps to hear the gears grinding as the political machine maneuvers into reverse.

Iran: taking lessons from past successes

It's interesting that as much as McCain claims to have the upper hand on foreign policy issues, he doesn't seem to grasp what more and more experts are openly saying, and what's becoming clearer every day: that the we-don't-talk-to-Iran approach has failed and that there are serious precedents to encourage US engagement with Tehran.

Newsweek interviewed Amitai Etzioni, a professor of international affairs at George Washington University and author of "Security First: For a Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy" on how the US should react to Iran's recent missile test(s). Etzioni claims that "the Bush administration should be willing to sit down and talk to Tehran's leaders--even without any commitment from them to stop Iran's nuclear program" pointing out how the same approach worked on both Libya and North Korea.

Engaging with Iran would not be appeasing, it would be talking to them to try and reach our goals: for them to stop their nuclear program and their support for terrorism. The rhetoric coming out of the current administration and the McCain campaign is that we'll attack them any day - of course they're scared. But now they're beginning to show signs that they might be willing to sit down with the US. By talking to them directly, we might find that what they really want is a promise not to topple their regime. And we'd be willing to offer that to them, in exchange of our two goals mentioned above. Asked if that's an offer the Iranians would reasonably accept, Etzioni responds:

They would get what they would really want most, which is a promise for us not to topple their regime, in exchange for them to discontinue their program. It's certainly a plausible deal that Libya made and it looks like North Korea is making. This is not some kind of liberal fantasy. It's happening, and I think at least we should offer it to them. And what would be the downside?

Really interesting interview, also touching on the ever-so-interesting topic of democracy vs. security in the Middle East. I encourage you all to read it.

Obama on Iraq

In sum: An Iraqi political success comes from security + an oil revenue sharing deal. The pullout is about forced responsibility and replenishing our own military.

A measured, but steady 16 month pullout serves two purposes. It is based on the theory of forced responsibility, forcing the Iraqis to get control of their oil money distribution and form a federated government. Secondly, it frees up military resources to fight in Afghanistan, protect the homeland, and replenish its hollowed force structure.

In full, here is Obama in the New York Times.

Bush/McCain and the hollowing of the American Military

In sum: The Bush/McCain Iraq policy is destroying our force structure. Obama's policies are needed to make our military whole again.

FPPFO members got a preview last week from Lawrence Korb about John McCain’s biggest blind spot in his Iraq argument. Dr. Korb, formerly Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower, spoke to hundreds of FPPFO members (on his birthday no less) about the hollowing out of the Army and Marine Corps. In short, the Bush/McCain approach is destroying our force structure which will limit America’s ability to protect our interests around the world, and at home.

This article from yesterday documents the fact that 11% of new recruits have moral waivers, including convictions of serious crimes. The extra trouble they are causing is wasting time and resources in the ranks. And Dr. Korb told us last week that the Army is losing many of its brightest young officers at an alarming rate.

Remember, the civilian leadership sets policy, and generals execute the military component of that. Bush and McCain are focusing on what the general in a particular theater wants, without regard for how the rest of the defense establishment is suffering. The reverberations will continue for years.

Barack Obama will set the policy that strengthens America at home, rebuilds our alliances, pulls out of Iraq responsibly, and focuses military resources on assaulting terrorists.

Obama Lays out Clear Plan for Iraq Withdrawal in NY Times Op-Ed

Senator Obama has a great op-ed in today's New York Times.

Here's an excerpt:

Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

McCain campaign trying to change history

It is interesting how the McCain campaign is being so inconsistent with its message on Iraq: was McCain a staunch supporter of President Bush's war effort or was he not? On this Sunday's Meet the Press, Carly Fiorina - a top McCain adviser - said that McCain has stood up to President Bush and Secretary Rumsfeld on Iraq repeatedly and declared that those who say McCain was “aligned” with Bush on Iraq are trying to “change history.”

Maybe she can explain why McCain himself has been very clear about his enthusiastic support for Bush's Iraq effort all along. Just a few months ago, he even declared, “no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have.”

ThinkProgress has a great posting about this inconsistency and provides numerous examples of when McCain sought to align himself with President Bush.

Obama on Fareed Zakaria: GPS

Barack had a long, far ranging FP interview today with CNN's Fareed Zakaria. Video is already on Youtube (here's part 2 and part 3) and will likely be up soon on Zakaria's CNN website. In the meantime, here's some blurbs from the transcript of the conversation, courtesy of CNN.

On extremism:

I think the problems of terrorism and groups that are resisting modernity, whether because of their ethnic identities or religious identities, and the fact that they can be driven into extremist ideologies, is one of the severe threats that we face.

I don't think it's the only threat that we face.

On diplomatic philosophy:

...tough, thoughtful, realistic diplomacy used to be a bipartisan hallmark of U.S. foreign policy.

And one of the things that I want to do, if I have the honor of being president, is to try to bring back the kind of foreign policy that characterized the Truman administration with Marshall and Acheson and Kennan.

But also characterized to a large degree -- the first President Bush -- with people like Scowcroft and Powell and Baker, who I think had a fairly clear-eyed view of how the world works, and recognized that it is always in our interests to engage, to listen, to build alliances -- to understand what our interests are, and to be fierce in protecting those interests, but to make sure that we understand it's very difficult for us to, as powerful as we are, to deal all these issues by ourselves.

We need to show leadership through consensus and through pulling people together wherever we can. There are going to be times where we have to act unilaterally to protect our interests. And I always reserve the right to do that, should I be commander in chief.

What do you think, World?

Fair enough, the presidential election is held in the US. And I'll admit, only Americans can vote. But foreigners' perceptions of our candidates says a lot about what kind of country the US will be seen as with that person at the helm.

Asked in which candidate they have more confidence, well-informed respondents in 22 countries plus the United States responded like this:

(click on the image to view a bigger version)

This is striking, and says a lot about how other countries will relate to the US were Senator Obama to become president.

"Obama-ism" in foreign policy?

Today's Washington Post has a fascinating article that attempts to define Obama's distinct campaign approach after securing the primary.

William A. Galston, one of Bill Clinton's White House domestic policy advisers, offers the following three characteristics as key elements of an emerging "Obama-ism":

First is an "all of us together" approach that rejects "diversionary interests and short-term gains." Second is an effort to bring people together across partisan lines. Third is his effort to broaden participation in politics and his use of modern technology to do so. This appears to be a marriage of Obama's roots in community organizing and his willingness to tap the power of technology to open the processes of government to more than the traditional cadre of experts.

"What Obama is talking about is a bottom-up view of how the world works," said Andrei Cherny, editor of the journal Democracy. "When he talks about American politics and how to reform it, how America can reach out to people around the world, he is not talking in the same way Democrats talked about it 30 years ago from the top down."

"His tone is very much post-partisan and post-ideological," said one Clinton White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to offer a frank assessment of Obama's candidacy. "The challenge will be coming up with the ideas to go with it. If you drop the same agenda into the same Washington petri dish, you'll get the same results."

On its face, domestic "Obama-ism" is a tremendous complement to a traditional multilateral approach to foreign policy. After eight years of American leadership deaf to the concerns of our allies and opponents in the international system, a little "Obama-ism" will go a long way towards restoring American prestige and leadership in global affairs.

It's called the White House, not the Black House

From the Middle East

Sana'a, Yemen

That Barack Hussein Obama is a serious contender for the United States Presidency is still difficult for many in the Arab world to fathom. The popular narrative on America has little room for a black man with an Arab middle name in the most powerful office in the land and so the race for an explanation is on. So far I have come across three expositions of the Obama phenomenon.

The first is one that will be familiar to Americans with memories of that tragic year when death extinguished hope and men were made martyrs. Like Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy before him, Obama's promises of a better world will, I am told, be thwarted by an assassins bullet and in a place, were conspiracy is seen as the natural order of things, the bullet will be no accident. "If Obama represents a serious challenge to the established order of things then the countries elites will find a way of disposing him, that my friend is the way of the world."

The second is that Obama is a naïve man whose ideals will be dashed by the brutal facts of realpolitik. That the promise of change will turn out to be nothing more than the overwrought rhetoric of the campaign. Once in power America's first black President will do what Presidents have always done. Here that is not seen as a good thing.

The third is the simplest; that is that he will not win, that he cannot win, that for all the hype America will not choose him. "How an the land that gave us George Bush give us Barack Obama! White people will never vote for him, it is called the White House habibi, not the Black House!" When I tell people that whites are voting for Barack in droves, that his rallies bring together every color and creed I am looked at with great incredulity, "really, its not just minorities? Cause you can't win in America with just minorities, Latinos and blacks and people like that, you need the Whites."

If Obama wins and God willing he will, there will no doubt be those who will attempt to tell the same story of America and its place in the world but it will not be easy, something will have shifted and old tales will sound stale and tired. Symbolism matters and there can be no denying the power of that second name in a region where names still carry the weight of history, of kin and kith. If Obama delivers on his promise and creates the space for a new dialogue, it just may be possible for America and the Arab world to reassess one another and move beyond the polarizing politics of the last eight years.

How important is it for Obama's VP to have strong foreign policy credentials?

Of course, your answer to this depends on how you assess Obama's standalone foreign policy credentials and the role you imagine for the Vice President after the inaugural.

Thoughts? Any favorite candidates?

Funny. Not.

Another Vietnam veteran payed a high price for a botched joke almost two years ago. Now John McCain is joining the ranks with an attempted joke implying that the US' intention is to kill Iranians.

McCain reacted to a report on rising US cigarettes exports to Iran by saying that "maybe that's a way of killing 'em." I can see that being funny. I can see that being funny if it's US foreign policy to strive to kill Iranians. Is it, Sen. McCain?

This seems to be a recurrent theme in the neoconservative approach to USFP: if we have problems with other states, all of their citizens become fair game and we lump them together with their erring leaders.

Obama gives clear, strong response to Iran missile test

Iran put on a clear show of force today, testing missiles capable of striking across the Middle East, including the Persian Gulf and Israel. While Iran's tests revealed no new capabilities, they did demonstrate Tehran's continued interest in regional hegemony and prompted a strong response from Senator Obama.

He called for "aggressive diplomacy" that combines direct diplomatic ties between the US and Iran and closely tying economic incentives to diplomatic gains. Avoiding the Bush Administration's failure on Iran, he says, will involve removing Europeans as intermediaries between the US and Iran and developing a coherent economic sanction regime based on the common interests of states involved in the region.

Launch Event

Our kick-off event brought together foreign policy professionals from all expertise and walks of life for a networking happy hour on a gorgeous rooftop terrace in the heart of DC. We thought the weather might ruin the event, but miraculously the rain stopped, the clouds parted, and the gathering was graced with a beautiful rainbow. Brookings Senior Fellow Phil Gordon topped off the night with an excellent speech underlining the necessity of FPPFO at this critical juncture.

McCain camp using same old tactics

The neocon McCain foreign policy team could not resist the temptation to link their irresponsible, anti-constitutional, overreaching approach to dealing with terrorists with a post-9/11 world. Granted, the tragic events changed America's FP outlook in numerous ways, but it's sad to see, in former CIA counterterror chief Richard Clarke's words, "the McCain campaign using the same old, tired tactics." Clarke continued: "To say [Obama] is weak on terrorism strikes me as just another example of the sort of Karl Rove strategy of taking what the truth is and doing the opposite."