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.