Home >> United States & Canada >> Elections & Politics

     Email   Print 

US Poll 2008: Candidates United on Foreign Policy

Abdul Ruff - 6/8/2008

Now that Obama Barack has won the Democratic nomination for facing the Republican McCain in the Presidential finals, the battle scenario is becoming clearer and world would witness a lot of rhetoric war between them. But there is very little difference in their respective foreign policy.

It seems the presidential hopefuls would pursue the official line of external behavior and would not condemn the official policy of the USA or criticize the decision of the Bush administration to invade Afghanistan and Iraq or its plan for future invasions in Islamic world. It seems even if Bush administration in collusion with the Pentagon, now focused on war with Islam --and not exactly on terrorism, invades a few more countries in Islamic world, the US leaders, cutting across the political divide, would support that as a matter of backing the so-called US national as well as global interests. Not only the leaders, but even the media in the USA and the rest of the West would fall in line, but only condemn the Muslims as "fundamentalists” and “terrorists” and the like. That is the essence of US foreign policy today. Since the White House hopefuls are unaware of what has been going on in economic and security issues in USA and world they have changed their views on some of these major issues.

As the battle for Democratic nomination for Presidency is coming to a close soon, both the democratic and the lone Republican John McCain have firmed up their views in unity on foreign policy issues, though they have meager differences in articulating domestic policies. One does not know if the bush administration has diverted the attention of the world and US voters from Afghani-Iraqi failures by raking up the economic issue. But the three remaining presidential aspirants have similar approach to world problems, US position on Mideast, especially Afghanistan and Iraq.

Troop Withdrawal from Iraq

USA tries to say that Iraq that is brought under brutal control of the US forces and machinations and is now less violent than it was a year ago, but economic worries have pushed the five-year-old war from the top of voters' concerns. Hard-core advocates for and against the Iraq war are losing leverage as Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, having secured their nominations, appeal to centrist voters who will decide the fall presidential election.

Unfortunately, none of the presidential aspirants has asked the Bush administration to quickly withdraw the forces form both Afghanistan and Iraq and save the lives of Muslims as well as Americans, but on the contrary, continue to terrorize the Americans by saying that the small scale “terrorists” from Islamic world would any time attack again the USA fully though equipped with defense shield on major cities as well as key economic and security points. They only talk in terms of the troop count down, and they also want Iraq stabilized, but they don’t know how. Although some members of Congress say a U.S. withdrawal would force Iraqis to solve their Pentagon, which still say “terrorism” needs to be contained, outrightly rejects any of such things. Meanwhile countries like Indonesia have indirectly blamed USA for the “terror attacks” on USA and its “allies”.



Republican McCain caught some supporters and opponents by surprise last week when he stated for the first time that he believes the Iraq war can be won in less than five years. McCain insisted he was not setting a timetable for troop drawdowns, something he has strongly opposed in the past. But the speech triggered a degree of head-scratching in conservative circles, and rebukes from Democrats. McCain recently suggested 2013 as a possible end to U.S. involvement in Iraq. Many saw it as a switch from his earlier denouncements of timelines, although McCain insists it was not. That means he wants to war to go on.

However, Democrat Obama continues to tell he will remove U.S. combat troops within 16 months of taking office. Even some of Obama's strongest supporters think he is likely, if elected, to take a more deliberate approach to turning Iraq's security over to Iraqi forces. A slower disengagement process would subject Obama to "extraordinary pressure" from infuriated anti-war groups within his entourage, noting they have helped him outmaneuver Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primary season. Whatever the pace, however, many feel Obama would have to withdraw substantial numbers of U.S. forces from Iraq because the Army is nearing a breaking point. But he does not want to withdraw forces in hurry. Meanwhile, more troops are badly needed in Afghanistan, which Obama calls a must-win war against the so-called “al-Qaeda” and its allies. Public see the scenario other wise. They say either McCain or Obama will have to reduce troop levels in Iraq in 2009 because the Army and Marines are being stretched dangerously thin.

McCain wants to win a military victory, but also "he's not interested in destroying the institution." Bush thinks a partial withdrawal could result in "the worst of both worlds: enough Americans there to serve as targets, but not enough to keep the country safe." When the next president confronts Iraq, said Rice, Obama's adviser, "you've got bad options and worse options."

On Russia

Among important world powers, Russia has some how found a place in the debates of front racers. Russia was, perhaps is still, an axis of evil, according to the Neocons. However US policy of ridiculing Russia is kept alive in the political discourses of Republican and Democratic candidates. Senator McCain, the Republican hopeful with a good shot of winning the election, stands alone in ridiculing Moscow’s policies. McCain has practically included Russia in a new axis of evil, along with North Korea, China and Iran. McCain's advisers are openly lambasting President George W. Bush for being too chummy with President Vladimir Putin and promise that Moscow will be treated a lot more harshly in a McCain presidency, causing considerable concern among U.S. foreign policy experts.

A politician who opposed Russia in every manner, McCain's rhetoric, asking the world to renounce Russia form the developed democracies list, might inflame international tensions linked to U.S. actions over Iraq and Iran. The proposal by McCain to kick Russia out of the Group of Eight industrial countries will never happen, because other G8 members would oppose it. The NATO’s decision to extent the military cover right up to the Russian borders has irritated Moscow and the McCain camp's rhetoric, to some extent, is pushing the world toward a new Cold War.

The other two presidential front-runners, Democratic Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have not offered a positive-thinking agenda for Russia either, pledging to be tougher with Russia than Bush and endorsing further NATO expansion by accepting Ukraine and Georgia into the alliance. All three presidential contenders have promised to expand the Bush administration's effort to "spread democracy," a policy that an overwhelming majority of Russians see as a thinly veiled smoke screen to strengthen the U.S. position in the world at the expense of Russia.

New Alliance?

McCain also talked about an idea to form a league of democracies that would exclude Russia and China. For McCain the Americans do not need the Russians and the Chinese to cooperate on nuclear nonproliferation and a climate change treaty. Ut he doe not know that sidelining them with the creation of this new body would do nothing to smooth over cooperation in other areas. Moreover, how would Washington's Middle East allies like Egypt, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia react to such a democratic grouping?

On several global issues the USA requires Russian help to solve the problems reasonably well. Former military man McCain would like to depend entirely on the Pentagon and CIA on foreign policy matters, like Bush has been doing now quite miserably and shabbily. McCain also recently suggested that the United States should follow the French example of generating 80 percent of France's electricity with nuclear power. However, some experts say more than 700 huge nuclear power plants would have to be built by 2050 -- more than one plant per month -- to satisfy McCain's desire to be like France.

Importance of Russia for the world for resolving many of the contentious issues across the borders and regions has to be properly realized by White House. On economic matter Russia could be isolated, but in security their assistance is absolutely essential. ABM Treaty has to be revived and USA has to get back to that in order to resume the denuclearization talks. None of the major security problems faced by the United States and the rest of the world could have been solved without cooperation from Russia. Many including Brzezinski, who consider Russia to be little more than an evil genius, echoed this sentiment. Can they all be wrong?

The Bush administration last month signed a deal permitting reactor fuel to come from Russia, where would the United States get all the uranium required to fuel 700 nuclear power plants if its next president bashed Russia day and night? Does McCain now asking to skip Russia in world affairs really believe that Russia would take his dictates lying down? Perhaps it is McCain’s fanciful thinking to decide the world issues without Russia and he said it just for fun.