Foreign Policy

Posted By: Nick

 
Just 3 days ago I posted about Barack Obama’s Trouble with Iraq.  Things looked bad for Obama.  The decrease in violence in Iraq was quickly and effectively being framed by the McCain campaign as the direct result of the surge; Obama had strongly opposed the surge, and this outcome looked like it would start to hurt him.

But what a difference 3 days makes.  Suddenly the tables have turned and McCain is on the defensive about foreign policy.  First, the Bush Administration reversed its “no talks” position and is now holding talks with Iran.  The initial round hasn’t gone as well as we might like, but the change in policy has already been made.  The move severely undercut McCain’s argument that holding talks with Iran amounted to appeasement.

Second, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki told Der Speigel that U.S. troops should leave Iraq

as soon as possible as far as we’re concerned.  US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

Al-Maliki basically endorsed Obama’s Iraq plan. McCain’s argument that Obama doesn’t understand the situation on the ground has gone out the window.  Surely Al-Maliki understands the “situation on the ground.”

Finally, the last few days have shown a clear movement among the top military brass in favor of increased troops level in Afghanistan; Obama has been proposing this very same strategy for some time.  McCain’s response to Obama’s suggestion that we send two additional brigades to Afghanistan?  Send three additional brigades.

Looks like McCain and the Bush Administration are simply moving towards Obama on foreign policy.  In a year that so heavily favors the Democrats, Obama will win if he continues to lead the way on major issues like this.

Posted By: Nick

 
I often disagree with Thomas Friedman, but his column in Wednesday’s NYTimes is fantastic.  Using the Security Council vote on Zimbabwe as an example, he points out that a world with a weaker America may not be the place that many countries think it will be.

Polls tell us how China is now more popular in Asia than America and how few Europeans say they identify with the United States.  I am sure there is truth to these polls….  But America is not and never has been just about those things, which is why I also find some of these poll results self-indulgent, knee-jerk and borderline silly. Friday’s vote at the U.N. on Zimbabwe reminded me why.  Maybe Asians, Europeans, Latin Americans and Africans don’t like a world of too much American power — “Mr. Big” got a little too big for them.  But how would they like a world of too little American power?

Not very much, Friedman claims.  And I think he’s right.  Afterall what are the alternative powers?

Russia, though nowhere near its USSR strength, is still the world’s largest single nation geographically.  It has significant influence throughout the world: it has a large economy, large natural resource reserves, a permanent Security Council seat, and a massive military.

China is the worlds largest nation (population).  Though still run by the Communist Party, it is essentially a capitalist nation run by an authoritarian single party.  It’s massive population, military, and economy give it major influence in world affairs.  China also has a permanent seat on the Security Council.  China’s power is growing at a significant rate.

Both nations vetoed the U.S. resolution to impose sanctions against Zimbabwe.  The United States has been working to help the people of Zimbabwe after Robert Mugabe blatantly stole the most recent election.  The country is falling apart and desperately needs help.  China and Russia would rather protect Mugabe, and let him continue to destroy his country, than help the people of Zimbabwe.

There is also the issue of South Africa.  President Thabo Mbeki has strong influence in the region could likely help resolve the problem in Zimbabwe.  But he has steadfastly stood by Robert Mugabe.

If those are the countries that people around the world look up to and respect, they may want to consider what a world where Russia and China are dominant would look like.  As for me, I’m proud that my country is still leading the way for freedom and democracy.  We have little to no strategic or economic interests in Zimbabwe.  But we’re trying to help, because all people deserve freedom.

Friedman sums up:

Which brings me back to America. Perfect we are not, but America still has some moral backbone. There are travesties we will not tolerate. The U.N. vote on Zimbabwe demonstrates that this is not true for these “popular” countries — called Russia or China or South Africa — that have no problem siding with a man who is pulverizing his own people.

So, yes, we’re not so popular in Europe and Asia anymore. I guess they would prefer a world in which America was weaker, where leaders with the values of Vladimir Putin and Thabo Mbeki had a greater say, and where the desperate voices for change in Zimbabwe would, well, just shut up.

Posted By: Nick

 
Barack Obama is starting to take some real heat over his position on the Iraq War.  The biggest reason for this is that the surge (which he opposed) seems to have made some real gains in Iraq.  The Washington Post hit him for this today in an editorial.  Jack Tapper at ABC News says the success of the surge has put Obama on the defensive.

John McCain went after him yesterday as well. He makes the point that:

Where Senator Obama and I disagreed, fundamentally, was what course we should take.  I called for a comprehensive new strategy — a surge of troops and counterinsurgency to win the war.  Senator Obama disagreed.  He opposed the surge, predicted it would increase sectarian violence, and called for our troops to retreat as quickly as possible.  Today we know Senator Obama was wrong.  The surge has succeeded.

I have made my own position clear.  I think the war in Iraq has been a major distraction from our efforts in Afghanistan.  It has strained our military, driven us further into deficit, and has hurt our credibility around the world.  Osama bin Laden is still at large, almost seven years after the 9/11 attacks.

However, I think Obama is walking on very thin ice right now.  And I’m not sure how he can improve his situation.  The reality is that violence in Iraq is down significantly since the beginning of the surge.  Arguments can be made about the reasons for the decrease in violence (it should be pointed out that a major factor may not be increased American presence, but rather increased American cooperation [bribery] with Sunni tribes, among other factors).  But with the simplistic way the average voter sees the war, Obama may be in some trouble here.  With the media beginning to turn against Obama on the war, McCain has a real opportunity to pick up some extra votes.

Posted By: Nick

 
Fascinating read over at The New Republic.  Eli Lake writes that Obama’s foreign policy is likely to shape up to be more like Reagan than Carter.  The article highlights the fact that Richard Clarke and Rand Beers are senior advisors to the Obama Campaign and are likely to hold important posts in an Obama administration.  It also notes that:

Last November at a foreign policy forum in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Obama said there may be “40,000 hard-core jihadists with whom we can’t negotiate.” He went on. “Our job is to incapacitate them, to kill them.” In that spirit, he famously announced that he would strike terrorist bases in Pakistan if President Pervez Musharraf ever refuses to move on actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda–a threat that earned him the chastisement of John McCain, among others.

While that situation drew heavy criticism from many directions (including the anti-war base), I firmly believe Obama was right.  There’s no excuse for not protecting American national security interests.  If that means Pakistan gets pissed off, well, so be it.  We can’t sit around and wait for the next terrorist attack just because the Pakistani government isn’t cooperating.

Posted By: Nick

 
Barack Obama writes his plan for Iraq in today’s NYTimes.  I’m sure this is mostly in response to the criticism he recieved last week when he said he would visit Iraq and reevaluate after his trip.  I think it’s clear he meant he was open to tweeking his plan here and there as required based on the reality of the situation, but never fundamentally mean that his position of ending the war would change.  Of course his poor choice of words left him open to attack, so today he has clearly stated his position so as to avoid any confusion.

Here are some bits I especially like:

Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

But [the Bush/McCain plan] 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.

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

I love it.  He’s saying exactly what we should be doing.  Get out of Iraq ASAP, and get more focused on Afghanistan.

Posted By: Nick

 
On Sunday, Taliban militants in Afghanistan attacked a U.S./NATO military base.  Nine American soldiers were killed, 15 NATO soldiers (likely Americans) were wounded, and 4 Afghani soldiers were wounded.  That the Taliban has been able to regroup to the extent that it feels comfortable attacking a U.S. military base is extremely troublesome.  That they managed to inflict the damage they did is even more troublesome.  Things are not going well in Afghanistan.

I wrote about Afghanistan last week, and I’m sure I will continue to do so.  The fact of the matter is, we have a foolish, shortsighted strategy in Afghanistan that is doing nothing to increase our national security.  Iraq distracted us from what should have been our real focus: Al Qaeda and the Taliban.  Now they have regrouped and we are beginning to pay the price.

We need more troops in Afghanistan, we need a new, aggressive military strategy, we need to convince Pakistan to take a more proactive stance against the Taliban; and we need these things now.  If militants in Afghanistan (likely operating from inside Pakistan) are capable of launching such an attack on a U.S. military base, then what else can they do?

Six and a half years into the war in Afghanistan, this sort of thing is unacceptable.  The failure of the Bush Administration to properly execute this war has real consequences that we are now beginning to see.

NYTimes Article

Posted By: Nick

 
Little known fact: the United States is actually fighting TWO wars right now.  There’s the one we all know about, in Iraq, and then there’s this whole other war in a place called Afghanistan.  Amazing, huh?

Well, as it turns out, that other war isn’t going too well these days.  The Taliban and Al Qaeda have regrouped in Pakistan and are causing all sorts of headaches for everyone in the region.  The NYTimes thinks its about time that sodid something about this problem.

Both countries have a common and increasingly urgent interest in rolling back the power of Al Qaeda and the Taliban and working together to promote democracy and development in Pakistan. President Bush needs to persuade Pakistan’s leaders of that — and he needs to do it now, before Al Qaeda and the Taliban get any stronger.

For 6 years Bush has not done this.  I’m sure nothing is going to change for his last 6 months in office.  Hopefully the next president will actually do something useful.

Posted By: Nick

 
There has been quite the increase in commentary this week about possible war with Iran.  It’s an unfortunate situation that looks like it may not have a happy ending with the current administration running the show.

The truth of a war with Iran is that the United States would win.  While Iran is larger than Iraq, and has a better military, they are still no match for the United States Military.  We would win.  We would win quickly and decisively.  But after we win… then what?  Suddenly we would find ourselves occupying a vast swath of the middle east (Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan).  Iran is much larger than Iraq both in terms of geographic area and population.  The occupation of Iraq will likely pale in comparison to an occupation of Iran.

The further concern is what will happen in terms of the broader Middle East.  Will Iran launch missiles at Israel in response?  Will this draw other nations into the conflict?  The situation could quickly get out of hand.  The mere though of the United States occupying so much more of the Middle East will surely inflame the Islamic world.

Oil prices, already at ridiculous levels, will surely increase.

But these things may be inevitable.  Afterall, a nuclear Iran is unacceptable.  Though some in my party on the far left would like us to never go to war for any reason, sometimes we must.  If Iran looks to be on the verge of developing a bomb, we must stop them.  Fortunately the recent estimates I’ve read give us at least another year before Iran has an operational nuclear weapon.  And even then, they would have only the one (or maybe two?).  We still have time to resolve the situation without war, and the Bush administration (and whichever administration comes in next year) should actively pursue all avenues of dealing with Iran.  We should be talking to Iranians.  Diplomacy works, and can work in this situation.  But that shouldn’t be our only action.  We should continue to actively seek sanctions as long as the Iranians continue nuclear development.  We should maintain our covert actions to both hamper Iran’s nuclear production and to make Iran’s cost of doing business unmanageable.

If we actively engage Iran on numerous fronts (Diplomatic, Economic, Military [covert operations and threats]) we can resolve this situation before it gets out of hand.

The alternative of course is a war that we will win, but which may cripple our nation as a result.