![[FPRI]](/images/logo.png){kind=logo}
July 8, 2008
Eitan Danon is a Research Assistant at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.
With the Democratic and Republican conventions approaching, the positions of presumptive nominees Senators Barack Obama and John McCain are coming into focus, and there are stark contrasts between the two candidates’ foreign policy positions on issues including Iraq, Iran, terrorism and proliferation, Israel/Palestine, the role of diplomacy, and trade. The following compares their overall approaches and their positions on these issues by setting their stated positions on each side by side.
In a speech on March 26, 2008 at the World Affairs Council of Los Angeles,[1] Senator McCain identified himself as a “realistic idealist” and identified radical Islamic terrorism as the “transcendent challenge of our time”:
We have enemies for whom no attack is too cruel, and no innocent life safe, and who would, if they could, strike us with the world’s most terrible weapons. There are states that support them, and which might help them acquire those weapons because they share with the terrorists the same animating hatred for the West, and will not be placated by fresh appeals to the better angels of their nature. This is the central threat of our time, and we must understand the implications our decisions on all manners of regional and global challenges could have for our success in defeating it.
Senator Obama, who has molded his campaign around the theme of change, has styled himself as a unifier. In his policy essay in Foreign Affairs, “Renewing American Leadership,” he called for America to assume a consensus-building approach in its dealings with allies and pledged to undo the Bush administration’s homeland security policy, which he has called “a color-coded politics of fear.”[2] In his speech “The War We Need to Win,” delivered at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, Obama outlined a five-point strategy for “the war that has to be won”:[3]
When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan; developing the capabilities and partnerships we need to take out the terrorists and the world’s most deadly weapons; engaging the world to dry up support for terror and extremism; restoring our values; and securing a more resilient homeland.
In his own Foreign Affairs piece, “An Enduring Peace,” McCain identified Iraq, not Afghanistan or Pakistan, as the central front in the war against “radical Islamist extremism.”[4] McCain has pledged to “win Iraq” on several occasions, and remains committed to the current counterinsurgency strategy as executed under General David Petraeus, in which small units of American troops live in neighborhoods and towns in order to protect Iraq’s population. McCain intends to keep levels of combat troops at roughly their pre-surge level (approximately 130,000 troops).
On May 15, McCain delivered a speech in Ohio asserting that within his first term as president, he will have won the Iraq war, killed or captured Osama bin Laden, foiled Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions, and introduced British-style Prime Minister’s “Question Times” in Congress.[5] He said he would bring most U.S. troops home by January 2013, offering his first date for withdrawal.
In his Los Angeles speech, McCain defined success in Iraq and Afghanistan as “the establishment of peaceful, stable, prosperous, democratic states that pose no threat to neighbors and contribute to the defeat of terrorists. It is the triumph of religious tolerance over violent radicalism.” Questioning Obama’s stated intention to withdraw troops, he countered:
We have incurred a moral responsibility in Iraq. It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possible genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal. Our critics say America needs to repair its image in the world. How can they argue at the same time for the morally reprehensible abandonment of our responsibilities in Iraq?
For his part, in the 2002 run-up to the Iraq War, Obama opposed authorization for what he thought was a “rash” war. He frequently mentions the human (U.S. death toll of nearly 4,000) and material (near $1 trillion) costs of the war. He has expressed support for the recommendations offered by the 2006 bipartisan Iraq Study Group Report, which called for national reconciliation within both Iraq and the region; the Report concludes that such reconciliation could be brought about diplomatically, if the United States were to actively engage all regional players — including Iran and Syria — as well as its counterparts at the UN Security Council.
In his “War That Has to be Won” speech, Obama characterized the Iraq War as:
…a distraction that has prevented us from finishing the job against al Qaeda in Pakistan…[W]hen I am Commander-in-Chief, I will set a new goal on Day One: I will end this war…because it is the right thing to do for our national security, and it will ultimately make us safer. In order to end this war responsibly, I will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. We can responsibly remove 1 to 2 combat brigades each month. If we start with the number of brigades we have in Iraq today, we can remove all of them in 16 months. After this redeployment, we will leave enough troops in Iraq to guard our embassy and diplomats, and a counter-terrorism force to strike al Qaeda if it forms a base that the Iraqis cannot destroy. What I propose is not—and never has been—a precipitous drawdown. It is instead a detailed and prudent plan that will end a war nearly seven years after it started.
Obama summarized his reasons for opposing the Iraq War:
[President Bush] is fighting the war the terrorists want us to fight. Bin Laden and his allies know they cannot defeat us on the field of battle or in a genuine battle of ideas. But they can provoke the reaction we’ve seen in Iraq: a misguided invasion of a Muslim country that sparks new insurgencies, ties down our military, busts our budgets, increases the pool of terrorist recruits, alienates America, gives democracy a bad name, and prompts the American people to question our engagement in the world.
In his March 19 speech, “The World Beyond Iraq,”[6] Obama described a plan to end the war, thus laying the burden on the Iraqi leadership. The Iraqis, he said, must:
… take responsibility for their future. Because we’ve learned that when we tell Iraq’s leaders that we’ll stay as long as it takes, they take as long as they want. We need to send a different message. We will help Iraq reach a meaningful accord on national reconciliation. We will engage with every country in the region — and the UN — to support the stability and territorial integrity of Iraq. And we will launch a major humanitarian initiative to support Iraq’s refugees and people. But Iraqis must take responsibility for their country. It is precisely this kind of approach — an approach that puts the onus on the Iraqis, and that relies on more than just military power—that is needed to stabilize Iraq.
On July 3, Obama told reporters on the campaign trail in North Dakota that he would “refine” his plan for a troop withdrawal from Iraq:[7]
When I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I am sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies…These critics haven’t based their comments on anything that I’ve said or anything that my campaign has said. It’s pure speculation. We’re planning to visit Iraq, we’re going to do a thorough inspection when I’m there…I have said repeatedly…that we need to be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in and that view has not been changed.
Senator McCain staunchly believes that “the UNSC should impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay in this responsibility, the United States must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework.”[8] He believes that military action should remain as a final, but viable, option to preclude Iran from obtaining nuclear arms: “Tehran must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.”[9]
In his speech at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, D.C. on June 2, McCain said of Iran: “It remains the world’s chief sponsor of terrorism and threatens to destabilize the entire Middle East from Basra to Beirut.” He dismissed the idea of sitting down with either the Iranian president or the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, recalling the failure of efforts by the Clinton administration to engage Iran (i.e. the lifting of some economic sanctions and then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s apologies for the 1953 coup overthrowing Mohammed Mossadegh).[10]
Senator Obama has repeatedly called Iran “the broadest strategic challenge to the US in the Middle East in a generation.”[11] In “Renewing American Leadership,” he asserted that diplomacy with Tehran is currently being “outsourced” to the EU, he says, and diplomacy with North Korea to the Chinese. Like McCain, however, Obama believes that “the military option with regard to Iran should never be taken off the table… [I]t is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy.”
In his own speech at AIPAC, Obama clarified what his policy would be in the face of a defiant Iran, and advocated presenting the Iranian leadership with a clear choice:[12]
If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, your support for terror, and your threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives, including the lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure. My Presidency will strengthen our hand as we restore our standing. Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States it will be clear to the people of Iran and to the world that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation and that will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council.
In “An Enduring Peace,” McCain described his vision for the creation of a new Office of Strategic Services that “could draw together unconventional warfare, civil-affairs, paramilitary and psychological-warfare specialists from the military together with covert-action operators from our intelligence agencies and experts in anthropology, advertising, foreign cultures, and numerous other disciplines from inside and outside government.”
On June 18, while campaigning in Springfield, MO, McCain said regarding the detention of terror suspects:[13]
I think that the American people will agree with me that these are enemy combatants, that we passed legislation with an overwhelming majority of the Congress, which he [Obama] opposed that set up military commissions and commissions that would address and give some rights to the enemy combatants who were being held, but certainly not in a radical departure from history and to want to give them the same rights that citizens have in this country.
In “Renewing American Leadership,” Obama called for a $2 billion Global Education Fund to counter radical madrasas and called the Northwest Frontier Provinces of Pakistan “the wild frontier of our globalized world.”
In “The War That Has to be Won,” Obama stated his desire to make US aid to Pakistan conditional upon its cooperation in the fight against Al Qaeda. Obama elaborated upon his proposed Shared Security Partnership Program:
forge an international intelligence and law enforcement infrastructure to take down terrorist networks from the remote island of Indonesia, to the sprawling cities of Africa. This program will provide $5 billion over three years for counter-terrorism cooperation with countries around the world, including information sharing, funding for training, operations, border security, anti-corruption programs, technology, and targeting terrorist financing And this effort will focus on helping our partners succeed without repressive tactics, because brutality breeds terror, it does not defeat it.
He cited his work in the Senate with Richard Lugar (R-IN) to pass a law that would help the U.S. and its allies detect and stop the smuggling of WMD. He continued, “That is why I am introducing a bill with Chuck Hagel that seeks to prevent terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. I will lead an effort as President to “secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years.”
In an interview with ABC News on June 19, 2008, Obama criticized the detention of terror suspects in Guantanamo Bay as practiced by the Bush administration:[14]
It is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution. And there has been no evidence on their part that we can’t…let’s take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks—for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated…the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, “Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.”… So that, I think, is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws.
In his speech at AIPAC, McCain declared, “I strongly support the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October. I am committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.”[15] He also reiterated his support for a two-state solution.
Although he did not offer a concrete policy approach towards the rule in Gaza of Hamas, which he noted “deliberately target[s] Israeli civilians in an attempt to terrorize the Jewish population,” McCain stated, “…we must also insure that Israel’s people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. The peace process that places face in terrorists can never end in peace and we do no favors to the Palestinian people by conferring approval upon the terrorist syndicate that has seized power in Gaza.”[16]
Barack Obama has endorsed a two-state solution and has called Israel’s security “sacrosanct.” In his AIPAC speech, he stated,
As President I will implement a memorandum of understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade, investments to Israel’s security that will not be tied to any other nation. Egypt must cut-off the smuggling of weapons in the Gaza [Strip]. And Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps consistent with its security to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians and improve economic conditions in the West Bank and to refrain from building new settlements as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.
Should the President meet with leaders of hostile states? This question has become the focus of debate over diplomacy and the role of the president.
McCain endorses the Bush administration’s policy of speaking to hostile states, such as Iran and Syria, only after they alter their support for terrorist groups. He has repeatedly called for the creation of a League of Democracies, “that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”[17]
In his AIPAC speech, Obama said “There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding Elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.” In the same speech, he clarified his position on the role of diplomacy:
There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress. Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing —if, and only if—it can advance the interests of the United States.
In “The War That Has to be Won,” Obama commented on his opposition to ignoring hostile countries, even if they refuse to change their behavior:
I won’t hesitate to use the power of American diplomacy to stop countries from obtaining these weapons or sponsoring terror. The lesson of the Bush years is that not talking does not work. Go down the list of countries we’ve ignored and see how successful that strategy has been. We haven’t talked to Iran, and they continue to build their nuclear program. We haven’t talked to Syria, and they continue support for terror. We tried not talking to North Korea, and they now have enough material for 6 to 8 more nuclear weapons.
In Rocky River, Ohio, on March 7, McCain shared his bullishness on NAFTA and free trade, saying that “Free trade is the best thing that can happen to our nation.”[18]
In his Columbus speech, John McCain described the country by the end of his first term as follows:
New free trade agreements have been ratified and led to substantial increases in both exports and imports. The resulting growth in prosperity in countries from South America to Asia to Africa has greatly strengthened America’s security and the global progress of our political ideals. US tariffs on agricultural imports have been eliminated and unneeded farm subsidies are being phased out. The world food crisis has ended, inflation is low, and the quality of life not only in our country, but in some of the most impoverished countries around the world is much improved.
In a June 20, 2008 speech to the Florida Association of Broadcasters, McCain spoke about free trade and Latin America:[19]
We need to build on the passage of the Central America Free Trade Agreement by expanding U.S. trade with the region. Let’s start by ratifying the trade agreements with Panama, Peru, and Colombia that are already completed, and pushing forward the Free Trade Area of the Americas. Too many Democrats have embraced economic isolationism, paying off special interests by opposing trade agreements with our democratic neighbors. They could not be more wrong. My administration would reduce barriers to trade and press for renewed Trade Promotion Authority… Trade offers opportunity; aid can help ensure that those opportunities are available to all. The United States should launch a major program designed not to increase handouts but rather to build capacity, improve education, cut red tape, and reduce the corruption that is the foremost impediment to economic growth. We should target assistance and micro-lending to the economically isolated and often indigenous populations among our free trade partners. We need to help governments do these things not only because extreme inequality threatens the future of market democracy, but also because helping Latin America expand growth and opportunity at home is an important element in curbing illegal immigration and expanding American markets.
Obama voted in favor of a recent trade accord with Peru, and opposed both a Central American trade pact as well as a prospective free trade agreement with South Korea.[20]
In a speech at the AFL-CIO in Philadelphia on April 2, 2008, Obama stated:21[]
Now, if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll acknowledge that we can’t stop globalization in its tracks and that opening new markets to our goods can help strengthen our economy. But what I refuse to accept is that we have to sign trade deals like the South Korea Agreement that are bad for American workers. What I oppose — and what I have always opposed — are trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of Americans workers—like NAFTA, and CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China.
And I’ll also oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements. So you can trust me when I say that whatever trade deals we negotiate when I’m President will be good for American workers, and that they’ll have strong labor and environmental protections that we’ll enforce.
He reiterated this position in a speech at the National Legislative Conference on April 15, 2008:[22]
But if we’re serious about fighting for our workers here at home, we’ve got to fight for them around the world. Now, the truth is trade is here to stay, and that if we have strong labor and environmental protections in our agreements, and if our trading partners are playing by the rules, trade can be a good thing for our workers and our economy. But what we can’t do is ignore violence against union organizers in Colombia. What we can’t do is sign trade deals that put the interests of multinational corporations ahead of the interests of our workers or our environment. That’s why I opposed NAFTA, and CAFTA, and that’s why I’ll make sure our trade agreements work for all Americans when I’m President of the United States.
You may forward this email as you like provided that you send it in its entirety, attribute it to the Foreign Policy Research Institute, and include our web address (www.fpri.org). If you post it on a mailing list, please contact FPRI with the name, location, purpose, and number of recipients of the mailing list.
If you receive this as a forward and would like to be placed directly on our mailing lists, send email to FPRI@fpri.org. Include your name, address, and affiliation. For further information, contact Alan Luxenberg at (215) 732-3774 x105.
Foreign Policy
Research Institute
1528 Walnut St, Ste 610
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Tel. 215-732-3774
Fax 215-732-4401
fpri@fpri.org
On November 15th at the FPRI annual dinner Fouad Ajami was presented with the Seventh Annual Benjamin Franklin Public Service Award. The event was attended by over 360 people.
Dr. John M. Templeton, Jr. was dinner chairman.
Video of keynote address
Reflections on the Arab Spring
Fouad Ajami
Special Partner Event
Al Qaeda and Jihadi Movements After Bin Laden
Christopher Swift
Special Partner Event
The Longest War: The Enduring Conflict between America and Al Qaeda
Peter Bergen
Current Issue
Follow FPRI