
Keith T. Bukovich |
What Can America Expect from President Obama in
Foreign Policy? |
In April I shared my thoughts
about what America could expect in foreign policy from a John McCain
presidency.[1]
Now that Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for
president and has chosen veteran Senator Joe Biden, current chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as his vice presidential
running mate, it is time to consider what U.S. foreign policy may
look like should the Obama-Biden ticket win the general election in
November.
First, nobody should completely
write off Senator McCain yet because to many American voters (and
some foreign observers) he represents stability. You at least know
where you stand with McCain, due to his lengthy Washington career
and extensive international travel. Barack Obama represents a
completely fresh challenge--as many Americans of all political
stripes have learned this year. To some foreign leaders, Obama's
election might prove unsettling given his relative youth (age 47;
only Theodore Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Bill Clinton were younger
presidents) and his limited experience in international affairs. And
some observers feel that Sen. Obama has not fully demonstrated how
he would handle a major crisis. By contrast, Sen. McCain is well
known and has made his views clear over a number of years. With
Barack Obama, who knows for sure? Yet, that may well prove to be
his edge in this very unusual political year and beyond.
On the level of personal
appeal, Barack Obama is extremely popular both at home and overseas
in places such as Western Europe and Southeast Asia (where he spent
part of his youth). In part this is because he is the antithesis of
George W. Bush. In particular, Obama opposed the invasion of Iraq in
2003 and has been very critical of administration mismanagement of
the war ever since. But he is also a young non-white with the middle
name Hussein. This sends out all sorts of fresh signals, especially
among people who have grown tired of the neo-conservative,
unilateralist agenda followed by the Bush administration. So there
is a feeling, both at home and abroad, that Obama would be a far
less arrogant president, willing to speak with Europeans and Asians
as equals rather than inferiors. This accounts for the 200,000
cheering people who showed up in Berlin to hear him speak last
summer, even before he was officially nominated by his party. (The
McCain campaign has tried to disparage this impressive event by
portraying Obama as a mere "celebrity," not a serious statesman. One
suspects hypocrisy and jealousy here: if John McCain were presently
able to draw a supportive crowd of 200,000 people, either abroad or
at home, he and the GOP would acclaim it as a clarion call.)
One of the best guides to
Barack Obama's foreign policy views is an article he wrote last year
in Foreign Affairs.[2]
Here one finds themes that Sen. Obama has often reiterated on the
campaign trail: moving beyond Iraq, rebuilding America's
partnerships, restoring trust in America, combating global
terrorism, and halting the spread of nuclear weapons. But one
important topic that both Obama and McCain have written about in
Foreign Affairs[3]
that has drawn surprisingly little comment--revitalizing and expanding the
military. Obama proposes expanding U.S. ground forces by 65,000
soldiers for the army and 27,000 for the marines, a total increase
of over 90,000. McCain is advocating an even greater increase of
150,000 troops. Both proposals would require much time and money,
the latter likely to be in very short supply in next year's federal
budget.
While campaigning and during
their first presidential debate on 26 September, Obama and McCain
have traded political accusations (and insults) regarding each
other's foreign policy positions. Their records and proposals,
however, reveal a more nuanced picture. For instance, while Obama
has staked out a distinct position far more grounded in open
discussions and negotiations with world leaders (including Iran and
North Korea), he has been very hawkish on Afghanistan and Pakistan,
saying that as president he would if necessary take unilateral
military action there to eliminate key al-Qaeda terrorists such as
Osama Bin Laden. He is also committed to the full destruction of
al-Qaeda as a terror network.
Of course, front and center in
the foreign policy/national security debate is Iraq, on which the
nominees' views differ sharply. Obama has called repeatedly for
withdrawal of combat brigades within sixteen months, but leaving
behind an unspecified number as an antiterrorist force. This
consistently held position on the Iraq war issue has won over many
American voters who are tired of the war and want the United States'
troops out of Iraq (and maybe even the Persian Gulf). However, these
same supporters need to remember that Sen. Obama supports the
Afghanistan war and has said the drawdown in Iraq will allow the
U.S. to redirect "badly needed" troops into Afghanistan, where parts
of the country have fallen to the Taliban. In point of fact, the
situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated badly and Obama has
indicated that as president he would deploy new brigades and
increase nonmilitary aid to the unstable country.
Of all the differences between
Obama and McCain on foreign policy and national security, none is
more revealing than the issue of whom a president should talk to,
when, and under what conditions. This was a key point of contention
in their first debate. Obama's assertion that he would be willing to
talk without preconditions has been revised saying that talks would
first be at the Secretary of State level (in line with
recommendations made by Henry Kissinger and others). Obama, who sees
this openness as a way to clarify the U.S. position and to draw more
support from overseas allies critical of the Bush administration's
unilateralism, has been careful to note the difference between
talking and negotiating. His position, while still controversial,
has resonated with Americans tired of being criticized as arrogant
abroad.
Pragmatism is still a guide for
Obama in his quest for the White House and in his foreign policy
positions. On Iraq, many of his advisers have quietly indicated that
he will not call for an immediate and precipitous drawdown in troops
if it would hopelessly destabilize the country, so the sixteen-month
timeline is not etched in stone. To his credit, Sen. Obama has said
he would be as careful getting out of Iraq as the Bush
administration was "careless getting in." Even though McCain has
spoken forcefully in support of the surge, there seems to be little
doubt among political observers--and even many Republicans--that the
U.S. military cannot long remain in Iraq at current levels. The cost
in casualties and resources is too great, especially in light of pressing
domestic-economic problems.
Both Obama and McCain must also
face changing public opinion about the Iraq war and its importance
to national security. Does this mean Obama has the edge? Maybe.
Obama's camp has had some success in painting McCain's positions as
a continuation of the Bush policies, which polls show are unpopular. One reason Obama has a decent chance of winning the foreign policy
debate is that Americans are not nearly as frightened today as they
have been in recent years.
Of course, Obama and McCain are
in agreement on some foreign policy questions: both would close the
Guantanamo Bay detention facilities; both say Iran cannot be allowed
to acquire nuclear weapons even if that means military intervention;
both would continue America's close ties with Israel; both favor
continued foreign aid. Nor are they far apart in regard to Africa, favoring
increased funding for AIDS relief and malaria eradication, and, on
Darfur, proposing sanctions and a no-fly zone.
Asia too is going to have a
much higher profile in American foreign policy under either an Obama
or McCain presidency. The rising economic superpowers, China and
India, will make Asian affairs much more prominent the new
president's thinking and policy. One big difference is that Barack
Obama has shown a capacity to build coalitions and to be a good
networker/organizer, and his approach to China and India would be
less adversarial McCain's. Accordingly, these two powers may prefer
to see Obama in the White House.
Barack Obama is offering the
most sweeping and visionary foreign policy critique we have heard
from a presidential nominee since Senator Robert Kennedy in 1968.
However, every presidential candidate's foreign policy promises are,
at best, an imperfect guide to his actual actions in office. A
better indicator of presidential behavior is a candidate's roster of
advisers.[4]
(If Americans and the media had paid closer attention to George W.
Bush's cadre of foreign policy advisors--Dick Cheney, Paul
Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld--the invasion of Iraq would have come as
less of a surprise.) Obama's foreign policy advisers come from
diverse backgrounds: former mainstream aides to Democratic leaders
like Tom Daschle and Lee Hamilton (Denis McDonough and Ben Rhodes,
respectively); veterans of the Clinton administration's left wing
(Tony Lake and Susan Rice); a human rights advocate who helped write
the Army's and Marine Corps' much praised counterinsurgency field
manual (Sarah Sewall); and a retired general who helped run the air
war during the invasion of Iraq (Scott Gration). Press accounts
suggest a committed, intellectually coherent, and united foreign
affairs team. Time will tell that whether assessment is fully warranted, but
the team members do share the formative experience of firm
opposition to the war in Iraq, even when criticized for it by their
colleagues, journalists, and many in the foreign policy
establishment. Interestingly, all opposed the Iraq war because they
judged that the invasion and occupation ran counter to the goal of
destroying al-Qaeda. The Obama foreign policy team has made a point of
rejecting President Bush's "politics of fear" in favor of crafting a
new global strategy doctrine featuring human "dignity promotion" as
an antidote to the conditions of misery that have bred
anti-Americanism and prevented freedom, justice, and prosperity from
taking hold. So Sen. Obama and his team are attempting an overhaul
not just of American foreign policy but of the very way Americans
think about foreign policy.
Obama and his foreign policy
team hope to replace the Bush Iraq War mindset with an ability and
willingness to see the world from different perspectives. The Obama
team feels "dignity promotion" can unite many strands of foreign
policy thinking. Obama's advisers argue that U.S. national security
depends in large part on this "dignity promotion," without which
the United States will never be able to destroy extremists like
al-Qaeda or other agents of terrorism around the world. Extremists
will always be able to exploit conditions of misery, making
continued U.S. involvement in conventional warfare an increasingly
counterproductive exercise (e.g., killing one terrorist creates five
more in his place). Obama sees the dignity promotion approach as the
foreign policy anvil against which he can bring down the hammer on
al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Barack Obama's foreign policy
advisers are pleased to be facing John McCain, because their
candidate's victory in November would be a mandate for the sweeping
foreign affairs overhaul he promises. This presidential election
provides, for the first time in a very long time, a choice between
radically divergent visions of U.S. global engagement. If Sen. Obama
does win the general election, he will face foreign policy (and
domestic) problems so formidable as to threaten to overwhelm even
the most experienced, competent executive and national security
team. Iraq is still a nightmare and al-Qaeda will not sit still
forever in its safe havens. To propose rebooting U.S. foreign policy
now, as Obama wants, is, to say the least, ambitious. Furthermore,
many U.S. military leaders consider Obama an unknown quantity,
unlike John McCain.
An Obama victory in November
will bring a complete break with the failed agendas and painful
legacies of the Bush administration. Americans will see significant
changes in their government's positions on torture, climate change,
Iran, Iraq, and the Middle East peace process generally.
Barack Obama is a phenomenon in
American politics. He has ignited an enthusiasm among young people
not seen since Robert Kennedy's assassination. And for a world
dangerously alienated from American political leadership, Obama's
supporters feel he offers a new face that could dispel negative
assumptions about America--and in that sense boost the nation's
standing and security.
But these are symbolic
qualities. In the end, Barack Obama, if elected president, will have
to answer in his own mind some key national security questions, as
have others in the Oval Office before him. What, for America's
survival, must he seek to prevent no matter how painful the means?
What, for America to be true to itself, must he try to accomplish no
matter how small the international consensus, and, if necessary,
entirely on our own? What wrongs must America correct? What goals
are simply beyond our capacity? The success of the next president's
administration will hinge on these complex foreign policy issues.
Eastern Michigan University
kbukovich@emich.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[2] "Renewing American Leadership," Foreign
Affairs (Jul/Aug 2007) <link>.
[3] Obama (note 2 supra); McCain, "An Enduring Peace Built on Freedom Securing
America's Future," Foreign Affairs (Nov/Dec 2007) <link>.
[4] See Ari Berman, "The Democratic Foreign Policy
Wars," The Nation (21 Jan 2008; online 3 Jan 2008) <link>.
|