Almost immediately after Sen. John McCain became the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for president of the United States, he traveled overseas in an effort to forge an image as a world leader and foreign policy expert. In some respects, he might have an advantage over Democratic opponents Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama because of his family’s long tradition of military service and his own personal experience as a prisoner of war.
It is against this backdrop that the eventual Democratic nominee will have to compete as he or she attempts to outline strategies to remove the nation from war in Iraq, and to deal with Al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist factions, as well as temper potential conflicts with countries such as Iran.
If Clinton and Obama agree on anything it’s that U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is past due. Clinton says that if elected she would begin pulling troops out within her first 60 days in office; Obama says he would have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months of his presidency. According to Dr. Ronald Walters, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, their scenarios vary only slightly in that Clinton would keep some troops in Iraq while Obama would position them outside of the country where they could respond to any attacks on Americans.
McCain is still trying to live down his statement that the U.S. could potentially be in Iraq for 100 years, but the fact remains he continues to believe that war is still winnable. “[McCain] has no plan for getting out. Some people say the 100-year comment was just a figure of speech, but if he’s willing to stay in the country long enough to stabilize it, that’s a scenario for I don’t know how long,” Walters says. “We have a continuing responsibility, but that can be met without having troops on the ground. [This fall], he’s going to be in trouble explaining that to a country that’s sick of the war.”
Both Clinton and McCain have run ads, very similar in tone and even language, arguing that they have the experience and strength to deal with national security issues. But, says Stephen Zunes, a University of San Francisco professor who specializes in Middle East politics, “If strength is defined in terms of effectiveness, I would argue that Obama is the strongest in the sense that while he certainly supports a strong military and wants to increase military spending and the number of U.S. forces under arms, he puts more emphasis on preventative diplomacy, on addressing issues of failed states and the underlying issues
that lead to the rise of extremist movements and the like, such as sustainable economic development, and developing teams to work in conflict resolution. My impression is that Clinton, and even more so McCain, still see the world through an overemphasis on the nation-state, on governments. Obama’s advisers recognize a more complex world.”Walters is alarmed by recent comments by Clinton that an attack on Israel by Iran would invite massive U.S. retaliation and a proposal to create a NATO-like security shield for the Middle East. “The implication of that type shield is that the U.S. could be drawn into conflict in that region for years. It would make getting out of Iraq pointless because if there is such a shield, we would have to go to war on a fairly regular basis.”
Obama has been criticized by his opponents for saying that he would engage in discussions with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which both Zunes and Walters believe to be a more realistic approach. “Negotiating doesn’t mean you’re going to give in,” Zunes says. “Iran’s given an indication they’re willing to end their nuclear program and stop supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and do all sorts of things in return for ending U.S. threats against them and normal diplomatic relations. That might make sense and be to our
advantage, but if you have a president who won’t discuss these things, we won’t get very far. If Iran was still totally uncooperative, Obama’s made it clear he’s willing to take tougher action, but at least he’s willing to explore the diplomatic route first which would have greater chances of finding solutions to common difficulties. Like it or not, Iran’s a major player in the region and we have to deal with them, just like we had to deal with other governments we don’t like over the years.”The Patriot Act has caused concern among some Americans because of its potential to violate the civil liberties of citizens. As a state senator for Illinois, Obama sponsored and fought for legislation that included mandatory recording of interrogations and confessions in capital cases. He also co-sponsored legislation in the Senate that would tighten standards for warrantless surveillance. Both Obama and McCain have pledged to shut down Abu Ghraib.
“McCain has raised concerns about issues like torture but generally has supported [the Patriot Act],” Zunes says. “Clinton voted for it initially but has since backed off a little bit and has called for various reforms. Obama, in large part because he’s a former constitutional law professor, has been the most skeptical of the three and has raised some concerns about not just how this particular administration has abused it but how there are certain traditions that may be unconstitutional and are threats to civil liberties in a broader sense,”
Americans, and black people in particular, have paid a high price since the Iraq war first began. In addition to the billions of dollars it costs each month to keep it going, many millions more will be required on an ongoing basis to provide benefits for wounded veterans. Where does the money come from?
“We’re paying a tremendous price for the war, and black Americans are sensitive because of the needs of their community. The budget for housing has been cut, community development block grants in the HUD budget have been substantially cut, and government is unable to fund things like inadequate healthcare and fixing up dilapidated school buildings, dealing with drug treatment programs, and all the things that have to be done, because a lot of that money is going overseas. The president says, ‘I can’t fund the war and do all of these other things, so let me cut the domestic budget.’ And democrats are saying we have a president who will not only do that, but also give tax cuts to the rich, further reducing the amount of money in the federal budget.”