DETROIT -- Sen. Barack Obama hopes his foreign trek will shore up his credentials and give the world hope that the next U.S. president will undo the contempt George W. Bush has shown toward international institutions and multilateralism.
Obama understands -- much better than Sen. John McCain has demonstrated -- why getting out of Iraq is so important. In his op-ed in The New York Times last week, he described the reality we face:
"Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and al-Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terror, and never has been."
McCain prefers to ignore that reality. He's content believing the poll numbers. He is convinced the American people see him as a wise, seasoned leader whose military experience will make the world respect him. National security is McCain's strong suit, the beltway pundits remind us incessantly. And McCain declared, "I know how to win wars." How can you top that?
Not since Richard Nixon announced in the 1968 presidential campaign that he had a "secret plan" to end the Vietnam War has a would-be commandeer in chief expressed such bold assurance.
Of course, the war raged on throughout Nixon's presidency, hundreds of thousands more Vietnamese and Americans died, an illegal invasion of Cambodia was launched, America's prestige in the world diminished, domestic needs were ignored or shortchanged, and when driven from the White House in disgrace, Nixon bequeathed the war and his "secret plan" to his successor, Gerald Ford.
In the 1960 presidential race, the pundits of the day portrayed Nixon as the candidate most experienced in foreign affairs and knowledgeable about the ways of the world. Eight years in the vice presidency and travels to capitals around the world -- including his famous Kitchen Debate in Moscow with Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev -- nurtured Nixon's foreign policy credentials.
Nixon built his political career during the Red Scare, finding communists lurking in every corner. He peddled fear and sold his ruthless pursuit of commies as a badge of honor. He tried to use that experience to convince Americans that they should trust him with their national security.
John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, was a young, inexperienced senator, ill-equipped to become commander in chief and leader of the free world. Most of the media ignored Kennedy's keen interest in the world and his extensive travels in Europe, including pre-war Nazi Germany.
Kennedy's insightful analysis of Great Britain's failure to recognize the Nazi threat in his senior thesis at Harvard was shaped into the book "Why England Slept." Kennedy did all that before his 25th birthday.
Good judgment and wisdom are not the exclusive domain of the experienced. Some politicians have 30 years of experience, and that helps their understanding. Others have one year of experience 30 times over.
Obama should not concede an inch to McCain on foreign policy issues. The Republican presidential candidate's long experience didn't prevent him from supporting two of the worst foreign policy and military blunders of the Bush presidency -- failing to pacify Afghanistan and launching the invasion of Iraq.
When generals on the ground (McCain says "on the ground" about every 20 seconds), including Gen. Tommy Franks, objected to pulling intelligence units out of Afghanistan and shifting them to the preparation for the invasion of Iraq, the experienced McCain said nothing. McCain, like Vice President Dick Cheney, embraced the fantasy that American forces storming into Iraq would be greeted as "liberators."
McCain likes to point to his criticism of the post-Saddam occupation and his call for more troops on the ground. McCain found fault with then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's performance, but never called for his resignation or criticized the commander in chief who kept him in office. Bush didn't sack Rumsfeld until the day after the 2006 elections -- a political decision that took no notice of Rumsfeld's serial acts of incompetence.
Where was McCain's experienced judgment when we needed it? Rumsfeld should have been fired in the summer of 2003. That's when it was clear he had no real plan for occupying and pacifying Iraq. That's when the colossal lies he and his minions in the Pentagon fabricated -- like knowing "exactly" where Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were located -- became apparent.
McCain -- like Bush -- still insists the war in Iraq was a dandy deed, even though the expressed reason for starting the war did not exist. Obama should not hesitate in reminding the world of McCain's repeatedly flawed judgments.
And then there is the surge. McCain and his neoconservative handlers get giddy discussing the troop escalation and its claimed success.
"All the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq," Frederick W. Kagan, Kimberly Kagan and Jack Keane proudly proclaimed in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. The authors urged the surge in the first place, and now they see a reduction of violence in Iraq as an opportunity to point our guns at Iran. Bush bought this madness and so does McCain.
The surge was supposed to bring political stability to Iraq. It has not. When the more than 5 million refugees hustle to return to Iraq and the nation can function without $100 billion a month from the American taxpayers, then important objectives will have been accomplished.
Instead, we're seeing no-bid oil rights deals for British and American companies, an endless stream of taxpayer money flowing to Halliburton and other war profiteers, and a phony security agreement to authorize permanent military bases in Iraq.
McCain is always carping about Obama's insistence on the need for a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq -- echoing, as he usually does, the position of the Bush administration. O
bama took on the folly of that position in his New York Times piece:
"Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to the Iraqis taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Sen. McCain are refusing to embrace this transition -- despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq's sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops 'surrender,' even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government."
Predictably, and for the umpteenth time, Bush pounced on Obama's view, saying he opposes "an artificial timetable for withdrawal."
Two days later, the big flip-flop.
Knowing that the United Nations military mandate authorizing the U.S. military presence in Iraq expires at the end of the year and the Iraqi parliament would not approve a military agreement without a timetable for troop withdrawal, Bush had to yield.
But instead of the obvious timetable description of withdrawing U.S. forces, the White House and the Iraqis have now agreed to a "general time horizon." McCain should be saying he's opposed to an artificial general time horizon, but he'll just toe the line.
Obama says he'll talk to our enemies, including Iran, and has an open mind in pursuing diplomatic initiatives. A Bush-McCain mantra is that we can't talk to our enemies without preconditions. That's especially pointed at talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions.
But in another shift, the Bush administration scrapped its insistence that no face-to-face talks would occur with Iran until Tehran agrees to end its uranium enrichment program.
The United States sent William J. Burns, the under-secretary of state for political affairs, to a meeting last weekend that included Saeed Jalili, Iran's top nuclear negotiator. This marked the highest-level public exchange between the United States and Iran since 1979.
Instead of the previous "go it alone" posture, the United States is now joining with Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia and China in a broad international effort to look for a negotiated settlement with Iran. That is rare progress, and long overdue.
It is also an approach Obama is advocating.
As he hopscotches around the world from Afghanistan to Iraq, to Israel, to Palestine, to Europe, Obama will be listened to with great interest, and he's sure to do much listening.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, a Bush buddy and early supporter of the war in Iraq, won't let Obama speak before the Brandenburg Gate when he visits Berlin. Too much symbolism, too much stature, Merkel figures. Much of Obama's appeal to Europeans is that he offers hope to restore an America they long for and admire. In a New York Times op-ed, German novelist Christoph Peters wrote about America's image in the 21st century:
"George W. Bush's contempt for the rules and institutions of international politics, his revival of preventative war, with all its unforeseeable consequences, his abrogation of the rule of law in his own country, and his ignorance of every issue related to environmental conservation have become, for me and for the vast majority of Germans, synonymous with a high-handed, ugly America. This state of affairs has provoked not only rage and horror, but also great sadness, for the United States has always been the symbol of freedom, democracy and law."
Peters worries that Obama's style "may sometimes look troublingly messianic," but adds most Germans "hope that he'll be able to bridge the gaps his predecessor will leave behind and that he'll do so not just as a self-styled symbol of change, but also as an actual president who promises a different presidency."
Obama has a great opportunity this week. He should use it wisely.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | July 22 2008 |