Week #4, Item #4: New York Times Endorses Obama

Barack Obama is the best choice for the next American president, the New York Times editorial board announced on Friday.

In a three page article detailing point-by-point the reasons for their endorsement, the board declared that “Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change. He has shown a cool head and sound judgment. We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation’s problems.”

In contrast, John McCain was decided to be nothing more than a partisan, Bush-loving zealot whose good judgment in his career in the senate has long since been overshadowed by his poor decisions over the course of the campaign.

On the list of reasons for the selection was Obama’s early and continued disapproval of the war in Iraq, and his plan for ending it in an efficient and responsible manner. McCain has, as the Times pointed out, no real plan for exiting the country. This will not only extend a long and costly war, it puts the already strained US operations in Afghanistan at greater risk of failure.

Though the board admits that relatively inexperienced Obama would have a “learning curve” on foreign policy, they praised his choice of running mates. Joe Biden has plenty of expertise in this area.

Beyond that, the New York Times emphasized that Obama would present the new face of America to the world. Not only would he be the first African American president, his new ideas and worldview are a life-saving breath of fresh air after eight smothering years under Bush.

Read the Endorsement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/opinion/24fri1.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse&scp=2

Week #4, Item #3: Time is Running Out on UN Security Council Resolution

With the December 31 deadline on the UN Security Council resolution authorizing US led military force looming ever nearer, diplomatic officials have begun to stress the need for the Iraqi government to decide on a game plan.

Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen recently warned reporters that Iraqi security forces will not be ready to provide for their own security by the end of this year. The admiral added that, while he respected the need for officials to debate the issue, it is imperative that a new Security pact be approved by that time.

Similarly, Foreign Policy has declared that the US must make it clear that “the era of unconditional support is over.” The journal reported last August that, though levels of physical violence have dropped, any gains remain shaky with so many unresolved tensions between the country’s various ethnic and religious groups.

With that in mind, it seems particularly important that the powers that be set boundaries (or rather, timelines) and focus on a diplomatic, collaborative approach to foreign relations with Iraq. Liberal perspective, anyone?

NY Times Quotes Mullen on Dec. 31 deadline:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?scp=5&sq=iraq&st=cse

FP Evaluates Tensions in Iraq:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4454&page=1

Week #4, Item #2: Define "Victory"

The more I hear John McCain passionately stress the importance of success in Iraq, of victory, of leaving with honor, the more I wonder what exactly this mythical triumph, in his mind, will look like.

Seriously. I would like to hear, in specific terms, what we are waiting for.

Is it a perfectly functioning democracy? A peaceful and accepting society? Utopia? Because the US has had over 200 years, and whether we even have any of those things is questionable at best.

Maybe the Senator from Arizona expects to see the end of all terrorism. The total annhilation of Islamic Extremism. I would call this optimistic, if violence weren’t his primary means of achieving these goals. With that in mind, all I can say is that particular outcome is doubtful. And when I say “doubtful” what I mean is “impossible.”

So what is it? Cheaper oil? The destruction of Iran? American hegemony? How will the rest of us know when the Mission has been Accomplished? And don’t expect me to believe it just because it’s written on a banner somewhere in the Persian Gulf—I’ve heard that one before.

I’m not sure if we have any honor left in the Middle East, but I’m fairly certain that continually trying to bully other countries into doing things are way is not the way to preserve it.

Week #4, Item #1: New Draft of Iraqi Security Pact

A new draft of a Security Pact, meant to regulate the conduct of American forces in Iraq, is now under review by negotiators. With the US election less than two weeks away, however, I can't help but wonder how any tentative agreement might be affected by a new president.

The long-awaited revision includes a timeline for withdrawal, that would have US troops out of major urban areas by this summer, and out of the country by 2011. It is unclear whether this withdrawal would be contingent on ground conditions in Iraq.

The draft also clarifies whether or not American forces are subject Iraqi law. Under this most recent edition, troops are exempt from the country's policies only while performing military operations, not while they are off duty.

Before it is approved, the draft must be approved by the Political Council for National Security, the cabinet, and parliament.

Regardless of whether the pact is approved by Iraqi officials, the timeline may be contested by the new president come November 4. In particular, Obama's plan has US troops out of Iraq by 2010, a year earlier than the deadline in the new Security Pact draft.

In any event, it is far more likely that Senator Obama will be willing to have an open and, yes, unconditional discussion with Iraqi officials about the differences between the two plans. The only thing that can be counted upon from the McCain camp is "straight-talk" and an irrational commitment to "victory"-- not matter how long it takes.

Read more about the Security Pact:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/world/middleeast/16iraq.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=iraq&st=cse&oref=slogin

Week #3, Item #4: Powell Endorses Obama

Colin Powell’s recent endorsement of Barack Obama for is, as Republican strategist Alex Castellanos, “a glass of warm milk and a cookie for those who can’t sleep worrying about the lack of experience of a President Obama.”

Powell, a Republican who served as Secretary of State during the Gulf War, strongly supported Obama’s campaign on Meet the Press, in spite of a 25-year friendship with John McCain.

The fact that Powell is also a retired Army general reflects well upon Obama’s military policies, and he directly referenced concerns about his lack of experience in his endorsement. The former secretary stated he had approached Senator Obama about the issue over the course of the campaign. The endorsement alone implies that Powell has overcome any fears he may have had.

Powell also pointed out that Obama has both style and substance, further showing he sees the candidate as highly capable and ready fro the presidency.

In his endorsement, Powell also addressed a recent slew of Obama-bashing inaccurately stating that the senator is Muslim. While Powell did correct the statement (Obama is a Christian), he felt it was more important to correct the ideology behind it—that is, that a Muslim president is somehow un-American, a threat.

“Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no. That’s not America,” Powell said.

To be honest, it is beyond refreshing to hear anyone in politics being the voice of reason on this issue. Democrat or Republican, many representatives on both sides of the fence have been far too cowardly to stand up and say that Islam is not a threat to the United States.

Ultimately, Powell challenged voters to select the candidate for president that is most needed right now.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America… [Obama] has met the standard of being a successful President, being an exceptional President,” Powell proclaimed.

Watch Powell's Endorsement:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27265490#27265490

Week #3, Item #3: Obama Plan Gets Support… From Republicans

Senator Gordon H. Smith of Oregon is trying something new in his race for reelection this year: reaching for the coattails… of the opposing party.

Smith is a Republican but, at least in terms of foreign policy, he’s trying to out-democrat his Democratic challenger, Jeff Merkley. Rather than simply distancing himself from the Republican party, the senator has released ads linking himself to prominent Democrats, including John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Barack Obama.

Though critics have called attention to Smith’s early (and repeated) support of the Iraq War, Smith himself has been emphasizing his more recent disapproval of the conflict. In particular, he has attempted to draw parallels between himself and Obama.

You know things are looking bad for the GOP when its members start lining up next to Ted Kennedy. In any event, maybe the liberal perspective is catching on after all…

More on Faux-Republican Smith:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/15/us/politics/15oregon.html?scp=2&sq=obama%20iraq&st=cse

Week #3, Item #2: The Second Presidential Debate

In their Second Presidential Debate, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama were once again asked to articulate their positions on military action as a vehicle for political change. While both candidates made safe, predictable statements about moral obligations and national security, they conversation quickly swung back to the Iraq War.

McCain once again explained the disastrous potential of changing course in Iraq, emphasizing that without a strong military presence in the country it will immediately fall into the hands of terrorists (Iran, Al-Qaeda—what’s the difference?) and lead us to a longer, more complex conflict in the future.

Obama, on the other hand, maintained that beginning the war in Iraq only weakened operations in Afghanistan, distracting the United States from its original goal and allowing Osama bin Laden to escape.

“That’s why I think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because [Afghanistan is] the central front on terrorism… the war against terrorism began in that region and that’s where it will end,” the democratic nominee told audience members.

The difference here is not only in military strategy, but personal ideology. McCain and Obama will never see eye-to-eye on this topic because they have two different perceptions of where the threat to the United States is coming from.

Obama has focused on pursuing members of Al-Qaeda, the group found responsible for the 9/11 attacks. McCain seems more concerned about Islamic Extremism—making any (and maybe every) Muslim country a potential attacker.

Once again we see the difference between the liberal and realist perspectives. Obama sees a system of states that, if approached diplomatically, can be peaceful and cooperative. McCain sees a world full of potential enemies competing for power that can never really be trusted.

Watch the Second Presidential Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/second-presidential-debate.html?scp=2&sq=second%20debate%20view&st=cse

Week #2, Item #2: Obama Increases Focus on Plans for Iraq

Since their rather incomplete discussion about the Iraq War in the first Presidential Debate last month, candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have increased focus on their vastly different plans for Iraq. In recent interviews both have given specifics on the course they feel the war should take and why.

Both candidates plan to reduce the number of troops in Iraq over the course of their first term. However, Senator Obama plans to remove brigades far more quickly than Senator McCain.

Obama has proposed removing one or two brigades from Iraq a month over a 16 month period. He has retained the right to pause the troop withdrawal if sectarian violence increases in this period, and plans to keep a residual military force in Iraq after the 16 months is up. This force would continue to pursue Al-Qaeda forces and potentially train Iraqi troops.

This plan, according to Obama, would force Iraqi officials to put aside their differences and take responsibility for their own security. Additionally, it would free resources (such as troops and money) to be redirected to the conflict in Afghanistan and domestic issues.

In contrast, McCain’s plan hopes to have the majority of US troops out of Iraq by 2013—but allows generals in Iraq almost total control over the situation.

The Obama campaign has argued that the constant US military presence in Iraq has done little to prompt the Iraqi government to take on its own problems, and so suggests a (you guessed it) change of course. Furthermore, the democrats argue, keeping troops in the country at such high levels for such a long time would only put further strain on a military stretched thin.

Regardless of the final plan for Iraq, the stakes in Iraq, and for the next US President, are high.

Compare and Contrast Iraq War Plans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06elected.html

Week #2, Item #1: The Vice Presidential Debate

With the second Presidential debate on the horizon, both tickets have increased their focus on what Senator Joe Biden referred to as a “fundamental difference” between the two campaigns: the Iraq War. The issue was a key topic in last week’s Vice Presidential Debate.

Biden, the nominee for the Democratic ticket, and Republican Governor Sarah Palin firmly opposed each other as they began discussing foreign policy. While Palin continued to praise the surge strategy and great American generals, and repeatedly emphasized the need to win in Iraq, Biden stressed Obama’s exit strategy, the importance of transferring responsibility to Iraqi officials and ending the conflict.

“For John McCain there is no end in sight... We will end this war,” Biden told voters.

Overall, the candidates’ discussion of Iraq showed more than a difference of opinion on military strategy. It illustrated a rift between the basic philosophies of the two campaigns.

While the McCain campaign has told us over and over that we must win, we must be victorious (in other words, we must prove US dominance over Iraq or risk looking weak), the Obama campaign is ready to shift power to another party. The Democratic ticket’s strategy is looking for a way to cooperate with other states, rather than desperately clutching and the chance to prove superiority.

The bottom line? Obama and Biden don’t see cooperation as a loss of political power—while Palin and McCain can’t imagine a way to solve the conflict without proving the United States is the biggest, toughest country around. We’ll never evolve beyond this cave-man logic unless we have a president who believes it’s possible, even if that means waving the “white flag of surrender.”

Watch the VP Debate:
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/vice-presidential-debate.html

Week #1, Item #1: Obama's Plan for Iraq

It can come as no surprise that Barack Obama is the liberal candidate for the presidency—and his approach to foreign policy is no exception. In fact, the term goes beyond the traditional divide between left and right and reflects the difference between the realist and liberal perspectives of international relations. A strong example of this is Obama’s plan for the war in Iraq, published in The New York Times this July.

In contrast to John McCain’s realist approach to the conflict in Iraq, Obama’s plan emphasizes negotiations and compromise. Diplomacy is a key aspect of the liberal perspective, as it advocates for the common good without creating competition for power between states. The realist perspective, on the other hand, focuses on material power differences between states. As such, physical conflict between nations plays a large role in realist strategy.

Even within the realist school of thought, the plan takes a defensive tact. Obama clearly did not support a preemptive war, and hoped instead to concentrate on the action in Afghanistan. This approach would be more likely to maintain an equilibrium of power between states, rather than seek to increase the power of the US.



"My Plan for Iraq" by Barack Obama:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html?scp=1&sq=obama%20iraq%20plan&st=cse