… with, of course, emphasis on Iraq and energy.
Richard Holbrooke, Ambassador to the UN under Clinton and an attractive candidate for Secretary of State under a Democratic administration (and a whole host of other things – see Wikipedia) has a piece in the September/October Foreign Affairs on the foreign policy challenges that either McCain or Obama will face. He makes his allegiance known:
Of course, no disagreement between Obama and McCain reaches the level of importance of their disagreements over Iraq and Iran. Policy toward these two countries will shape perceptions of the new president more than policy on any other issue; in some ways, the election is a referendum on Iraq. When McCain says that the United States is in Iraq to win, he means it — no matter what the costs or the duration of the war might be. No other issue engages him as deeply or as emotionally, and his feelings derive not from political calculation but from profound personal conviction. … Obama, on the other hand, believes that military victory, as defined by Bush and McCain, is not possible — a judgment shared by the U.S. commanders in Iraq. He finds unacceptable the costs to the United States of an open-ended commitment to continue a war that should never have been started.
This is a sharp contrast from the way the Economist described the difference between McCain and Obama on Iraq this week:
Deliberately misconstruing a McCain comment, Democrats have suggested that he wants to occupy Iraq for 100 years. In fact, the gulf between the two candidates on Iraq has narrowed since the end of the Democratic primaries. Mr McCain wants to make Iraq stable and then pull out. Mr Obama wants to pull out as soon as possible, provided that Iraq is stable. How far apart these positions really are depends on how differently you think each candidate would react to developments on the ground.
Holbrooke, predictably it would seem, invokes that very comment:
Some of McCain's opponents have misstated, at times, his position on a key point: he never said that the United States might have to fight in Iraq for a hundred years. But what he did say was equally unrealistic and highly revealing of his mindset. Using as his model South Korea, where 28,500 American forces remain 55 years after the armistice agreement, McCain said that he was ready to station U.S. troops in Iraq for at least that long, if not longer, even a hundred years. Such a multidecade commitment, even under peaceful conditions, is inconceivable in the xenophobic and violent atmosphere of the Middle East.
Xenophobic? The whole Middle East? I think Edward Said just rolled over in his grave. That aside, though, a multidecade military presence in Iraq is probably undesirable for all involved. Holbrooke deliberately paints Obama in a flattering light while maligning McCain, but it is worth reading to understand how a Democratic foreign policy heavyweight understands the challenges of 2008-2012. It gets interesting when he points out that US interests in the region are consolidated in a 5 country “arc of crisis”: Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. No single concept, he laments, beyond the vague “global war on terror” — defined in any way that suits the short-term needs of the administration — has guided U.S. strategy. Relations with all five countries have deteriorated.
Obama, according to Holbrooke, understands the importance of diplomacy in addressing the web of different issues facing our next President, and his use of it will help improve the situation in Iran, in Iraq, in the ‘arc of crisis’ and in Israel/Palestine. Lofty goals, for sure; Holbrooke offers this reassurance:
It is a well-established historical fact that what candidates say about foreign policy is not always an exact guide to what they will do if elected. … Whatever their ultimate fate, however, campaign positions are key indicators of the priorities and thinking of each candidate as he approaches the most powerful and difficult job in the world. It is therefore valuable to examine them carefully.
Pleasant reading if you have convention fever (don't we all?) and are tired of hearing about Sarah Palin's daughter's high school drama.
