The differences between the two presidential candidates on the issue of Iraq is well known, but is it possible that both presidential candidates have the same, or at least similar, views on when the U.S. should use military force in other circumstances? According to this report in The Washington Post, the answer is yes. The report notes the following points of agreement:
- both have revealed a willingness to commit U.S. forces overseas for both strategic and humanitarian purposes
- both agree on a course of action in Afghanistan that could lead to a long-term commitment of American soldiers without a clear statement of how long they might remain or what conditions would lead to their withdrawal
- both candidates favor expanding the armed forces, Obama by 92,000 and McCain by as many as 150,000
- both speak of situations when the United States might have to commit its troops for “moral” reasons, whether or not a vital American interest was at risk
- both accept […] the “unspoken consensus which commits the United States to permanent military primacy”
- both have declared that a nuclear-armed Iran would not be permitted
- both men avoid any broad commitment to the use of force in any situations other than direct attacks or imminent threats to the United States
Given that it is certain that the next president will be called upon to decide on new military commitments, it is comforting that there is a high level of consensus among the two candidates on the important question of the use of military force.