How to Judge the Candidates' Foreign Policy Experience

Who has greater foreign policy experience: Obama or McCain? Well, that's easy. Just count their frequent flyer miles, says McCain's chief foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann. Let's see, McCain has visited dozens of countries, many of them in Latin America: "He's been to the Amazon rain forest, he's been to the Galapagos Islands," Scheunemann told the Washington Post. Golly, Randy, that is impressive! Has McCain also rented Motorcycle Diaries?

Obama, by contrast, has never bothered visit Latin America. He probably doesn't even know the capital of Paraguay is what McCain advisers are insinuating. Of course, under that logic, that makes millions of keg-guzzling college kids who visit Cancun each spring experts on U.S.-Mexican relations. Ah, but McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Scheunemann adds, which, as the Post notes, attests to his "historical connection to the region." Hmm, that means since I was born in Milwaukee, I must be an expert on beer, cheese, and Harleys.

Of course, the concern voters have is electing somebody again like George W. Bush, who'd never really set foot outside the United States, much less his home state. His knowledge of world capitals, world leaders, world anything, was a joke. "Grecians" are Greeks in his mind and "when in Rome, do as the Romanians do" (OK, Bush never said that but in fairness he probably thought it). Yet Bush has now had eight years to trot the globe, hobnob with world leaders, and pick up foreign tongues. Does that make him any more qualified to be McCain's secretary of state? Hell no. No more than going to grade school in Indonesia qualifies Obama to be president or growing up in upstate Wisconsin makes me suitable to run a Cracker Barrel.

Judgment matters, as Obama keeps hectoring us. Yet the idea that judgment can be gleaned from a stopover visit to Afghanistan or Iraq is foolish. Still, we all know the drill: photo-ops with generals in fatigues might win him a few votes, or at least shut up McCain's advisers about his lack of "on the ground" experience.

Obama has been trashed in recent weeks about his reversal, er, revision of his Iraq stance. He may not yank us out of Iraq in one fell swoop, as a President Richardson might have, but on the biggest foreign policy question facing voters, he is right: Is Iraq the central front on the war on terror or is Pakistan/Afghanistan? If you think the former, vote for McCain -- and hundreds of billions of dollars will be poured into Iraq, while thousands of Americans continue to die. If you think the latter, then vote for Obama.

More Americans are dying monthly in Afghanistan than Iraq, after all, but the region remains grossly under-manned and under-resourced, thanks to the mess in Iraq. Osama bin Laden still commands a vast army of followers from northwest Pakistan, but the U.S. has turned a blind eye and instead showered Pakistan's government with $10 billion, no questions asked. Obama -- unlike McCain, Musharraf's BFF -- insists he reserves the right to move into Pakistan militarily, should the need arise.

In short, Obama, unlike McCain, appears to get it: that Iraq was a war of choice, fought against Islamic nationalists, not Islamic terrorists who fly planes into skyscrapers. He recognizes the success "on the ground" there but believes the real battle lies elsewhere. McCain, on the other hand, may have more stamps on his passports, but his command of the "war on terror" bears a disturbing resemblance to his command of computers.

Comments

[georgiaR]

Could we really be fighting terrorism with Saddam Hussein still in Iraq? I don't think so. We had to get rid of him.

[nk007]

georgiaR,

why not the King of Saudi Arabia where the majority of terrorists who attacked on 9/11 came from? What exactly did Saddam Hussein do against the United States? Is it not the case that the Reagan/Bush administration supported in his aggression against Iraq? Why invade Iraq, thereby creating a rationale for jihadists while taking our eyes from Afghanistan where the 9/11 terrorists supposedly attacked from? Is it not the case that Saddam was the enemy of Bin Laden's jihadists?

[egal]

Apparently we can't fight it with him gone, either. It's more to do with our policies and actions than with whos in charge where. And actions like waging an illegal war do a lot to harm the fight against terrorism when we're acting like terrorists.

And actually, the fight in Afghanistan messed up some Intelligence efforts to stop the terrorists who planned 9/11, while the Iraqi one just messed up region-wide terrorist fighting, increasing their intake and support for their agenda while simultaneously overstretching and misusing our military.

But I only say that from a military perspective. Maybe you civilians who didn't see the (utter lies) rationales for and (immense politically, economically, and militarily with no return) costs of these wars see things differently.

[lepere]

"If you line up all of the presidents from Washington forward you will realize that Darwin got it exactly backwards."
I can't remember who said that but I hope we get a break.

[FearlessFreep]

"Is Iraq the central front on the war on terror or is Pakistan/Afghanistan?"

Actually, that's the wrong question because the "war on terror" has NO central front.

[nk007]

So why does Bush, John McCain, Fox New and the neo-cons keep telling us "Iraq is the central front on the war on terror? Makes me think that all terrorists groups in the world, including our own domestic terrorists, like the KKK, must have been loyal supporters of Saddam. I am terrorism as a tactic has been used by many groups. And what of the internal terrorists? How come no war was declared on those groups?

[PioneerKing]

McCain is too addlepated to understand what is really happening in the world; just as he is too ignorant on the economy to understand that his economic plan is a farce.
However, McCain's ignorance is understandable - he did graduate at the bottom of his class in High School and from the the Naval Academy.

[AzRealProgressive]

You are correct. His father was a Admiral type. I am sure that helped.

[outnow]

"When in Rome, do as the Romanians." That probably is a direct quote from the Decider.

Bush is living proof that the president of the United States is not required to have any judgment. His job is to do the bidding of Wall Street and the MIC. He also needs to appear interested in religion.

McCain has little judgment. He will continue to do the bidding of the power elite who control our democracy with money. He was wrong on Vietnam, Iraq and on The Keating Five. He is wrong on free trade. Deregulating Wall Street is not the answer.

Obama has judgment. He does "get it." While neither has extensive executive experience, the issue is who has more integrity and judgment. That answer is clearly Obama. One doesn't have to crash his airplane and be tortured to understand that the Vietnamese were going to fight for their lands.

Similarly, the Iraqis are not going to roll over for the neocons to take their oil. Bin Laden stated that trillions of dollars worth of oil were stolen from Moslem Lands in his video-tapped speech in 1998. McCain denies this fact. McCain sees the Middle Eastern oil as a Western asset. "God gave us their oil." McCain is a bad re-run of an old war movie. He thinks retirement age is 70 - well, John?

[AzRealProgressive]

In your world what Osama bin Laden states is a fact, right? That kind of ignorance is breathtaking. He must be your hero, preventing evil people from stealing Muslim oil.

Listen up, the people who control our money and power all have advanced degrees. Where did they get those degrees? For the overwhelming majority of them, from Liberal arts colleges. Why then do dedicated liberal educated financiers make such a mess of things? It can not be denied, just look at the resumes from HALLIBURTON ! They all have liberal arts degrees.

What caused these people to make their life goal the seperation of my money into their pockets?

McCain if he is elected will probably be a disaster. Obama, who knows. Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. And with it buyers remorse.

[nk007]

So what do we do? Vote for Bob Barr , Ralph Nader or Cythia McKinney? Did I live any known alternative out?

[knighthowl]

About the only thing I can agree with is your assessment of McCain as President.

What is the source of your apparent disdain for education? This makes you sound like a Bush Republican. Also, where did you get the idea that the people with power all have advanced degrees that they received from Liberal arts colleges? Karl Rove doesn't even have a college degree. Cheney's alma mater, Montana, is hardly a liberal arts college.

Why don't you try to get your facts straight rather than simply expound on your prejudices?

[georgiaR]

I always love it when people say we are in Iraq for the oil - that's probably true because the environmentalists won't let us drill here so we have to get it somewhere else.

[nk007]

georgiaR

Are you sure that drilling for oil here would have prevented Bush's invasion of Iraq? If Bush didn't invade Iraq because of oil what the was his reason for doing so. If it was all about the so called "WMD" (which we possess in greater abundance than any other nation), then why not invade North Korea? Surely North Korea was far advanced in the quest for WMD than Iraq. If was to advance democracy, then why not invade china or Zimbabwe? As for environmentalist not letting you drill here, are you real prepared to destroy the California, Florida, and Louisiana coastlines, and the Alaskan preserves for a measly amounts of oil that have no chance of solving our energy crisis? Why not put all the billions, possibly trillions, of dollars in exploring renewable energy, other alternative sources to oil such as ethanol, as well technological improvements to reduce gas milage for our automobiles? By the way reality has come to bite you! Wars create their own reality. I am sure that had the U.S not invaded Iraq, or continued to threat a war on Iraq, the price of oil would be much lower than the current $145.00 a barrel. I shudder to think what the price of oil will be if Chaney/McCain/Lieberman get their way and Bush attacks Iran before leaving office.

[MPeter]

OBAMA has been smart and consistent. We, the diverse, confused and unfocussed Left have been screwed and have taken the bait from the Rethugs, Right Wing, the media, disgruntled Clintonistas and rabid racists. Obama still stands for and belives in change for this country. Now pick a side. Stand with Obama or join McCSame.

[AzRealProgressive]

So who are you? The great decider? Who left you in charge of telling anybody what to do ? Last I heard there was 4 presidential candidates. Why is it not right for people to vote their conscience?

Smart, consistent? That may be highly subjective.

[BhunduBoy]

Why pretend to ignore the truth? The war on terror is what AIPAC says it is. It is not defined by the American people.

[andyboy]

It's not a war on terror. You can only defend against terrorism.

There are muslims of all ages, sexes, sects, and tribes being slaughtered all over the Middle East.

We called the American Indians terrorists too.

All we had to do was tighten our borders, lock the cockpit doors and mind our own business and pay for the Oil which was a whole lot cheaper before this escapade/pipe-dream was undertaken.

Let's say we end the "war" today and bring the troops home. How will Middle Easterners survive? By selling Oil. Fanatic Islam is just a conglomeration of guys who want to control the black gold themselves. I say let 'em have it. They will still have to rule, maintain order, manage the countries business with the world. reality would set in very quickly I dare say.

I think the single biggest lie we keep repeating is we are better off without Saddam in Iraq.

We as a country cannot face our failures. The most prominent feature of our national character is an inordinant willingness to A) Lie to ourselves and B) Keep on believing the lie no matter what the evidence to the contrary.

[AzRealProgressive]

Your last paragraph is an apt description of your post.

The opening sentence of your post that you can only defend against terrorrism is so factually incorrect as to be laughable.

Reminds me of the USA Today headline whrn the time came to assault the Tora Bora complex in Afghanistan. The caption was "Now its our turn". The story stated how the soviets in 10 years had never tried to capture this comples because it could not be done. It was taken in 72 hours with no casualties for USA troops.

When you start off something with a falsehood the rest of your post quickly loses credibility.

[SeanOcali]

There his been no reversal by Obama in regards to Iraq.

[stryker]

Right, Sean. If the media would actually do their jobs they'd see that, time and again, Obama has said he wants to get the troops out as soon as possible, but would defer to the situation at hand. He would not pull out troops in the middle of an escalation of hostilities by Sadr's army, for example. He's always been in favor of a gradual pull-out as evidenced in all the times he has said so in debates and other forums. So the media is swallowing a lot of McCain BS and should stop kissing his butt and report the whole story, not just John Sidney's version.

[AzRealProgressive]

I understand Obama has taken McCain up, and is going to Iraq? Is that correct? What happens if he changes course after his Iraq visit?

Thoughts?

[CTmom13]

McSame’s temper shows, he can’t handle being questioned about his terrible voting record for Vets

[appleknocker]

Iraq or Afghanistan? How about none of the above?

[tropicartisan]

"More Americans are dying monthly in Afghanistan than Iraq, after all, but the region remains grossly under-manned and under-resourced, thanks to the mess in Iraq"

Undermanned for what exactly? This is the problem with Obama's idea to concentrate on Afghanistan. Assessment remains on the level of kindergarden. Far better questions for the candidates should be more like....

Why are we there? and Why have we been there, off and on, for the last 20 or 50 years? What exactly are we doing there? Whose side are we on and why? How successful has it been to try to "imperialize" this country and the entire middle east? It has less to do with terrorism than with controlling other countries resources. The leaders all know this, including Obama. Why the farce?

[SpoxLogic]

I just love all this talk about experience.

What many people fail to get is that you can also have a lot of the WRONG EXPERIENCE. With all his experience, McCain just doesn't seem to get it. Hence, he has a lot of WRONG experience.

Interestingly, Obama, who many say, doesn't have as much experience, DOES get it.
Don't just vote for who has more experience, vote for who has the right experiences, vision and judgement.

In short, vote for who GETS it.

[nk007]

SpoxLogic:

I agree with you 100%. History bears witness to what you are saying. The most experienced presidents, James Buchanan and Herbert Hoover, failed miserably. Two of the least experienced presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and for that matter Franklin D. Roosevelt, are regarded as three of our greatest presidents. Hey would the country have been better off with George Bush Sr, or Bob Dole, than Bill Clinton? Because both Bush and Dole had more experience (in terms of years spent in elective office) than Bill Clinton. That is not ancient history. The problem with George Bush, Jr. is not lack of experience, it is lack of judgement. For God's sake look at the experience of Dick Chaney (the real president behind the scene). It is that kind of experience that the country can do without!

[Garvagh]

I do not agree with the apparent contention here that Obama has decided he will not withdraw most US forces from Iraq within 16 months. Any tactical decision needs to be taken in light of the known facts etc. available, and by definition are subject to revision.

The gigantic deployment of US military forces in the middle of Muslim Middle East oilfields serves as a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists, and creates more instability in the region than the "stability" the Bush administration contends it brings to Iraq. In essence, the US taxpayer is called upon to spend hundreds of billions of dollars per year, in the Iraq adventure, to make success in Afghanistan less likely. The arrogant ignoramus in the White House probably is able to grasp this fact but emotionally he remains committed to a spurious notion of "victory" in Iraq.

[zippywpinhead]

O.bama has not reversed or or revised anything re: Iraq- that is just the MSM's narrative (as spoon fed to them by the Mc.Cain camp). What he recently said is the same thing he's been saying all along. I so wish the MSM would do their jobs and actually act like journalists, instead of megaphones for the Mc.Cain campaign...

[freshnotbitter]

Garvagh, the Sunnis may be tamping down the violence in the civil war and getting support from the gulf arabs (Saudis, etc) in lowering the price of oil because they need the USA to stay in Iraq to fight the Iranian supported Shiites.

Thus if Obama wants to avoid that scenario and get the support of the Sunnis he may need to fudge on the "stay in Iraq" issue. The Sunnis would prefer Obama if they knew they were not going to be abandoned to the Iranians and the Shiite hordes.

So what should Obama do? What would you do? The average voter is not going to understand these things. They are just going to look at the violence level on TV and the numbers on the gas pump.

[AzRealProgressive]

Afghanistan has been a success according to the rest of the world. The BBC, French media, Japan, Holland, Belgium, and Germany to name a few think totally different.

I would like to see us just win in Iraq. It is better than running with our tail between our legs in my eyes.

[SaintMTraveler]

Experience and Vision

Why are we making so much fuss about the foreign experience of the candidates for the president? President elect list of priority tasks for his or her administration is greatly influenced by his vision of the future for America and the world. The president-elect, if he or she is a good administrator, will always choose competent members for his cabinets and advisors. The president-elect will not encircle himself with a group of “yes Sir” men or women.

The most important characteristic of a good president-elect would be a good listener, analyzer, and user of deliberate process for action making. As such, he can utilize centuries of experience and knowledge in diverse field to advance his mission for the nation. A democratic process, unlike a dictatorial system, is slow and would require the consensus of those who had elected the president. A good president would work with the representatives of the people and with deliberate attempt to listen to both sides of the isles.

The worst type of a president is an ideologue responding to only very limited sector of the American people.

Who would make a better president, Senator McCain or Senator Obama? Each represents a philosophy inherent in the two party system Republican or Democratic, a Hamiltonian President McCain or a Jeffersonian President Obama.

[Doubtom43]

I beg to differ with your view that "The worst type of president is an ideologue responding to only a very limited sector of the American people". The very worst type of president, is one who takes direction from AIPAC on foreign policy, thereby putting Israel's interests ahead of our own. That would make most of our presidents and aspiring candidates traitors.

Nader would never put any other nation's interests ahead of our own!

[AzRealProgressive]

Last I heard there was 4 presidential candidates to choose from.