Why I Think Obama is the Best Candidate on Foreign Policy

Barack Obama is better equipped to handle the United States' foreign policy on the world stage than either Hillary Clinton or John McCain. As an international human rights lawyer who has worked in Iraq and Afghanistan, I understand better than most the security situation facing Americans and the world. Recently, I survived a large-scale attack by the Taliban on a hotel in Kabul, so my sense of urgency about national security and the safety of Americans abroad is based on a very real understanding of the dangers we face. I plan to return to Kabul shortly, and I know I will feel safer and more confident of success in Afghanistan if Barack Obama is in the White House.

In my time abroad, people have expressed to me that they doubt the United States' commitment to its own ideals and even the very existence of true democracy in the U.S. The misguided policies, arrogance and incompetence of the Bush administration have alienated our friends and inflamed our enemies. Americans working abroad can no longer rely on the good reputation of their country, and instead we are often called upon to explain or justify its actions. We need a leader who can revive American diplomacy, and with it, the reputation of the U.S. in the world.

I believe that Barack Obama is the candidate who can restore credibility to the United States in the international community. He, more than any other candidate, can prove that the U.S. is capable of making a serious change in its policies and leadership overseas in the wake of the disastrous blunders of the Bush administration. Unlike the presence of another Clinton in the White House, an Obama presidency will lead to a sense among needed allies that there is a new political order in the U.S. An Obama presidency will convince our allies that the American people recognize that new approaches are required to deal with the post 9/11 world, and that unilateralism and political arrogance breed hatred of this country and its citizens.

The claim that Barack Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy is a red herring. Having served for two years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he has more on-the-job foreign policy experience than Bill Clinton, George W. Bush or Ronald Regan did when they took office. And his experience came during the post 9/11 era. The experience Hillary Clinton touts from her White House years is from an outdated period in history, and her vote on the Iraq war demonstrates that her judgment in the current environment is not sound. She was wrong about what may prove to be one of the most key foreign policy decisions of our time, and for years, has been unable or unwilling to recognize her error and move forward. Unlike Hillary Clinton, Obama was right about the war, but has tried, as he said last night, to work with others to drive George Bush's bus out of the proverbial ditch and turn the focus back to Afghanistan. He had this clarity even when he was a state senator. By Hillary Clinton's own account, George Bush fooled her, but, given the same information, Obama came to a different conclusion and spoke out against the Iraq war at the time and has continued to focus on fighting those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September 11th attacks.

Barack Obama has the ability to deal both with American's allies and its enemies. Right now, in Afghanistan and around the world, the U.S. needs the support of its friends. Not only does Obama have the skills necessary to reach out to those we have alienated, he has expressed a willingness to do so. His comments about Pakistan, a key U.S. ally, in particular demonstrate that he is focused on cultivating relationships with moderate factions within the country without surrendering to any one group or relying on one person. He avoids the alienating strong-arm "you're with us or against us" rhetoric of the Bush administration. Instead, when discussing international security, he immediately looks to international coalitions and partnerships, including NATO, and recognizes the importance of engaging with the international community to achieve American interests. He understands what the war in Iraq has meant for the U.S. on the world stage, and the damaging effect it has had on the centrally important U.S. campaign to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan. Obama clearly is aware that the U.S. needs to make smart choices about its policies in the Islamic world in order to ensure our national security and to work with our allies to do so.

Given his early opposition to the Iraq war and focus on the battle against extremism in Afghanistan, his values, good judgment and intelligence are clear. And throughout this primary season, he has demonstrated that he has the ability to convince others and make his visions a reality. Hillary Clinton does not understand that his poetic rhetoric is used in the service of getting people to work together toward real accomplishment. Witness the success of his campaign in organizing victory after victory (while her campaign has been losing more supporters the longer it continues) against one of the most formidable political machines in Democratic Party history.

I believe that Obama's conduct of his campaign reveals the way in which he would conduct foreign (and domestic) policy. He knows how to defuse arguments and focus on shared values while relentlessly pursing his ultimate goal. He knows when to make his point and when to stand above the fray. He is able to disagree in a principled way, and accept and incorporate an argument made by someone else if it is proven to be well-reasoned. The respectful way he treats his political opponents is a model of how he will treat the rest of the world. This is exactly the sort of political skill and diplomacy that America needs to employ when conducting international relations. The world will welcome a more open United States, dedicated to advancing its own interests without riding roughshod over other countries.

Finally, as someone who works to establish respect for human rights and democracy in a post-conflict environment, I think that Obama will be an example for the world of the fruits of a true democratic process -- something in which many people in struggling parts of the world no longer believe. Whether in Iraq or Afghanistan, most people's experience with politics is that it is run by dictators, family dynasties or clans. So, in a world where the fate of Pakistan, a nuclear power which created the Taliban, is being fought over by a military dictator and the family of a powerful slain former leader, it frightens me to hear Hillary Clinton say things like "It did take a Clinton to clean after the first Bush and I think it might take another one to clean up after the second Bush." To much of the world, a Hillary Clinton presidency will be no surprise, but will look like their own national clan-driven politics. An Obama presidency, on the other hand, will be proof to the world that the democratic process can allow leaders who have vision and talent to come to the helm, despite a lack of family connections and in the face of potential racial or ethnic discrimination. It will show the world that the U.S. is truly a great democracy where the people control the government.

I believe that an Obama presidency will bring about a new respect for the U.S. around the world. President Obama will renew a sense of partnership with our allies, admit our mistakes in Iraq, and focus on rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He will bring to American diplomacy a fresh, intelligent perspective on the causes and effects of extremism and a more effective approach to combating terrorism. If Obama is elected, I will be safer, more likely to be shown respect as an American and more likely to succeed in democracy-building in Afghanistan. In my mind, that makes Barack Obama the strongest candidate for president in the realm of international affairs.

Comments

[efranklin]

Hillary's rigid position on not talking to Iran, Cuba, et al without preconditions quickly translates to not talking to them at all, in the context of old-school politics. Sen. Obama provides a new vision to move this country forward with respect to engaing in thoughtful international dialog, not just with America's friends, but with our enemies as well. Hillary Clinton should by now know that yesterday's skullduggery will not work today, whether one's talking about running a campaign or in running a presidency.

[Marmaine]

Thank you, efranklin. Please also see the following comment from http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/27/final_debate_changes_little_th_1.html
“More to the point about last night's debate, both candidates showed us how they would govern. One would "dominate" with "facts" and the other would attempt to reason. One would stubbornly defend the "rightness" of their position to the death while the other would listen to all positions and then be able to think "out of the box" to come up with new and innovative solutions. One has a mind-set that is entirely conflict-oriented and the other is consistently seeking ways to find common ground and build from there, i.e. to unify…”
This fundamental and crucial distinction between the approaches of the two Democratic candidates makes “all the difference in the world”!!

[samanthasmom]

This is an interesting discussion, but a complete waste of time since President McCain will be making the foreign policy decisions for the next four years.

[Boadicea]

I wonder if people know that almost every newspaper in Texas has endorsed Obama? (One student newspaper endorsed Hillary, but they stated clearly it was because she could get them tickets to the debate and Obama could not.)

Editorial boards of real newspapers sit down for hours with the candidates. They ask real questions. There is no way Obama could be fooling all these people about his abilities.

The same pattern of newspaper endorsements is happening in Ohio. And across the country.

People who know Obama and work with him are endorsing him. Chris Dodd is one of the most accomplished politicians in the country. He endorsed Senator Obama. And there are many other very accomplished politicians who work with Senator Obama and endorse him. Many of Bill Clinton's former foreign policy advisors and staff have endorsed Obama.

There is no question anymore that Obama is well qualified to be president, and certainly he's more qualified in foreign policy that Bill Clinton was when he took office.

[busybeez]

Excellent article. Thank you for giving us a world point of view on the candidates. I have been impressed with how Obama disarms Clinton in the debates with the tools of courtesy and respect. People think this shows weakness, but actually it has been a very effective strategy. But he can deliver strong points of argument when he feels it is necessary. I agree that he would be very adept at negotiating with world leaders and building better relationships with other countries. He is the right person for this struggling time in our history.

[frustratedinohio]

Oh and just one more thing Lisa. There is a story coming out now about how an Obama staffer, despite what Obama said the other night about NAFTA, called a Canadian official to let him know that Obama wasn't serious. What he said was just campaign rhetoric.

[Boadicea]

That's already been disproven. Nice try, though.

[frustratedinohio]

Just some things you might consider Lisa, before you place your vote. Obama's inexperience in foreign policy is exactly the reason I will be voting for McCain if Hillary doesn't win.

1. The debate the other night when Obama, using his own hypothetical, said that if Al-Queda were to establish a base in Iraq he would send troops back to Iraq. This comment should be enough to disqualify him from the race.

2. When asked, during the debate, about Russia he basically regurgitated Hillary's answer. Which he does a lot in debates, and he is able to do this because she is always asked first.

3. He may be a great speaker, (when someone else writes the speech, or lets him borrow from a previous speech) but he doesn't understand the distinction between similar words. That would make for a scary kind of diplomacy.

4. He breaks promises easily. The pledge to use public funds ... Maytag workers...families who live near nuclear power plants.

5. Our press is pandering to him and that is making him look good for now anyway. What happens when he gets behind closed doors or picks up the phone at 3:00 am?

[RichLiberal]

It's amazing what this media-inflated lightweight Obama gets away with. After months upon months of tedious complaining about Hillary's vote for authorization of the President to use force, IF NECESSARY, when put on the spot, the great withdrawer Obama says: Oh, if al qaeda shows up, then we'll send the troops right back in.

In other words, because Hillary voted for this bill, if Obama becomes President, he can now at will, at the whiff of al qaeda's presence, send the troops right back in.

Another point he raised was on the recent strike inside Pakistan, which he said justified his last summer bomb Pakistan comments, was that the CIA supposedly "took out the number three al qaeda operative". Just google "number three al qaeda" and you will find that this is a PR ploy. No one knows who number three is, if there even is one. It's just made up concept for the media to chew on to justify any action Bush wants to take.

Apparently Obama is totally bought into this BS. He has accumulated enough self-contradictory positions at this point, as well as demonstrated how totally he is dividing and destroying the Democratic party, that the media might finally be able to put the pieces together and find the real story here.

[madfeline]

McCain's mocking of Obama's response to Tim Russert's question at Tuesday's debate was in reply to something McCain only heard about and has taken totally out of context. He even admitted he didn't watch the debate.

McCain is suggesting that Senator Obama doesn't know Al-Qaida is already in Iraq.

No one in the media is addressing the fact that it was Tim Russert who asked the hypothetical question to which Senator Obama replied.

Russert [at 40:57 into the debate]: "If this scenario plays out - America gets out in totality - and Al-Qaida resurges and Iraq goes to hell, do you hold the right, in your mind as President of the United States to re-invade, to go back into Iraq to restabilize it."

That's the question that Obama was answering [at about 44:06]... the one where Russert hypothesizes that America is out and Al-Qaida 'resurges.' Russert was hypothesizing a situation where America leaves, there is stability, but then Al-Qaida comes back in. Senator Obama was replying to that hypothetical that, yes, if they were gone but came back and 'resurged,' he would reserve the right as President of the United States to look out for America's interests and be forced to act.

McCain is obviously playing up his mocking to bolster his foreign affairs expertise, but if the matter is going to be dissected and bandied about, then the actual question both Senator Obama and Senator Clinton were answering should be made a part of the analyses. Senator Obama was not saying there is no Al-Qaida in Iraq now... he was answering a hypothetical question from Russert as to whether he would reserve the right to go back in IF AL-QAIDA RESURGED.

[fullkelly]

No doubt Obama will be well received in the Islamic world- just as he is by Louis Farrakhan. After all Obama is of the Muslim stock and as he has stated himself he is from a "multicultural background".

[TimSearl]

And you are not an irrational Xenophobe? You Bushies have had your day in the sun, and what a fine fine fine mess you guys have made of it. You and your kind have brought us the ridicule and contempt of the world. Thank you so much for the insight you provide. The complete inner darkness you display, is exactly why Obama will be the next President of the United States.

[fullkelly]

NBC's Jack Jacob is now saying Obama's ignorance of the military and foriegn affairs would simply give America another president just like GW Bush should Obama become president. Jacob qouted several statements made by Obama then showed how untrue those statements were. Its a little late in the game to now find out just how IGNORANT and INEXPERIENCED Obama really is.

[k6007]

I see you fullkelly, still believe NBC, FOX, and CNN are news channels, think corporate own and operated 'misinfomercials' from now forward and maybe you'll better be able to filter their content.

[TimSearl]

Clinton's ignorance helped get us into Iraq. And I do NOT recall Jack Jacob opposing the war either. What GREAT millitary insight. Ha!

[griffon2k]

For those stating that the Resolution Authorizing the Use of the US Armed Forces in Iraq was not a vote for war, consider that constitutionally only Congress holds the power to declare war. Without the this resolution authorizing Bush to take action if he saw fit, he could not legally start a full scale war in Iraq.

That vote was and should be considered a blank check. Most Democratic Senators and House Representatives have now said had they known now what they knew then they would not have voted for that Resolution as they believe it was a great mistake.

In 2002, Obama knew the resolution was a mistake and spoke out against it, then CONTINUED to speak out against it during the years after AND has voted on bills aiming to draw down troops in Iraq since he's been in the Senate. The problem is that each time the Democrats attempt to get a bill through requiring a draw down of troops the Republicans stonewall and filibuster preventing such a bill to go anywhere. Without 60 votes, the Senate cannot force an end to the Iraq war through passage of a bill and power to override a guaranteed Bush veto.

This is why it is important not only to vote Obama into office but also more Democratic Senators and Representatives to thwart the Republican's obstructionist agenda.

[fullkelly]

LOL! Even Nader is much more knowledgeable than BO on just about any subject you can think of except maybe a "little coke, some smack, and a little blow" (Obama's Memoirs).

[gernger]

Obama just said during the debate, that if Al-Quida got too strong in Iraq after we leave, he wouldn't hesitate to send the troops back in. In other words he would restart the war. He seems to have adopted the republican position.

[argeec]

Since there seems to be confusion on this point: The democrats control congress - therefore they must approve ANY bill for a vote - therefore, if they don't want to fund the occupation, they merely have to NOT vote for it. They can introduce a bill to fund withdrawal - and they can NOT introduce a bill to continue funding the occupation.
It requires a positive vote of a majority of democrats in the house to continue funding the war.
Democrats don't have to override a veto - they merely have to NOT vote the funding in the first place.

[argeec]

The democrats in the house vote to fund the occupation because the Israel lobby has promised to campaign against them in the primaries if they don't.
And since Rahm Emanuel chairs the house campaign finance committee, and since he is a tool of the Israel lobby - no wonder house democrats fold on funding the occupation.

[frustratedinohio]

Get over it. And you're incorrect about Obama. He even says he did not know how he would have voted at the time. Of course he does say different things at different times. He is only consistent when he repeats what Hillary says in a debate.

[k6007]

read the rest of his statement, frustrated, and you won't come off as being so misinfomercialized.

[bluescat47]

Your points are well taken; there is no comparison between their respective foreign policy portfolios. And Ms. Gans does not mention that many European leaders have a skeptical view of Obama and his lofty rhetoric of "change
Moreover, Obama was against the war, but did not have to vote on the issue as he wasnt in the Senate yet. Consequently, there were no consequences for him of opposing the war, which there were for U.S. Senators (i.e.,Clinton)if they voted "no" on the resolution and events subsequently proved them wrong, at the expense of U.S. security.
But Senator Clinton should have acknowledged that she made a mistake with her "yes" vote. She substituted a personal judgement about what Bush would do with it when an institutional judgement was warranted, one which would have safeguarded Senate prerogatives from an aggrandizing Executive Branch seeking to expand its war powers.

[kingshmoopy]

I'm curious as to which European leaders have a "skeptical view of Obama and his lofty rhetoric of 'change'." Would you mind giving us some examples here? We live in Ireland and I rely heavily on European news sources for info. I haven't seen this sentiment expressed by European leaders.

Also, there were Senators who voted against the war (like the late great Senator Wellstone from MN), it isn't as if Hillary would have been the lone voice in the wilderness. She chose to follow, and behave like, a hawk.

[onab]

Lisa Gans is looking at Obama from the outside in, rather than the inside out. It's true that we need a uniter, not a divider, but we also need more than articulate speeches and naive approaches.

In terms of public diplomacy, Obama is on the mark. But in terms of policies and actions, Obama is naive.

Obama behaves as though the "audacity" of big ideas are all we need in our foreign policy. He believes if we can just reason with our adversaries -- for example, Iran's president Ahmadinejad -- they will convert to our viewpoint. Obama is an idealist in a dangerous and terrorized world that cries out for realism. He is all carrot and no stick. Never mind the extent of his foreign policy experience touted by the author. We need someone who sees the world through a realistic prism.

Obama and his supporters do not comprehend the evil in the world and believe if we just all hold hands, we can all agree. That's what is called his "Kumbaya" moment.

[kalimuzo]

I have news for you. Diplomacy works. If you look at most conflicts or near conflicts in the world, diplomacy always wins out. How else do you achieve peace. Just because you are stronger than someone does not mean they will listen, humanbeings will always fight against a bully. You can not beat people into submission and expect a lasting peace.

The thing about war that I am sure everyone is seeing is people get into this fighting mode where there is no reasoning and it is just survival, trust me when I tell you this, I grew up in Africa and I saw the stupidity that is war. It becomes a mind set where all you are doing is fighting and reason goes out the window and no one wins. I would hate to see the great hope that is America become this war machine, because people however weak they may seem, always fight back.

[Fabienne]

What is the point of laying out detailed policies before one is in office? The variables change from day to day. I would prefer to hear someone speak out for negotiation over strong-arming, verbal engagement rather than war, participation rather than bullying. We have been "all stick" since Reagan, at least, to our detriment. Isn't it time we tried something new? As for "evil" in the world, should we just succumb to it and add our own violence to it rather than attempting to counteract it? The status quo never changes if everyone believes it can't.

[wmfor]

"He believes if we can just reason with our adversaries -- for example, Iran's president Ahmadinejad -- they will convert to our viewpoint."

Now it is you who are being naïve and simplistic. I have never heard Obama express this. What he has said is that we must talk with our adversaries. The alternative is a Bush standoff--I'll hold my breath and stamp my feet until you do what I want.

It is that attitude in itself which makes our adversaries more adamant and creates new adversaries.

"Obama and his supporters do not comprehend the evil in the world and believe if we just all hold hands, we can all agree."

Oh, please, that straw man is made of hay. I might as well say, "Clinton believes that the mere mention of the Clinton name will solve all our problems."

[gernger]

I don't want to burst your balloon, but didn't Obama say in the debate, that after taking the troops out, if Al-Quida gets too strong in Iraq, he wouldn't hesitate to send the troops right back in. In other words he would restart the war. His statement not only supports the republican position, but it is a highly irresponsible thing to say. He puts himself in a position to be manipulated by both Al-Quida, and the Iraqi government. Both entities want to keep our troops there.

[LBKN]

I don't even know if it is possible to do this... but a particular 'vision' is important right now...

Not a vision from the candidates or elected representatives... but from the constituents.

This is a "Jurassic" focal point... a moment in the manifestation of what will be history. The question is whether a dinosaur can be encouraged to see beyond their habits and self-serving agendas to allow evolution...

Does a dinosaur have the ability to see the pivotal moment in time?

I have no concerns that the "New Generation of Americans" are about to save the boomers from themselves... but the question is, "Will they ever know that they have been dragged... kicking, screaming, and pouting into the next epoch.?"

I assume they will just pout... and wait for the inadequate gene-pool to dissipate through the life and death process.

Sad that we are likely creating a herd of angry old folks... who will never cross the bridge and appreciate the 'Brave New World'.

Welcome the new flock of 'Pattus Buchananisaurus Rex'.

We will do our best to be patient.

[ntmessage]

It is interesting that your discussion of Barack’s motivation is so detailed on this subject while the public has seen is some stupid mistakes that betrayed much of the notion of Obama’s world knowledge, judgment and instinct. So much so that Obama is attempting to move his rhetoric much closer to the correct and original Clinton position on the meet with the leaders comment. This must also delegitimizes the magnitude of the now famous Obama speech against the war. To continue to connect Bush policies with the Clintons is intellectually dishonest.

Obama’s cavalier statement was to meet without precondition, plans, advance diplomacy or goals. Rightfully Hillary called him out. The stretch to defend Obama is a losing argument and will be an issue with his electability against McCain. Barack has rightfully tried to move his position much closer to Hillary’s original position, about a month later.

It is obvious that Hillary possesses magnitudes more knowledge of the world than Barack, besides pure national and global experience. The Obama campaign and supporters attempt to spin Barack as just as good, or different is not working. The negative approach by the Obama campaign only brings Hillary and the party down as they attack. Especially since her current view is much closer to Obama’s on Iraq and she has a better plan. His attempt to demonstrate how high the stakes were regarding his speech during the campaign against Alan Keyes is an amazing statement. What a bald face mischaracterization during the debate! For anyone paying attention Alan Keyes moved from Washington at the last minute in order to contest an uncontested seat. A speech is not the same as a vote.

Hillary has spoken out for woman’s rights in China a key ally of North Korea, and already knows many leaders all over the world. The Clintons were trusted and respected globally and all looked up to the USA. The world that Hillary was part of building, Obama claims he would create.

In some of her recent oversight activities, navy commanders were impressed with her recall the diplomacy surrounding a skirmish in that area during the Clinton presidency. Her knowledge put everyone both at ease that she could be trusted and on their toes given her command of the issues. Obama has not held oversight in Afghanistan despite his role on the committee. OK so he admits he will not be ready on day one, but 2007 has already passed and it is now almost March and no oversight yet. To enact change you must know at least a little first hand content and knowledge, especially since he readily admits that he does not have the experience.

Certain fundamentals and processes that are in place for a reason and in fact accelerate change to happen if well understood. For example, you need gas in your car to drive. All energy for change around a basic activity, there are many, will only slow down progress and create an amateurish image of the US to the rest of the world.

Many Obama supporters project the methods of the Bush administration onto Clinton for many reasons mostly nonsensical, silly or political. We need to get a bit serious for a second. Obama made a blunder, a rookie mistake. A month later, he has changed his opinion and now supports diplomacy and preparations in advance, closer to what Hillary already said and knows. Whatever you think about this, it is definitely not Presidential.

Nixon’s visits to Russia and China were preceded with a significant mount of pre-work to ensure success. One of Reagan’s early meetings with Russia was a PR disaster because the meeting was premature

If one plus one equals two, then no matter how inspiration you are you cannot make one plus one equal three. Certain things are known and fundamental. Some attempt to link Jack Kennedy’s youth to Obama, although he possessed significantly more national experience than Obama. He was immediately tested, as should be expected and known, and almost started WWIII.

[Fabienne]

And Hillary voting for and supporting the war in Iraq for several years after it began and then saying she never supported it is presidential? Actually, in light of past presidents, including her husband, I guess it is. More of the same.

[ntmessage]

I gave Obama credit for at least moving some of his positions, which he if elected he should have a right to change based on the most up to date information. Years pass, things change. Heck, days pass and things change. Continuing the blast Hillary for the vote she would like back is counter productive and an example of gothca politics at this point. Today her position is closer to Barack’s and she has a better plan to get out.

Should Barack reject the support of all the other Democrats who voted for the measure because of their vote?

If you feel that a President should never change their mind, then you are saying that Bush is Presidential.

[sideways74]

This is an interesting Nafta Story...

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=TopStories