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 The experience Hillary Clinton touts from her White House years is from an outdated period in history, and her vote on the Iraq war demonstrates that her judgment in the current environment is not sound.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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Here here...
Improving our standing in the world starts with changing the dialog and changing our approach to diplomacy, both of which Mr. Obama is best equipped to deliver.
Diplomacy? What's that? You mean our bullying, threatening, and ignoring isn't diplomacy?
I still am amazed our Congress renamed French Fries "Freedom Fries" in the congressional cafeteria because France chose not to join us in our adventure in Iraq - boy we sure showed them!
This was done by adults?!?!
I am sick of being embarrassed and appalled by my countries actions.
Some maturity and sanity would be Soooo nice.
Great article! An intelligent and reasoned review of Senator Obama's potential as President!
What do you mean by "Obama will focus on rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan"? Sending more troops? Killing more civilians? The main inspiration for Islamic extremists is our presence in that region. No amount of tactical deck-chair-shifting will change that. Until we get our troops out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, those wars will continue. It's as simple as that. Of course, a considerable portion of the U.S. establishment profits handsomely from those wars, so it's understandable that our governmental and corporate leaders are reluctant to halt the slaughter anytime soon. I hope Obama, if he is elected president, will live up to his word and get us out. Not only of Iraq but the entire region. If he doesn't, he will be no better than Hillary or McCain or George W. Bush.
P.S. The Taliban, as despicable as they may be, didn't conduct the 9-11 attacks, as you well know. Al Queda had training camps in Afghanistan, but they no doubt also had training facilities in other countries. Why don't we have troops slogging around in Somalia or Yemen or the Philippines? Might as well -- and if some "national security types" get their way we probably will. What a waste of resources.
Please, enough already with the "vote for war" nonsense.
1.Have you actually read the Resolution, it was a threat of force that was misused by the President. Not congress.
2. Obama is right, he didn't vote for it. Because he was in no position of power even for his opinion to matter. His excuse for relevance, he was in a tough fight with Alan Keyes. What a laugh, ya that was a tough one.
3. Hillary and Obama BOTH have a real problem on there hands with the subject from last nights debate that McCain brought up again. They are both verbally committed to the position of complete withdrawal. A trillion has already been spent, the blood already spilt. The American public with that really start to think about it are going to want something to show for it going forward. And that means permanent bases in Iraq.
Obama may not have been in the Senate to vote for the resolution but while he was running for the Senate he had the balls to publicly oppose and criticize the Iraq invasion at a time when doing so meant being called a traitor. That took guts and leadership.
And it's not like either of Hillary's races for Senate were against very formidable opponents either. Especially the second race - the DA with the corrupt husband that couldn't speak extemporaneously? And I'd hazard to guess her name helped gain her some votes in a such blue state.
I am glad they are both verbally committed to a complete withdrawal from Iraq. Even if they can get a partial withdrawal and force some change in policy, the country will be a hell of a lot happier than McCain with his promise of 1000 years in Iraq and a third Bush presidency.
Obama made an anti-Iraq speech to a Chicago anti-war rally because the polls were showing anti-war feelings riding high. As soon as the polls showed otherwise, Mr Principled removed his speech from his website, declared solidarity with Dubya and subsequently voted to keep funding the war. Oh, but now that polls have shown the national sympathies swayed against the war, he's resurrected that handy little speech and is proclaiming himself to be the anti-war prophet.
I do agree with you on one point. He's got some balls. They may be weasel balls, but balls nonetheless.
"Permanent bases in Iraq," oh yeah that will really sell. Why not just kick sand in the faces of the entire Middle East while we're at it? We'll show them who's boss.
Unbelievable perspectiv
meanmonkey lives up to his name when he says:
A trillion has already been spent, the blood already spilt. The American public with that really start to think about it are going to want something to show for it going forward. And that means permanent bases in Iraq.
As any accountant or winning stock picker, executive, or other accomplished professional in business can tell you, throwing good money (or blood) after bad in pursuit of a failed business proposition is S-T-U-P-I-D. Are you saying that the only thing the Americans can buy is a stupid plan? More lives, more money, less results. Great f-cking plan monkey.
With that out of the way, I have to say that the plan for keeping our oil companies rich is starting to pay off and that permanent bases in Iraq will probably keep that payoff coming. It will bankrupt our country, but it will keep the oil executives sitting pretty. Is that our plan?
"Want something to show for it?"
That's sick. And disgusting. Let's throw more money and lives after already wasted - yes, I said WASTED - money and lives. Let's create permanent military presences in Iraq to further inflame the region and fuel the fire of anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world. Brilliant!
Anyone who thought at all about what was happening KNEW what President Bush and his administration were after. The Project for a New American Century had listed "regime change in Iraq" and many other of the policies of the Bush Administration as it's goals back in the Clinton Administration! The neocons were going into Iraq, militarily, one way or another - and that vote, as recognized by MANY, MANY people at the time, was a vote basically giving Bush Congressional authority to go to War. What it was supposed to do and what everyone KNEW Bush would use it for are two different things, YES, and either A - Senator Clinton knew what Bush would do and voted for it out of political maneuverings (which meant she voted for him to go to war) or B - she was naive and didn't understand what Bush was intending and showed a poor understanding of the situation and the administration. I KNOW Senator Clinton is smart, so I fully believe it was A and not B.
Thank you for your service. And thank you for believing in Obama. Welcome on board. There are millions of us fighting and pushing back the old, corrupt olitical machine that has turned our democracy into a joke and international law into a mockery. A president Obama will not only change that, he will lead a rebirth of our country. Thank you.
Obama, just "pushing back the old, corrupt olitical machine that has turned our democracy into a joke and international law into a mockery"?? Ah....not so much:
Dirty Dealings in his Senate Race:
www.chicag
During this race:
http://www
His non-experience in Foreign relations:
http://www
Nice. You Write: "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."
This is a great highlight. Its proves that the messages we send -albeit as small as we think they are in our own self involved world in the US - that messages are quite powerful to the rest of the world. And we cannot backtrack the damage done in Iraq or throughout the Middle East, it ain't gonna happen. But we have to be strategic and smart, and heal and lead by example because, as you say, "Americans .... can no longer rely on the good reputation of their country" They are going to say, Thanks America, but I have other friends, now.
As you write, " I think that Obama will be an example for the world of the fruits of a true democratic process " and yes if this War on Terror is going to be one with ideas and ideology what better way to gain the upper hand?
But the most important points you make and cannot be stressed enough is that Sen. Obama's " 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." And to add to this, is that Sen. McCain's judgment is not only dated and seriously flawed and can destabalize productive policies in the Islamic world and a threat to our national security and to work with our allies to do so. How ignorant are some of these people insulting our allies? Have 'they not learned anything from 9/11? focus on fighting those in Afghanistan who were responsible for the September 11th attacks.
For someone that survived a large scale attack by the enemy, glad you came out ok, and are still capable of maintaining good judgment. Great Post.
Hillary's vote on the Iraq War was NOT a question of "bad judgment". It was far worse than that. It was a cynically amoral career-oriented calculation that ended up being a grievous miscalculation.
She says "Bush fooled her" by rushing to war before letting the inspectors do their jobs, but everyone at the time knew that he might very well do just that. All the signs were in the air. That is why the Levin Amendment was proposed, to close that loop-hole that Clinton claims she never imagined. The problem is that she PRAISED the Levin Amendment. Then she turned right around and voted against it.
When she FINALLY reluctantly answered the question of why she voted against it, she LIED (either that, or she has insufficient reading comprehension to become POTUS) and claimed she "couldn't vote for it, because it would create a precedent diminishing the power of the POTUS, by subjugating it to the power of the UN". Of course, the Levin Amendment said NOTHING OF THE SORT. Anyone who can get through "My Pet Goat" without consulting a dictionary, can clearly understand the Levin Amendment merely required the POTUS to return to Congress (the proper Constitutional Authority to declare war), should he fail to obtain UN Security Council backing for the war.
Add to that all her other critical neo-con supporting votes, and you might well understand why some of us "reject and denounce" her candidacy.
Some may consider this an oversimplification, but I think of her as a Republican in a Democrat costume.
Well, she was a "Goldwater Girl" - really. Her family were "strict republicans" - saw a biography on her.
Wow, well said! People may describe your statement as cynical - but it appears right on the money. Being overtly careful not to be seen as weak, Hillary was complicit.
Wow a very strong and convincing argument by a person who has unique experience on the ground in Afghanistan. Just the fact that she knows she will be safer with Obama as president is an eye opener for me. I did not really see the danger of a Clinton presidency that way but it makes a great deal of sense that people around the world would look at a Clinton or McCain presidency as no change at all.
Godspeed Lisa Gans, I hope the American people can live up to your dreams.
Great post. Unfortunately for her, Senator Clinton represents the past. People do want to look to the future and they respond to Senator Obama's person: we will work together to change America to make it the country we need to be.
Last night's "gotcha" from Tim Russert about which vote you would take back. Senator Clinton mentioned Iraq & then expanded into what she would do as President. Yawn! Senator Obama talked about Terri Schiavo and said he had made a mistake to allow the Senate to intervene and that as a constitutional law professor, he should have known better. Acknowledging a mistake and learning from it. That's what people want, not the Bush & Hillary inability to think about having made any mistakes.
Looks like Obama has a bit of a problem here. First he needs to learn how to do his job. There are serious problems going on in which NATO and Europe are critical, and he chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs and has never called a meeting? Does he even have a clue as to how to conduct anything other than how to get the party going?
This is from Joe Conason:
http://www
I am disappointed more than anyone that Obama has not had a meeting with that committee but I also blame the political process that has made this into almost a two year campaign.
I agree. This whole year and a half primary race is ridiculous. Not only does it take the candidates out of pocket, it basically takes the whole Congress out of pocket. They won't fight any fights or pass any legislation out of fear of it hurting their respective parties in the primary race or the general.
in last night's debate Obama said that he just took the chair position on that committee in 2007. So, the question in my mind is, if you know you don't have time to do the job of chairman right, why do you take the job?
Could it be a little bit of resume padding so you can tout the position as part of your 'experience' in foreign policy?
I think Ron Paul is the best candidate on Foreign Policy. If he's elected President he would immediately withdraw all US forces from Iraq. In addition, he would begin to dismantle the US Empire and shut down all US military bases overseas.
Can you tell me why the US has military bases in counties like Italy, Spain, England, Japan and The Netherlands? The Cold War has been over for decades and those countries can defend themselves.
You are so right about that, and I admire Paul's honesty about our foreign policy that does not serve our interests.
Most Americans don't understand the boon that our military bases are to OTHER economies, and they could also be a boon to our economy if we brought them home. In today's high tech world, we don't need bases spread all over the planet.
There's a happy medium somewhere - we can't become isolationist, and we can't go back to the gold standard, and we can't (or shouldn't) abolish whole departments of government - but he (Paul) does pull in the right direction.
Paul, and Kucinich, were the most vocal on calling Iraq what it is - an imperialist venture for OIL.
I would feel a lot better having Obama as commander in chief because he has better judgement than Hillary Clinton, George Bush and John McCain.
Lets see, Obama asked Tony Rezko, who everyone knew was under investigation by the FEDS, to help him buy his house in 2005, sounds like great judgement to me!
Yeah, and with the absolutely non-political justice department we have under Bush, there is absolutely no chance that the investigation was politically motivated, right?
Maybe the guy is "dirty" - I don't know, I'm just saying....
Sound and insightful endorsement from someone with real world experience. Obama seems to be getting alot of those recently.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
