Conventional wisdom has it that one of the few ways left for John McCain to win the presidency is for a national security crisis to intervene before election day. And Senator Biden's misunderstood comment about a challenge to the next president early on that perhaps mistakenly reinforced that conclusion is being featured in the McCain campaign's final ad push. However, the perception that McCain is better on foreign policy issues than Obama is incorrect. Why?
First, the same factors that affect the financial crisis at home apply to the global arena. The US cannot operate effectively while we are economically weak and preoccupied with our own travails. If Obama is far more likely to resolve the current crisis, which is widely accepted polls tell us, then he can provide a critical national security function which McCain cannot. And because the financial crisis is global, Obama's greater popularity abroad with elites and publics is critical to overcoming it.
Second, Obama's global policy is rooted in cooperation with our allies and an attempt to first employ diplomacy with our adversaries, while still maintaining a strong military option. His approach of "negotiation and confrontation" first enumerated by Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger offers far more favorable opportunities for strengthening America than the suspicion and enmity George Bush's policies have engendered among friend and foe, which the policies of John McCain show no signs of changing.
Third, McCain stresses a belligerent confrontationalism even more stark than Bush's. When John McCain doesn't approve of another country's policies, he sees its government as an actual or potential foe, as in the case of Russia or even apparently NATO member Spain. He celebrates Iraq as central to the war on terror, which differs radically from the views of most of our allies. His policy on Iran is similar to the failed approach of Bush -- talk loudly, but without a clear policy, which causes universal frustration. It is hard to understand how McCain's policies would be more effective in the war on terrorism than Bush's.
For all of George Bush's friendliness toward Israel, for example, he has presided over eight years of the weakening of Israel as compared to the strengthening of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria. If McCain continues these same policies that have already failed, as he claims to be prepared to do, then the situation Israel confronts will deteriorate further. In the tough Mideast, Obama's policy of diplomacy, defense, and deterrence may not completely succeed, but we already know that McCain's reliance primarily on confrontation will definitely fail.
Fourth, America has been hindered by the current administration's tendency to act unilaterally on a host of issues, most prominently Iraq, but also on matters as wide ranging as the environment, energy, and population control. McCain's views are closer to the Bush administration's on Iraq and Pakistan, missile defense and family planning.
Fifth, most arguments in favor of Senator McCain and his approach to national security rest on his greater experience and knowledge. Yet, McCain is a gambler -- in practice, in personality, and in judgment. McCain's fundamental approach to policy-making is based on snap decisions and quick, emotional judgments. Some examples include picking Palin, rushing back to Washington to "help" in the bailout, and flip-flopping on regulation and Bush's tax policy. His emotional and provocative reaction to the Georgia crisis this summer provides an example of what life with a President McCain would be like. Why would any American want to place America's future in the world arena in the hands of an unpredictable and temperamental gambler whose actions and phrases cannot be anticipated at home or abroad?
Sixth, the next president will have to concentrate on financial problems, at least for the next two years, even if an unexpected foreign policy crisis occurs. The new president will therefore need a vice president experienced and nuanced in foreign and national security affairs. Here the two campaigns present an utter mismatch. On the one hand, we have Joe Biden with 35 years of knowledge and experience in the foreign arena, and the current Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. On the other side, Sarah Palin -- inexperienced, unknowledgeable, simply unprepared for a role intended to assist the President on any serious foreign or national security issue.
John McCain has admitted that he sometimes makes quick and unexpected decisions and then has to live with the consequences. But why should any American want to rely on a president known for the temperamental, quixotic, and unpredictable whims that guide his decision-making? In domestic policy and in the national security arena, America would be far better off with the cool, careful, considered decisions of Barack Obama.
Steven L. Spiegel is a professor of political science and director of the Center for Middle East Development at the University of California, Los Angeles.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7692751.stm
It would be interesting to know what McCain thinks about this report. Does he still think we are all Georgians?
}}}}
No, it was the GEORGIANS who attacked South Ossetia. Now then, Russia was wrong to use that to attack Georgia, since legally South Ossetia is a part of Georgia, but it was STILL the Georgians who fired the first shots.
{{{{
Sorry, you are incorrect...
It's documented that the Georgians had endured about 6 days of artillery attacks, cross-border raids and kidnappings at the hands of the South Ossetia irregulars. These irregulars were backed up (some say controlled by) forwards elements of the Russian 58th Army.
The bulk of the 58th was being held in reserve, to await the inevitable Georgian response so that they (the Russians) would have their excuse to attack Georgia...
As I said, this is all documented and I can post the documentation if you doubt me...
Michale.....
I am simply stating that it's a fact that South Ossetia irregulars were harrassing Georgia with artillery attacks and cross-border skirmishes 6 days prior to the Georgian's launching their retaliation..
This is a fact..
Michale...
}}}}
Do you think McCain will listen to any advisors and not make a decision from what the last one to talk to him says? I don't. I also don't want this country run by a person who has a C to D GPA ... That's what we are living with now. Also I want a president that makes decisions based on the advise he gets not from a "gut feeling".
{{{{
I don't know what McCain would do and, frankly, I don't care..
I have voted for Obama, so what McCain does or doesn't do, thinks or doesn't think is really of no concern to me..
Michale.....
Senator Obama has spent more money on campaign ads than any candidate in the history of the USA and he still can not close the deal. The answer is simple: less than a majority of Americans want the most liberal Senator to be the President of the United States of America.
@LeftRight
}}}}}
No, they've felt that his CAMPAIGNING for President was lagging. Just like they felt that DEAN'S campaigning for President wasn't considered acceptable.......
{{{{{{
OK you'll have to explain this one to me..
People felt that Biden was QUALIFIED and KNOWLEDGEABLE enough to be President, but they just didn't like the way he campaigned???
WOW.. Seems to make you Democrats out to be silly and superficial...
Kinda like the "soshes" we knew in High School..
Michale.....
}}}}
You always seem to expect other people to treat YOUR opinion as though it's fact, and then claim that other's facts are opinions and that you don't have to listen to their opinion. It's a very one sided view point, which brings out the worst in ME.
{{{{
Not at all..
I always make it a point to differentiate between FACTS and OPINIONS in myself as well as others.
I am successful more often than not. And I DO appreciate the corrections when I am NOT successful.
The problem for many of ya'all is that you don't LIKE the facts that are presented and therefore try to discount them. And, when that fails, ya'all attack the messenger... Not all, to be sure.. But enough to be slightly annoying...
Michale.....
Not to mention that you are claiming that YOUR opinion on the torture and FISA debates was a fact, with no cause to do so! And yet you were insisting that your OPINION was worth more than centuries of FACTS that torture doesn't work!
In other words, I am presenting a FACT, not an OPINION.
{{{
No.. You were presenting an OPINION.. Your 35% of the budget that you were responsible for?? How does that translate to the entire military?
Unless you have DOCUMENTATION that supports your contention that the US Military could withstand a 50% cut and still remain viable, you are simply stating an OPINION..
Even IF you had said documentation, it STILL would be an opinion, because no one can see the future and say with absolute certainty what will and will not occur..
}}}}
Not to mention that you are claiming that YOUR opinion on the torture and FISA debates was a fact, with no cause to do so!
{{{{
Actually, I have great cause..
I know for a FACT that torture HAS worked on occasions. This is a fact..
As for the FISA debate, you'll have to be more specific..
Michale.....
I also don't see why being a reckless navy bomber lieutenant (discharged with rank of captain) automatically makes you a great military strategist who now keeps shouting "Listen to me, I know how to win wars!" -- Exactly how is that, John?
Everyone on the hysterical Left slams Palin for not being qualified to be President, even though she is running for VP..
Yet, apparently, the Democratic Party themselves feel that Biden is ALSO "NOT" qualified to be President. This is evidenced by the fact that Biden has run for President, what?? Half a dozen times?? And has failed to achieve the nomination.
Once can logically surmise from that fact, that the Democratic Party doesn't feel that Biden is qualified to be President...
Interesting, no??
Michale.....
As far as Biden, the reason that he's never gotten the nomination has nothing to do with his qualifications, but rather with his campaigning. The people never really liked him, compared to others. Of course, I'll be honest, I don't know how Kerry got selected, but.......
...interesting, NOT! Shall we discuss why Biden failed to win the nomination in 1988 and 2007 - the only TWO times that he ran for President...and, while we're at it, we could talk about who is motivated by what, too!
Oh dear, oh dear, where to start..
}}}
McCain was wrong on the war. McCain was wrong on the surge (unless weakening US national security while ignoring Osama Bin Laden is a good thing to you), McCain is wrong on Iran. McCain is wrong to support the genocide committed by Georgian president Mikhail Saakashvili. McCain is wrong to approve Bush"s hands-off policy on Osama Bin Laden.
}}}
All of this is your opinion and not fact...
}}}}
There's no time for on the job training,
{{{{
This would seem to be an argument AGAINST an Obama presidency..
{{{{
and the 2 draftdodgers in the White House,
}}}}
So, I guess that means you think that Biden is a "draft dodger" as well. Since he had as many deferments as Cheney and then finally was excused from military service for "asthma" that there was no report of prior, nor any report of since.. (Oh no, I am gonna catch hell for this from LizM!! :D)
Iddn't it annoying how those pesky facts derail even the most irrational and illogical tirade??
Michale.....
Liberals don't know how to win Wars, it ain't in their DNA.
NoBama.
The very foundation of their beliefs is INCLUSIVENESS. The ability to listen to and accept all other viewpoints as equally valid and valued..
The weakness part comes in when, because they see different perspectives as having equal value, when it comes time to chart a course of action, they can never come together and agree amongst themselves which is the BEST course of action to follow..
In Star Trek lore, the Republicans would be The Borg and the Democrats would be The Feeders Of Vaal...
Of course, this probably more closely fits the Democratic Party and liberals of 20-30 years ago. Democrats and liberals these days seems to act more and more like Republicans...
Michale.....
In addition to that, the other question is how Is Obama to blame for all the deaths in IL????
>>>>"All of this is your opinion and not fact."
That is where you and I differ...
Michale.....
}}}}}
You DO realize that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world COMBINED, right??
{{{{{
Cite??
Michale.....
From those left-wing hippies over at globalsecurity
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
Thanx for the cite...
Appreciated..
Michale.....
{{{{
We could EASILY afford a 50% cut in military spending and STILL have the best military in the world!!!
}}}}
Assumes facts not in evidence..
Michale.....
Michale.....