Why Obama Would Be Better on National Security than McCain
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.
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
McCain and his campaign are suddenly optimistic about winning the election. Maybe they have been assured that the fix is in. They have surely tried hard enough to suppress Democratic voter registration, and if they know the machines are hacked, they would be just this happy.
The BBC this week documented allegations of war crimes by Georgian troops during the August 7th attack on South Ossetia:
http://new
It would be interesting to know what McCain thinks about this report. Does he still think we are all Georgians?
@LeftRight
}}}}
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...
Michale, I'm sorry, but I'm going to believe the facts on the ground and Henry Kissinger LONG before I will believe you about this! The fact of the matter is that the Georgians attacked South Ossetia, no matter how much you want it to be that Russia attacked first!
I am not claiming that the Russians attacked first..
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 retaliatio
This is a fact..
Michale...
@jinxed
}}}}
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...
If Senator Obama is such a wonderful leader then why isn't his lead in the polls substantial?
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.
He's leading by an average of 8 percent nationwide. When a candidate leads by 5% in the nationwide polls in the week before the election that translates into a HUGE win in the Electoral College!
@LeftRight
@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 superficia
Kinda like the "soshes" we knew in High School..
Michale...
No, they felt that he was qualified and would make a good president, they didn't think that he was "electable" Remember that going around about Kerry last time, and how he was the most "electable" of the group?
well said, young man.. ;)
@LeftRight
}}}}
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.
Michale...
that's not true Michale. The amount of waste that I saw when I was in the military was HUGE!! At least 35% of the budget that I was responsible for was PURE waste, and then there's things like the Missile defense that raygun wanted and now bush wants, and the money spent at Haliburton, Blackwater, etc.......
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...
By picking lightweigt Palin, McCain undermined his earlier claims of being strong on national security.
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?
Ya know, it's interestin
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...
First, we are challenging her qualifications to be the POUTS because, as the VP of a gentleman like McCain, who would be the oldest first term President in history and has already survived four bouts of a particularly virulent type of skin cancer, the possibility that she would end up becoming the POUTS is relatively high.
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.......
I would be interested in knowing why you would say that Biden's campaigning is the reason for his failure to capture the nomination this time around - his second attempt. As far as I understand, anyone who was lucky enough to catch a Biden event during this primary season walked away duly impressed and wanting more.
Michale,
...interes
@LutherBrixton
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...
There were more people killed in Obama's Home State than in Iraq this year. I don't hear anything about that.
Liberals don't know how to win Wars, it ain't in their DNA.
NoBama.
Actually the Democrats (liberals) greatest strength is also their greatest weakness.
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 Republican
Michale...
Really? Are you counting everyone that died in IL compared to every US servicemember who was killed by enemy action in Iraq? Cause that's the only way that adds up. I GUARANTEE that more people died in Iraq, simply because there are more people in Iraq than IL, which means that when you look at EVERYONE who died in Iraq there are more!
In addition to that, the other question is how Is Obama to blame for all the deaths in IL????
And by the way, according to the IL department of health, there were 101,889 deaths in IL in 2006 (the last year for which there are statistics) Of these, 858 were homicides, and all the rest were either natural causes or accidents. This is out of approx 12,831,970 people living in IL during 2006. During the same year, in Iraq there were over 1100 deaths, just from the coalition. In other words, the war which has around 200,000 (from the whole coalition) troops lost 0.55% of the population. In IL we see 0.00668% who were murdered!
Here's where I got the information from:
Census:
http://qui
IL department of health:
http://www
Coalition:
http://ica
"Liberals don't know how to win Wars, it ain't in their DNA.
NoBama."
So you don't consider Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt or Harry Truman to be liberals?
I thought a major conservative goal was to role back the "New Deal".
The indoctrination of unquestioning Republicans, even after the GOP has tanked the economy and had thousands of Americans killed, boggles the mind. Do you have any allegiance to the USA at all?
>>>>"All of this is your opinion and not fact."
Yes, but I have no allegiance to hysterical bigotry..
That is where you and I differ...
Michale...
"Belligerent confrontationalism" is all there is to John McCain's national security policy. He has no foreign policy chops, in fact shows very little awareness of what will be essential for a coherent 21st Century foreign policy. He has never proven himself to be intellectually up to the job in national security and foreign policy. At a time that does indeed call for "cool, careful, considered decisions" he actually represents the greatest risk. He is simply unprepared for the 21st Century and intellectually ill suited for the job. He's a guy whose only tool is a hammer and he treats everything in the world as if it were a nail.
@LeftRight
}}}}}
You DO realize that we spend more on defense than the rest of the world COMBINED, right??
{{{{{
Cite??
Michale...
It's only 48%.
From those left-wing hippies over at globalsecurity
http://www
I knew that the figure sounded high...
Thanx for the cite...
Appreciate
Michale...
Okay, so does this include all military expenditures? Obviously even if you include Iraq and Afghanistan I was wrong, but I would still like to know if they are including the off budget portions.
@LeftRight
{{{{
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...
Cut out all the waste, and we would cut the spending by at least 50% and then we would still have the military that we have now, with less spending, and therefore still be the best.....
Cite???
Michale...
To be fair, any reasonably sane individual would be better than McCain on foreign policy.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
