Who's Got the Foreign Policy Experience We Need?

It's getting wild out there.

Bill Clinton told voters in Muscatine, Iowa, yesterday that he had "opposed Iraq from the beginning." Earlier this week, Hillary Clinton claimed she was the "face" of US foreign policy throughout the 1990s. Then, Hillary Clinton said Barack Obama would be the least experienced president we've had since World War II.

Huh?

With respect to the first two statements, the historical record speaks for itself. The latter charge does not hold up to scrutiny. When it comes to foreign policy, several post-war presidents, who were governors not Senators, had less experience upon taking office than will Barack Obama. They include the one who must have misspoken yesterday, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and, of course, George W. Bush.

Precisely what foreign policy experience would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bring to the Presidency?

The osomotic insights Senator Clinton gained from her time in the White House and her travels abroad can only be beneficial, but they are far from sufficient to qualify one for the Presidency, as surely Betty Ford, Rosalyn Carter, Barbara Bush, and perhaps even Laura Bush would concede. More important is the expertise Clinton has gained in her own right, as a Senator, especially through her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Still, that experience did not lead her to the same judgment as Senators Byrd, Kennedy, Levin (then Chairman of the Armed Services committee, or Bob Graham (then Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) to oppose the Iraq war -- the greatest strategic blunder in a generation - or to vote this Fall against the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, which greased the skids for war with Iran.

Similarly, Barack Obama's service in the Senate, and notably his three years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including as Chairman of the European Affairs Subcommittee, afford him deep insight into national security issues. Working with Sen. Richard Lugar, Obama passed new measures to halt the proliferation of nuclear materials. Having opposed the Iraq war from the start, Obama was the first major candidate to propose a responsible and comprehensive plan to redeploy our forces safely and press Iraqis to achieve the necessary political progress. His Iraq War De-escalation Act introduced in January 2007 was embraced by the Democratic leadership in the Senate and remains their primary legislative vehicle for ending the war. Obama was also the first Senator to introduce legislation to address the risks posed by over-reliance on unaccountable military contractors, like Blackwater.

Obama has stood up against the march to war with Iran. Instead, he is committed to direct diplomacy, without preconditions, and to increasing pressure on Iran, including through his legislation that would allow states to divest their holdings in companies that do business with Iran. Obama has also led Senate efforts to improve U.S. preparedness for an avian flu pandemic, to halt the genocide in Darfur, increase resources to roll-back HIV/AIDS and to bring stability and peace to war-torn Congo.

But for both Clinton and Obama, it's not only service in the U.S. Senate that matters. It is their other professional and life experience as well.

Senator Clinton spent her formative years in the Chicago suburb of Park Ridge, Illinois, and went on to Wellesley College and Yale Law School. Senator Obama, born of a Kenyan father and Kansan mother, spent his childhood in Jakarta and Hawaii before graduating from Columbia with a degree in International Relations and Harvard Law School, where he was President of the Law Review.

Prior to becoming First Lady, Senator Clinton was a tireless and passionate advocate for children and an accomplished lawyer in public service and private practice. Senator Obama worked as a community organizer on Chicago's South Side. After law school, he shunned a lucrative legal career to practice at a small civil rights law firm and teach constitutional law. He served eight years in the Illinois State Senate where he consistently built bipartisan coalitions to tackle divisive issues such as tax policy and police interrogation techniques.

While their academic and professional paths are not dissimilar, Obama's youth in Indonesia, which Senator Clinton derides, is something very different from Park Ridge.

Those years in Jakarta gave Obama a rare appreciation of the complex and painful post- colonial challenges of South East Asia's giant and the world's largest Muslim country. It afforded him crucial insight into the ways that others see America - ways that too often differ from how we see ourselves. It enabled him to witness first-hand the effects of poverty, political repression, corruption and civil strife - among the most pressing issues of our day. In later years, Obama came to know his Kenyan family, including his grandmother who still lives in a hut on the shores of Lake Victoria. These are no ordinary life experiences for an American president, few of whom have ever lived in the developing world.

Unlike any other candidate for President, Obama is a man of the world and the man for our times. He uniquely embodies the multiple strands of America's heritage. He exemplifies our nation's ability to overcome its tortured history of racial polarization and discrimination. His very election would speak volumes to the world about America's ability to change and grow and learn from past mistakes. At a time when the world is wondering if America even gets that it makes mistakes, Barack Obama personifies the promise of what America can still be.

And belief in that promise is precisely what we need to re-enlist international support to confront unprecedented global security challenges, ranging from terrorism to climate change, pandemic disease to nuclear proliferation. We need a leader who recognizes that we cannot go "back to the future" but we must build a new future born of ambitious vision and of hope not fear.

We need a unifier who will win with a mandate for meaningful change. At this pivotal moment in our history, we need a President with unique life experience, judgment and sensitivity to the rest of the world's aspirations and frustrations. Now is the time for that President who can renew trust in America's ability to lead not only for ourselves but also for the common good.

Comments

[ibsteve2u]

I'm just a little tired of this attempt to make "foreign policy experience" THE decisive issue of the Democratic race.

Sure, the Clintons wined and dined - and were wined and dined by - lots of foreign heads of state and commerce. In fact, she and her husband were GREAT at foreign relations.

But what foreign head of state or commerce isn't going to love somebody that gives you the core of their manufacturing and technical service industries even at the cost of the well-being - the jobs - of their own citizens?

For THAT is the legacy of the Bill and Hillary Clinton era of "foreign policy"; the gutting of America's core manufacturing and technology services industries and the end of America's ability to be self-sufficient.

Now America's foreign policy is absolutely crippled by the need to remain "good friends" with our primary suppliers of consumer goods, no matter how corrupt or imperialistic their governments are or how abusive of their own people and the planet's environment they are.

The true measure of the Clintons' ability at "foreign policy" lies in the fragility of our dollar, the amount of our debt held by foreign powers, and the hollowness of our economy as is now being revealed by the ever increasing number of mortgage defaults.

Bring on Obama - or anybody else - that puts the majority of America's citizens first.

[Sundialsvc4]

I believe that we must demand "foreign policy experience" not only from the Executive Branch but, far more importantly, the Legislative Branch ... all of it.

And we must demand that of them NOW, not "a year from now."

These people are U.S. Senators NOW.

[James Boyce - Huffpost Blogger]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-boyce/whos-got-the-foreign-pol_b_74614.html

[coots]

Obama does not have enough experience to be president. Hillary does poorly with independent voters. Both of them would have trouble winning against the Republican nominee next November. Obama hesitated to take on Hillary in the debates. He had to follow John Edwards lead. John Edwards has shown more leadership skills, and has more experience than Obama especially going head to head in a general election against the Republicans. He is the only Candidate that has won an election in a solid red state. Edwards is a fighter much more aggressive. If Obama hesitates against the Republicans like he hesitated taking on Hillary, in a general election he would be in big trouble.

[snruB]

Some of America's greatest Presidents, JFK, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR, had about as much experience as Obama does.

This primary debate in fact resembles the 1960 Whitehouse Run very closely, I think, and we all know which was the better choice (Washington Experience vs. Leadership and Good Judgement) there. Where would America, and the planet, be if the "experienced" Nixon had won and he was making the decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis? If either Hillary or Obama were in that position during those 13 days, who would YOU rather be there? The woman who's constantly voted for war unapologetically, or the man who favours diplomacy over rash decisions to go to war?

[Manicsuperstar]

Once again, utter nonsense! Senator Obama spent a few years of his childhood living abroad and in Hawaii (???) and this counts as greater foreign policy experience than being First Lady of the United States for eights years? Granted, he was raised with a more international perspective than most of us, but I don’t see how that translates to foreign policy experience (emphasis on policy), except in the minds of very hopeful and somewhat naïve Obama supporters. Nobody wants to talk about the very tangible, first-hand experience of the presidency one gleans as first spouse, because it is a politically unseemly fact that the unelected partners of our presidents play a vital role in the success or failure of many of an administration’s policy initiatives, foreign policy chief among them. How many world leaders did Hillary Clinton meet, charm and engage during her eight years as President Clinton’s wife? How many foreign visits did she join or lead on her own? How many state dinners did she host or attend as guest of honor? How many speeches abroad did she give? Just because our democracy demands that the first spouse not appear to have any direct influence on policy does not mean that they don’t have a tangible and important role to play in the exercise of that policy. The “office” of First Lady has become as valid a tool of the nation’s foreign policy as the offices of the Vice President or Secretary of State. First Ladies are tasked with being America’s primary goodwill ambassador to the world. Hillary Clinton played that role quite well for eight years. To me and most reasonable people, this can be counted as foreign policy experience of the first order. If you have any doubts about the important foreign policy role a First Lady plays, just ask any credible historian how much influence Eleanor Roosevelt, Jacqueline Kennedy or Nancy Reagan had on the world’s perception of the U.S. This issue is a clear winner for Senator Clinton no matter how many creative ways the Obama camp tries to reframe it.

[Campsalmon]

The answer to Susan Rice's question is simply two words: "Joe Biden". Nearly everyone else on this BLOG exchange gets an "F" on Ms. Rice's question, including Ms. Rice herself.

[gdwtch52]

Good article. Every night I go to bed thinking I've decided. Edwards, Obama, Edwards, Obama. Then the next day there is something that makes me swing the other way. Edwards has a plan, he has style, he has heart and he wants to include everyone in an administration to work on America. Obama has aloha, Oprah and...? While I have always resented the fact that Iowa, NH, NC and now Nevada get to pick my candidate (by the power of the press and the purse)I don't envy them at the moment. There is a hard choice on the dem side....and an impossibly poor choice on the repub side. I only ask PLEASE don't give me Clinton. Please, please, please!!!

[yourstruly]

I thought I'd choke when Hillary made fun of Obama's childhood experience in Indonesia; talk about lack of diplomacy! I can't think of worse preparation for international diplomacy than growing up in a white, Republican, Chicago suburb.

No, childhood is not experience in making policy. Instead, it shapes ones whole view of the world, which in turn shapes the kind of policy one makes. I think growing up in Arkansas and traveling as a Fullbright scholar helped prepare Bill Clinton to deal with the world. Arkansas was, in a way, a kind of Third World place, and Hillary was miserable there. On the other hand, George W. Bush traveled only once outside the US before becoming president. Proximity to his father's diplomatic career seems to have soured him on the whole world.

I worry that Clinton's foreign policy, like that of the Bushes, will be captive to corporate imperatives, and we have seen that is a dangerous, often under-examined, motivation. Photo ops with heads of state are no more foreign policy experience than traveling in the cocoon of US government security, even though they often pass for that.

The awesome journalist Seymour Herst, who knows a thing or two about failed foreign policy, has said Obama is the only candidate prepared to deal with the situation in which we find ourselves. But can he get elected?

[Troubledgoodangel]

I do not know Obama. Kenia reminds me of the massacres between Hutus and Tustsis. Ophrah smacks of the New Age. Is Obama his own man, detached of these nefarious influences? I do not know. What is his stand on the Catholic Church, on the meaning of truth? I want to hear more about it. Especially I want to know his views on abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, and corporal punishment. A leader should not be afraid to speak up!

[Dap]

Riddle 4 U ?

Q) What do you get when you cross Mike Gravel's Fortitude, with Dennis Kucinich's Tell it as it is, and Barack Obama's Time for a change, with Bill Richardson's Compassion and integrity, plus Chris Dodd's Service ethic, and Joe Biden's Wisdom, without Hillary Clinton's Triangulation???

A) John Edwards.

[rcat99]

Sometimes we confuse experience with expertise. Just getting to an advanced age pretty much guarantees that you will have had experience(s). That can mean that you were there and learned something useful from the event or it might just mean that you're old.

The Presidency is two jobs, at least. Sure he's a CEO but let's face it, any even medium-sized company has an executive deputy that monitors the day-to-day activity while the honcho is out doing what? Giving speeches, cutting ribbons, being the public face of the entity. In a "company" the size of the US government, the top dog is even further removed from the executive duties. There are cabinet officers and agency heads, each with executive deputies and assistants to the assistant and on down the line who actually attend to the work. The guy at the top of the heap, it seems to me, should be more attuned to the other role of President, that of Head of State.

And for that do we really need or want a bureaucrat or technician? We need, desperately, a leader, a man or woman of vision and intelligence. Someone who is (and is perceived to be) smarter than the average schmo he is leading. An open mind who is capable of listening, learning, changing his mind when appropriate. Energy, intelligence and curiosity are the qualities that matter. Someone with an interest in what he's doing and an appreciation of the significance of the role he's filling. Someone we can all look to and feel inspired and confident that we're being led in the right direction. Isn't that what we've been lacking for the past number of years?

Remember when we used to refer to the President as the "leader of the free world". Don't hear that used much anymore. Experience? Give me inspiration!

[MPeter]

Thank you Susan. We need brains like yours to rehabilitate our image at home and abroad. We need a worldly man for a leader. It is Obama time.

[Centauri]

Ms Susan Rice, You should very clearly disclose that you are an adviser to Mr Obama.
I should not have to go to Wikipedia to find out. Here I quote from Wikipedia "She is currently serving as a foreign policy adviser to the 2008 presidential campaign of Barack Obama"

I do not think you are intentionally trying to conceal your association with Mr Obama. However it is importtant for people to know that you have a vested interest.

[mando55]

Hillary's introduction to foreign affairs as First Lady was so skewed-- she'd fly to a country and hang out w/ the first lady (or queen) of that country. I read her autobiography "Living History", granted she wrote for a general audience and wanted to get their votes, and even so, what comes across is how much she digs hanging out with the rich, famous and powerful. She was so excited that Fleetwood Mac would play for a party for her and Bill at the White House.

I don't believe she's read anything that she isn't already inclined to agree with, and i don't think she has a clue about how US foreign policy choices have hurt peoples around the world.

Obama and Edwards may have less experience, but they seem like better people, and more open to actually learning. Richardson is experienced, and could be a good President. Hillary (who is also likely to lose because she is so widely despised) could be a terrible President.

I wish we could all get together and support one of the alternative choices. I think Edwards could be the best of them- he's been most candid and courageous (next to Kucinich, who doesn't have a prayer), and I think he'd landslide into the White House.