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

[cyberhawk]

With Hillary's motives in mind who do you think has the best policies for America.Do you think that our alli's are stupid.Why is America so willing to throw away years of hard work on someone like Hillary Clinton?She has her business in a mess and she will have America's business in a mess.Barack Obama is where the experience is headed.He is squared away in his campaign and will be squared away with our Alli's.

[cyberhawk]

So what is motivating Hillary in her distructive campaign to the White House?She is runnig this race based on the follies of the 1980's media.She is stepping on everyone that has had the best interest of the Media at heart since the 1980's.She has devoured all the good works of the honest American's who have work so hard to set the Media straight since the Reagan administration.Hillary will do well in the gambling and gaming States such as Nevada and Atlantic City.She has deception on her side.She is turning this election into a dishonest election with her annoying little secretes and attitudes.You could say she is running this race off the fat of the Media.It will catch up with her ,but at our expense.

[gateley]

At this absolutely crucial time in our history, with the unprecedented unrest and wars in the Middle East, with the unsettled and fragile state of Pakistan, I want Biden to take the helm. The thought of any of the other candidates taking on these challenges at this time truly makes me nervous.

[Ono4Hoopono]

Open comment to Obama campaign people:

I would like to suggest the possiblity that Senator Obama cultivate the ability to shed a little bit of the Hawaiian good guy casual vibe when circumstances require it. Although in Hawaii that comportment is considered a sign of respect and aloha for others, and is intended to set people at ease regardless of their class or circumstances, on the mainland sometimes people read it as being too laid back or lacking forcefulness.

I have no doubt that Senator Obama can be as forceful as he wants when he's taking action, but with people, even on camera, he tends toward being unassuming and courteous, as is customary in Hawaii. No one could have accomplished what he has without personal discipline and mental toughness. I just think some mainlanders are more used to their leaders having a more blustery appearance and they may fear giving the reigns of power to someone who does not. That may be what is holding Obama back a little on the national stage. I think if he practiced and showed genuine forcefulness when it is called for, he would be unstoppable.

As background, Israel Kamakawiwo'ole, the late Hawaiian recording artist who recorded the brilliant ukulele version of "Somewhere Over The Rainbow" mentioned this aspect of Hawaiian culture in the narration in his song, "Hawai'i 78," in which he states that in Hawaii, when people strive to get ahead, they try to do so without hurting or stepping on anybody else. It doesn't mean people don't get ahead in Hawaii, they just think of how their actions will affect other people.

It's a wonderful quality that we could all learn from, and it is part of the aloha spirit. Obama's got that, and it's part of why people respond to him the way they do, so he must not lose it...I'm suggesting that he expand his public repertoire to include more forcefulness to remove any subliminal affect his casualness may have on those who fear the change he would bring, however positive it may be.

[InofTouch]

Bill Richardson...has experence in global affairs

[marika]

All this talk about experience is highly exaggerated. What we need is character and judgment. These, more than experience will allow decision-making based on fact.

It is time to pass the generation gap and elect someone who knows the modern world we live in and put an end to the Bush-Clinton dynasties.

[mommadona]

To answer your question:

Wes Clark

Leon Pannetta
http://www.panettainstitute.org/institute/leon_panetta.htm

[Ono4Hoopono]

I listened to a JFK speech the other day, and the nuance he was able to communicate so effectively was truly astounding. And it is a quality that has been hard to find in any of our leaders in any recent memory.

Senator Barack Obama is really the only person going now that is capable of that crystal clear nuance in his speech. Obama could really be an incredible leader and "unifier." He is the nearest we have had in a long time to the kind of inspiring leader that JFK and RFK were. That's what sets him apart. And he has the intelligence and creativity to invent in himself whatever he needs for that job. No president has it all going in, as Susan pointed out.

Joe Biden is definitely the most experienced, and I like that he's fed up with all the crap and isn't afraid to show it. And I'm glad to see his supporters out in full force here tonight, and I count myself among them. Biden sure called it on Pakistan, and he had the most cogent policy on Iraq of anyone early on.

Obama-Biden '08!

And if Biden gets it out there and starts showing his stuff, then I could also say:

Biden-Obama '08!

But I'd be totally happy with any other combination of Obama, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, or Edwards...it's all good with those candidates.

And Susan, it's true, we need new ideas and a new paradigm of leadership. Clinton's cheap attacks on Obama both before and after complaining of "mudslinging" in her clearly orchestrated display at the last debate was just too much for me, and with Bill and Karl rewriting history on their Iraq positions in practically the same news cycle?...Another reminder things will not change much under Hillary. To Chaz Proulx: I tried, and I'm still trying to remain objective, but when I opened the door, she threw in another toad. We need change.

[dfinLA]

Susan Rice does us all a disservice by only talking about 2 of the candidates. How can she discuss foreign policy qualifications and not mention Bill Richardson who, I believe, was just nominated for a 5th Nobel Peace Prize for his yet more of his diplomatic efforts around the world?

[Snakeback]

Nice try.

The Rove/Cheney/Bushco political smear machine will chew Obama up and spit him out. By one year the GOP would be completely derailing his agenda.

Only Hillary and Bill can fight the Rove machine, and Rove knows it, which is why Rove has been doing his behind-the-scenes nudging of Obama forward.

Obama's a good guys and has basically the right direction. But he's still wet behind the ears politically.

He needs to spend time in Congress and build a political machine.

Otherwise he's like a Palestinian kid throwing rocks at Israeli tanks. Brave, but the tanks win.

I think it will be stronger for Obama to build a network in Congress first, then be Prez.

Maybe after eight years of Clinton.

Sure, the Clintons will lie through their teeth to us. And they are warhawks too, just not as overtly as Cheneyco.

But just maybe we can get the debt more under control, return to a growing economy, restore faith in the dollar again, and start doing something to help our kids, our educational institutions, and the elderly. Probably under the Clintons that kind of progress and -dare I say it - some health care reform, is possible.

Clinton would probably not invade Iran now, but neither would she withdraw from Iraq, although she'd probably tone it down a bit.

And the Clintons may be able to get the Palestinian peace process going again - something the Bushco cred is just too utterly destroyed to do, the joke summit at Annapolis notwithstanding.

There's issues with the Clintons for sure, but they are the ones who can fight the Rove/Bushco machine right now.

Don't kid yourself: after 2008, the Bush Family, Rove and Cheney will still be potent political forces in America. Obama is a quick meal for them, while the Clintons are big dogs that can counterattack.

Sorry if it sounds cutthroat, but, well...it is.

[katiekat489]

Enjoyed reading this post-I agree with you on Obama-think he would be a great Pres and he would lead the country with vision and hope.He is really the future and his experiences qualify him very well.As far as being in the Senate for only a few years that is fine with me --tells me he is not entrenched in the old boys club.

[Herr Oberinspektor]

ALL the presidents on Mount Rushmore had very little experience before becoming president. Lincoln had two years as a congressman. Teddy Roosevelt had two years as governor of New York and six months a VP. George Washington, he was a military man. FDR(who is not on Mt Rushmore) had just four years as the governor of NY. Yet, these were our GREATEST presidents.

[THISTLE]

"Who's Got the Foreign Policy Experience We
Need?" Answer - Senator Joe Biden.
He has the most experience, is the most
respected by world leaders, he has the
intelligence, candor, honesty, and passion.
When all hell broke out in Pakistan, Bhutto
& Mishariff (sp) called Senator Biden - NOT
Hillary and certainly not Obama. And they
called Senator Biden before they called Bush.
And Senator Biden has the domestic experience
in everything from women's issues - actually
creating laws to protect women, he wrote the
bill putting 100,000 police on the streets.
He has served as Chairman - Foreign Relations
Committee, Judiciary What has Hillary
done? - Answer - NOTHING.
And Senator Biden has been tested in his
personal life, when his wife and young daughter
were killed in an auto accident, and he his
two young sons seriously hurt.
Senator Biden is clearly the most qualified,
the most experienced.
He would make an outstanding President.

[May2002]

Thank you Ms. Susan Rice for speaking everything I feel about the importance of electing a new leader who can move us forward.

Thank you for speaking with all the facts and trying to appeal to readers' logics.

Since day one I have convinced Obama's the one and have not been disappointed, even though it has been a challenging and still unpredictable race.

Hopefully the right one will eventually win.

Bush's presidency has convinced all of us that the presidential election is too important to ignore because if we choose a wrong one--such as Bush--the price is extremely high. Eight years with a bad leader can push us backward. We have not only lost the eight years but the eight years that we should have moved forward--total sixteen years.

[LizM]

First off, how can a foreign policy expert, such as yourself, write about foreign policy experience and knowledge without mentioning the leader among Democrats on foreign policy and national security who has impeccable and unimpeachable credentials in this vast realm which are wholly unmatched by any of his rivals? Of course, you will recognize this description as that of Senator Joe Biden, long-time US Senator and Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no less.

The ongoing and farcical debate about the foreign policy experience of the frontrunner pretenders would be laughable if it were not so pathetically detrimental to the well being of America and to the struggle to regain US credibility and standing in the world and the flexibility to advance a progressive domestic agenda. And so, to ask “precisely what foreign policy experience would Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama bring to the Presidency”, is to offer up a false choice and to deny the benefit to America of electing the most qualified person for these times to be the next POTUS.

It is incredible how you can write about Senator Obama’s three years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, including his chairmanship of a subcommittee, without one word about Senator Biden’s 35 years experience (he started at a very early age!) on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with many of those years as either Chairman or ranking member. But, as you make so obvious in your post, those years of exceptional experience count for nothing.

But, it is simply outrageous for you to perpetuate the false claim that is made by some of the candidates, and seemingly accepted by others, that a vote in favor of the Iraq Resolution (2002), authorizing the use of US military force should be equated with a “vote for war”. You fail to recognize the complexity inherent in that resolution and the context within which the vote took place. I believe you know better and so I must conclude that you are purposefully misleading your readers and engaging in political pandering of the very worst kind.

...to be continued...