Practice Makes Perfect

September 29, 2008 Topic: ElectionsMilitary StrategyPoliticsSecurity Region: Americas

Practice Makes Perfect

All that preparation worked after all: Obama proved he wasn’t just an empty suit by besting McCain in Friday’s debate.

During the cold war, Republicans earned the reputation of being more serious than Democrats on foreign policy. The stereotype didn't always hold true, but the American people preferred to trust their nation's safety to the GOP. However, over the last eight years the Republican Party has squandered its reputation. The results of the Bush administration's policies have ranged from failure to disaster. Although the right continues to try to live off of its cold war reputation, since 2000 the Republican Party

has nominated candidates who, despite their pretensions to the contrary, demonstrate little understanding of the complicated world around us.

In the 2004 foreign-policy debate between George W. Bush and John Kerry it was evident that President Bush knew his lines but Senator Kerry knew the substance. Whatever one thought of the policies advanced by both candidates, Senator Kerry seemed far more comfortable discussing the nuance of international relations. President Bush still won the

election, but his debate performance helped explain why administration policies consistently turned out so badly. Friday's debate between Senators Barack Obama and John McCain delivered a similar result. Senator McCain has endlessly lectured the American people on his alleged foreign policy acumen. On Friday he declared: "I honestly don't believe that Senator Obama has the knowledge or experience and has made the wrong judgments in a number of areas." Yet the debate showcased a Senator Obama who seemed comfortable discussing complex international problems, while Senator McCain traded in simplistic assertions and policy bromides. It had the feeling of Bush-Kerry redux, and not to John McCain's credit.

Iraq was a critical issue of contention. Senator McCain made much of his support for the surge in troops. "We will come home with victory," he declared. Among the consequences of defeat, which he charged would have resulted from Senator Obama's earlier support for withdrawal, would "have been increased Iranian influence," al-Qaeda "would establish a base in Iraq," and an "increase in sectarian violence." At the same time, however, he wanted to avoid debating whether his initial support for the war was justified: "The next president of the United States is not going to have to address the issue as to whether we went into Iraq or not." [sic]

But Senator Obama's rejoinder was devastating: "John, you like to pretend that the war started in 2007. You talk about the surge. The war started in 2003, and at the time when the war started, you said it was going to be quick and easy. You said we knew where the weapons of mass destruction were. You were wrong. You said that we were going to be greeted as liberators. You were wrong. You said that there was no history of violence between Shiite and Sunni. And you were wrong." Senator McCain answered with a non sequitur about Senator Obama confusing tactics and strategy, but the latter observed: "if the question is who is best-equipped as the next president to make good decisions about how we use our military, how we make sure that we are prepared and ready for the next conflict, then I think we can take a look at our judgment."

Both candidates scored points over Pakistan. Ironically, Senator Obama essentially endorsed the Bush administration's aggressive policy of launching cross-border raids, while Senator McCain uncharacteristically counseled restraint, warning that "we will have a wider war and it will make things more complicated throughout the region, including in Afghanistan." Yet McCain undercut this argument by making one of the true howlers of the evening. When Senator Obama criticized administration "coddling" of Gen./President Pervez Musharraf, including the largely wasted $10 billion in aid since 9/11, Senator McCain responded: "I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then, and had been there, and knew about it knew that it was a failed state."

Actually, there was a functioning democratic government-not terribly favorable towards America, but not obviously worse than today's regime. And it's hard to argue that things have gotten better since Musharraf seized power. Certainly Washington's standing among the Pakistani people has deteriorated dramatically. Senator McCain appeared to be reading the talking points put out by General Musharraf and his American lobbyists justifying his overthrow of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Moreover, Senator Obama landed perhaps the evening's most devastating rejoinder when he noted: "you're absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say. But, you know, coming from you, who, you know, in the past has threatened extinction for North Korea and, you know, sung songs about bombing Iran, I don't know, you know, how credible that is." Senator McCain tried to paint his record as a peacenik, but since advocating bombing the Bosnian Serbs, it is hard to find a war that he has not wanted to fight.

Neither candidate impressed on Iran. Both said it was unacceptable for Tehran to build nuclear weapons, but neither candidate made the case that Iran was close to developing a nuclear capability or that the United States could not deter an attack. Indeed, neither candidate even bothered to argue that Iran posed a threat to America. Rather, they focused on Israel, as if the security of Israel was the same as the security of America. For instance, an Iranian nuclear capability "is an existential threat to the State of Israel," said McCain. But he never explained why Israel's substantial arsenal, numbering up to two hundred nuclear warheads, would not deter Iranian action. Moreover, neither candidate confronted the costs of military action, the logical end point if "we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran," as Senator Obama put it. No one wants Iran to build nuclear weapons, but the analysis cannot stop there.

Although Senator Obama shared Senator McCain's basic premises, he did make two critically important points. The first was that the war in Iraq, Senator McCain's signature policy, had made the problem of Iran worse: "ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow."

Senator Obama's second winning argument was to advocate bilateral negotiation. The two engaged in a long, unproductive wrangle over definitions and what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had proposed. But Senator McCain demonstrated more than his usual level of confusion when he attacked Senator Obama for "parsing words" by advocating "preparation" for talks but not "preconditions." In fact, Senator Obama had it exactly right. No one engages in summitry without a lot of prior diplomatic contact and negotiations, and the belief that the result will be productive. But one rarely has diplomatic contact and negotiations, as well as productive results, if one demands preemptive surrender before talking, as would Senator McCain.

Similarly, on substance both candidates disappointed on Russia and Georgia. Neither explained why it was in America's interest to bring the latter into NATO and whether they really were prepared for war with nuclear-armed Russia to protect a small, irrelevant state along the latter's border. Senator McCain accused Senator Obama of "a little bit of naivete" in his views toward Moscow, yet it is a dangerous illusion to presume that merely threatening Russia would stop it from using force again. Like a traditional great power, the latter believes it has important if not vital interests at stake in the region while America demonstrably has none. Moreover, the best example as to what a country will fight for is what it has previously fought for.

Yet neither candidate seemed to recognize the risk of war. Are they really prepared to fight Russia over Georgia? And how would they prosecute such a war? Or would they back down and leave NATO's Article 5 commitment a dead letter? These are questions to ask-and answer-before inviting Tbilisi to join NATO.

While both candidates got the issue wrong, here, as with Iran, Senator McCain got it more wrong. He repeated his line about looking into Mr. Putin's eyes and seeing KGB, but he then demonstrated his own Bush-like tendency to personalize foreign policy by observing that "I have spent significant amount of time with a great young president Misha Saakashvili." Actually, "Misha," though personable and American educated, is a rash, demagogic, and authoritarian nationalist who has done his best to ensnare the United States in a war with Russia. Even the Europeans, not known for their tough-minded judgments, soured on Senator McCain's "Misha" after the latter cracked down on the opposition movement and media last fall. Surely we need a better reason to go to war than the fact that Senator McCain likes to talk to "Misha."

The two candidates' differences continued to show through as they were wrapping up their differences. Senator McCain said: "I've been involved, as I mentioned to you before, in virtually every major national security challenge we've faced in the last twenty-some years. There are some advantages to experience, and knowledge, and judgment." Yet the policies that he advocates demonstrate little knowledge, experience, or judgment.