Foreign policy for the next president
Foreign Affairs magazine has asked the candidates to write personal statements of what they believe should be the US' priorities for foreign policy & what their administration would do concerning these areas. The links to their statements are on this page in the lower right hand corner on the sidebar.
Pick one of the candidate's statements to read. It could be one you support, one you don't support, or one you have questions about. It's your decision.
Write a post that critiques the candidate's position. Explain why you support or don't support the candidate's viewpoints. Cover at least three of their foreign policy positions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
55 comments:
I chose to read the statement of Hillary Clinton. I agreed with her stance on many of the foreign policy topics that she addressed, and was impressed by her focus on humanitarian issues.
One very important point that Senator Clinton makes early on in her statement is that she believes that the US should not look at the military as the solution to every problem. Though she says that force is sometimes necessary, she also states that soldiers are not always going to fix everything. She made a very good point about this in saying that the US should commit to “building a world we want, rather than simply defending against a world we fear.” I really like this quote and think that this is a good way to approach foreign policy.
Related to this point, Clinton goes on to talk about ensuring that democracy delivers. “…Hunger, poverty, and the absence of economic prospects are a recipe for despair.” I agree with this idea because I believe that these are the major causes of other problems around the world, and that if so many people weren’t forced to live “on less than $2 a day” there would be a lot less conflict everywhere.
She says that if she becomes president, she will try to quickly pass the Education for All Act, which would provide money to train teachers and build schools in developing countries so that more children would have the chance to get an education. I think this is a very good plan, and necessary for the future of these nations. Having an education would create opportunities and help people to have a better life.
Another less related issue she speaks of is reducing the nuclear arsenal of the US and seeking Senate approval of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by 2009. Clinton believes that in doing this, we will set an example for other nations to stop testing nuclear weapons. I am not exactly sure what I think about this part of her statement, though I do believe that the less nuclear weapons there are in the world, the better. I am just not convinced that this plan will succeed in getting other countries to follow suit. It would make us seem less hypocritical, however, in telling other nations to get rid of their own weapons.
All in all, I agree with Hillary on many of the issues she talks about, especially the humanitarian ones. I agree with her that we should withdraw from Iraq, and that we need to work on using the military as a later resort. I think that she would make a good president of the United States.
1.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p60/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
I read John Edwards’ foreign policy statements and I agreed with most of his ideas. I think he would be a very capable president in terms of foreign policy, although some of his ideas seem rather idealistic.
One of the foreign policy issues he talked about in his statement was the United States’ relationship with growing nations. One country in particular that has grown and is showing great potential is India. However, India still suffers from widespread poverty and AIDS. By helping India with these problems and helping India get involved with the United Nations, the United States can strengthen its relationship between India. I agree with John Edwards on this issue because I think aiding India will not only help the country and its people, but will also benefit the United States in the long run as India gains power in the global community.
Another item that Edwards discussed was his proposed creation of the Marshall Corps. He explained that the Marshall Corps would consist of civilian experts that would aid in “reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions,” such as the 2004 tsunami and helping aid and rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. Edwards notes that these tasks have been previously forced upon the military, which “lacks many of the resources that are required to conduct these missions successfully.” I agree that the United States’ response to these types of global problems needs to be improved and I think that the Marshall Corps is a good idea. Although his plan does seem rather idealistic and optimistic, I think that it is much better to have trained experts deal with these problems than the military.
Moreover, Edwards talks about restoring our country’s moral leadership by overwhelming the world that “breeds radical terrorism” with the “hope that comes with universal education, democracy, and economic opportunity.” Although I do not think that this leadership, as Edwards notes, will “transform a generation of potential enemies into a generation of friends,” I think that it would definitely be beneficial for the United States and the world overall. I think that by preventing the issues he brings up, such as poverty and lack of healthcare and universal education in developing countries, could prevent other problems that we are currently struggling with, like terrorism. I agree with Edwards that fighting these problems at their roots may have long term benefits.
In general, I agree with John Edwards’ foreign policy plan and think that he would be a very capable president. I think that he has many ideas and plans that would not only benefit our country, but the rest of the world.
Source:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p50/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
I read Senator Obama's statement, and I was surprised by the number of things we agreed on.
Senator Obama believes that nuclear weapons are the greatest threat to America. He describes the poorly regulated and ungaurded nature of nuclear weapons and supplies in many countries, especially Russia. He adds that Al-Queda desires to bring "Hiroshima" to America. Although nuclear weapons did not come first to my mind, the senator makes a compelling argument for their importance to national security. He explains that through treaties, the U.S. will be more secure when it has fewer nuclear weapons. I believe this is true, because trust is the most important part of international relationships. I believe Senator Obama would be a good candidate for negotiating with other countries to lessen this threat.
A policy I found intriguing was his response to global terrorism. In addition to strengthening our intelligence community, Senator Obama wants to exercise a practice similar to the containment strategy used in the Cold War. He argues that by providing aid to suffering countries, America will gain friends in new regions of the world and lessen the likelihood that those nations will fall into the hands of an extremist government. I think this strategy has many winners because countries that need help can get it and fewer American soldiers will be sent to fight in foreign lands. I believe that in conjunction with more direct efforts, this policy could save many lives and build stronger trust in many areas of the world.
Senator Obama also believes in strengthening our alliences. I am less supportive of his ideas for NATO, but his plan for Asia sounded very progressive. Senator Obama wants to establish a permanent organization in that part of the world that will deal with a variety of problems ranging form avian flu to international trade. I think establishing such an organization will help set the tone for long team change in a region that is growing so rapidly. I wish Obama had been more specific about his plans for Latin America because his acknowledgment of the struggles there was minimal.
In conclusion, I enjoyed reading Obama's plans and policies. I was surprised by the depth of his foreign policy knowledge and his detailed analysis. It definitely made me reconsider who I'll be voting for come February.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p40/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I read the statement that Giuliani wrote. I was surprised of how many of his positions I agreed with, and like the fact that he stresses being realistic in order to achieve a “lasting, realistic peace.”
One of Giuliani’s first points in his statement is the importance of winning the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. He says that it is important to realize the violent ideology of our enemies in these countries. He also says that if we do not win in these countries, that they will become a “safe haven” for terrorist and enemies of the United States. He wants the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to develop into stable institutions that not only can be enemies of terrorists, but also allies of the U.S. I think that Giuliani has the right approach when it comes to winning the War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. If we pull out of these countries now, then they will become even more dangerous towards our national security than they are at this point in time. I think that Giuliani has a decent plan of how to deal with the War on Terror, but not necessarily the best plan of how to fight the War on Terror.
Giuliani also advocates for a stronger national defense. He wants there to be an increase in the size of the military, and he would also like an increase in the intelligence capabilities of the government. He thinks that it is important for continued advancement in technology, like the development of a national missile defense system. I believe that Giuliani’s approach to national defense is a good one. I think that the costs of these increases in defense are more than our economy can currently handle. He himself admits that it would be very expensive to increase the defense of our nation, but that the benefits of doing so would outweigh the costs. Terrorists are more active than ever, and I think that Giuliani has the right idea when it comes to defending our nation in the world today.
Finally, strengthening the international system is very important to Giuliani. He believes that we should keep strong ties with not only strong established countries, but also with countries that are rising to international prominence. According to Giuliani, we should not see these strong and rising countries as our adversaries. He says that the international system helps to provide prosperity and keep peace. I think that it is very important for the United States to participate in the international system. It will not only set an example for other countries to follow, but it will also make our allies and us stronger as a whole. I believe that Giuliani has a good plan on how to deal with our allies and how to craft U.S. foreign policy.
For the most part I agreed with Giuliani on his positions on foreign policy. As far as these issues go, I think that Giuliani would be able to do a decent job as president of the United States.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901
faessay86501-p10/rudolph-w-giuliani/
toward-a-realistic-peace.html
I read about the foreign policy issues of Senator John McCain. Though he does offer a few reasonable suggestions concerning allies, his overall views are narrow-minded and based on continuing United States world supremacy.
I disagree with Senator McCain’s view concerning the war on terror. He concludes that the war on terror is a war on extreme Islam (1). All religions have extremists yet the United States has not waged any wars against them. The United States continues to waste its resources in a war that will achieve nothing other than fuel extremist Islam. McCain’s narrow-minded view that religion rather than politics is the reason behind terrorism ignores the root causes of terrorism such as the plight of refugees, oppressive regimes and occupations, and the denial of basic human rights. The United States war on Iraq is the daily bread that terrorists’ use to fuel their cause (2). Terrorism did not have its roots in Iraq. Rather, the United States occupation was and is the reason for the terrorism that took hold in Iraq. Believing that a drawn-out campaign in Iraq will lead to a decrease in terrorism is naive. The one semi-acceptable idea that McCain offers American citizens concerning the problem of terrorism is that money should be spent on “moderate Muslims” who will oppose the extremists (1). However, this idea only works if one assumes that all terrorists are extreme Muslims.
I also dislike McCain’s idea to give Israel more weapons to “ensure that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge (1).” The suggestion that problems in the Middle East will be magically solved if we give more weapons to our allies while ignoring human rights abuses by those allies is ridiculous. The unwavering support that the United States has given to Israel has only emboldened Israel to treat Palestinians as second class citizens and ignore their legitimate rights. The Middle East will not achieve “peace” if weapons are provided to allies without any accountability; that is unless “peace” means the subservience of a people. McCain carries around the biased view that Israel is entirely innocent, which is completely misleading. I’m not saying that the Palestinians are totally innocent, but the senator must look at both sides of the story. By continuing to see only one side of the argument and believing that weapons will lead to peace, McCain is engaging in a typical example of American narrow-minded thinking.
One partially acceptable view of McCain is that the United States must gain allies and not act alone. He believes that this will be achieved through the League of Democracies (1). I question whether McCain truly believes that the League of Democracies would include diverse opinions rather than a means to exert United States supremacy. McCain’s supremacist ideas are obvious in his discussion concerning China. McCain should rejoice that so many people have become better off economically in China but instead all he can worry about is the challenge that China represents to the US (2). He is not concerned with the challenge that China’s opinions raise, but rather the challenge that China represents United States supremacy. As the United States has become more involved in the Iraq war, other countries are breaking free from the notion of United States “leadership” (2). The world does not want United States supremacy under the guise of leadership, but instead a real partner that it can work alongside.
Overall, I believe that Senator John McCain offers a poor choice to the American public. His ideas and beliefs will not lead the United States in a positive direction. Though McCain sees the need for allies, he has been unable to be rid of his narrow-mindedness and thoughts of United States world supremacy.
Sources:
1. http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p20/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
2. Schwenninger, Sherle. The Nation. 19 Nov. 2007
McCain like many of the other candidates has written a foreign policy platform that I agree and disagree with. There is no candidate that will have a foreign policy platform that I will completely agree with, which makes it hard for me to put my support behind any one person. I do agree with the idea of saving energy and becoming more self reliant. I also like the caps on emissions from commercial companies. These are some needed steps to help create an environment for future generations. I do not however agree with McCain’s plan for the war. I believe that there other ways that the war could be ended rather then sending in more troops. At this point we have lost too many lives, we do not need to endanger more. I do like the idea of uniting the world Democracies. I would like to see a more detailed plan for this area of the foreign policy platform. This is an intriguing idea that I think should be more widely discussed. These are some of the pros and cons that I see when looking at the foreign policy platform of McCain.
I chose to read Senator Barack Obama’s piece on foreign policy. I was impressed with the vision he has for foreign policy. It is clear that he has an overall goal in mind and a vision of implementing his plan. He also has an impressive knowledge of the history and accomplishments of past US leaders and what they have done right.
I agree with Obama’s stance that it is time for the US to get out of Iraq. I agree with his belief that Iraqi leaders are the only ones who can bring peace to Iraq. The fact that Obama has also proposed a specific date for all troops to have left Iraq shows leadership and his seriousness of leaving Iraq. With his belief in leaving Iraq, Obama also feels that we can shift our attention to our Middle Eastern countries like Israel. While it is clear that Obama feels that US power could help better conflicts in the Middle East, I feel that he should be more cautious of asserting the US in the conflicts of other countries, especially given our history in Iraq. I do not believe that the US should eliminate themselves completely from foreign affairs, but I do feel that our future leaders like Obama need to make sure they objectively evaluate the effectiveness of US actions in foreign affairs.
With Obama’s goal of renewed US leadership in the world, he also advocates a stronger US military. Specifically, he suggests adding 65, 000 soldiers to the army and 27, 000 marines. Obama sort of describes this process as if these numbers could be added by picking people out of thin air. I question whether we could add such numbers so easily without a draft. Despite this, I agree with his stance on using the military. Obama states he will clearly define his mission when using troops while objectively using intelligence and the advice of military commanders. I agree that a better use of our troops is necessary if Obama wishes to exert US influence in other countries.
I especially agree with Obama’s stance on restoring America’s trust in the government. Especially given the mistakes we have made in Iraq, the US people do not appear to have much trust in the US government. Obama’s goal of increasing US trust in the government is also used as a way to improve foreign policy as he believes that for foreigners to trust the US, the US must have their own people trust them first. This reflects Obama’s ultimate foreign policy vision. While I do not agree with all of Obama’s stances, I am impressed with his ability to set goals and formulate a vision at the micro and macro levels.
Governor Mitt Romney
Revitalizing and Building the military- Governor Romney believes that it is time to reinvest in modernizing and bolstering the current Military status he believes we must “add at least 100,000 troops and make a long-overdue investment in equipment, armament, weapons systems, and strategic defense”. I agree that to effectively fight a war and also protect our borders that it is time to give the military a long overdue staff and equipment boost. I agree that in order to keep our fighting men and women safe that they should have the proper equipment to protect them from the dangers of combat.
Energy independence-I found his policy very satisfactory in this area with regards to decreasing our independence on foreign oil by increasing energy efficiency and using more ethanol biodiesel more renewable fuel and other alternative fuel sources and in addition also supporting the search for a new source of fuel. The only part that bothered me was that he advocated drilling in ANWR. I don’t believe that drilling in ANWR would relieve a significant enough amount of foreign dependency to justify the repercussions of such actions. I found it ironic that he advocates the reduction of carbon emissions by fuel efficiency and then turns around and advocates drilling in ANWR seeing as they are both highly environmental issues. However, without that piece it looked to me like he had a very good plan to simultaneously reduce carbon emissions and reduce dependency on foreign oil.
Strengthening Alliances- Romney supports the repair of the relationships with our foreign allies. He also supports “We should also look for new ways to strengthen regional cooperation and security partnerships with responsible actors in order to confront challenges such as the genocide in Darfur” I definitely agree that it is time we started to repair our image in the world and repair relationships in the world in order to consolidate an effective effort to end mass genocide in the world. He also plans if elected to bring together modernized nations many muslim states to support moderate muslims against radical and violent Islam. I think this is an excellent idea I think its time we started a team effort to eliminate violent radicals to protect everyone on earth.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p40/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
Senator Obama has been criticized for his comments about Pakistan by everyone. Senator Clinton has been one of his biggest denouncers and because of it it is constantly in the news. Sen. Obama cannot escape this comment. However if we look at his foreign policy article, we can see that he is a very complex candidate. I agreed with most of the things Sen. Obama wrote about.
He has different stances on different issues. The first I looked at was how we can move beyond Iraq. He believes that the war in Iraq was a “diversion from the fight against the terrorists who struck on 9/11” and because of it he believes that the US should leave the country and leave the Iraqi government deal with their issues. He would like to have all of the troops home by March 2008. He believes that only The Iraqi leaders can bring real peace to Iraq and the US should make clear that it doesn’t seek to put bases in Iraq. The next thing Sen. Obama would like to see happen is the US having talk with Israel. He believs that Israel should get some help in finding goodf allies that are looking for peace. What intrigued me was that he does not mention the Palestinians at all. I would have expected him to actually support the Palestinians because he is the one candidate who preaches peace all the time. The next issue he tackles is US-Iran relations. He believes that the US should have talks with Iran and have tougher sanctions. I do agree that a war with Iran would be silly but I disagree that sanctions are useful just because I think that Iran would find a way to get around the sanctions and they would still create a nuclear bomb. I also believe that Iran could be dangerous but I strongly disagree with the fact that the US sees itself morally responsible to stop Iran from creating a nuclear bomb. I don’t understand why we get involved. It’s not our business and we should stay out. Barack Obama believes that the US should show Iran what it’s like to be peaceful and what diplomatic relations would do for their relationship. Once again, I don’t understand why the US should do this.
The next thing that he wants to do as a president is to revitalize the military. Eighty-eight percent of the National Guard is not prepared to deploy oversees and that is very scary. He understands that the military is not doing very well and he believes that the US should add 65000 soldiers to the army and 27000 marines to make the military more cohesive and more successful. He also says that if he does want to deploy troops he will define the mission, seek advice and ensure that the troops have the necessary means to actually win the fight. What I agreed with was when he said that if he would get involved in a fight that was not in self defense he would get the support from many countries. President Bush did not do this and the war in Iraq is one big mess.
Now, I agreed with many of his policies but they way he wants to combat global terrorism, scares me a little bit. I agree that Pakistan and India should have a discussion about Kashmir. That conflict has always been a possible nuclear war and I would feel safer if it would be settled. But he wants to build a partnership resembling the anticommunist partnerships the US had during the Cold War. What scares me is that Senator Obama doesn’t seem to have taken AP US History where students like me learned that the Cold War was really detrimental to the US. The US was always at risk of an attack and it institutionalized a military-industry complex where countries go to war just so they can use up their weapons. I also strongly disagree with his policy on homeland security. He wants tougher searches in airports. If anyone has been in an airport since 9/11 they know that going through the search process can be very cumbersome. They search everywhere and they start to profile people after seeing hundreds of faces everyday. I don’t think we should be tougher in airports. If we continue what we’re doing and we get out of the ”war on terror” then I don’t think we will be afraid of terrorist attack anymore.
In conclusion, I still like Mr. Obama but I do think some of his decisions are a little questionable. I really do hope that if he gets elected, he will become a bit more moderate on some of the issues. Maybe more experience (and maybe if he sits in Mr. Faulk’s class for a while) will get him to think about his decisions. He should understand that his ideas could be beneficial to the US but he really does need to understand that if they are not realistic, they won’t happen.
I chose to comment on Rudy Giuliani's foreign policy issues. The first foreign policy issue that Giuliani addressed was that it is going to be important to winning early battles of the war in the Middle East.The purpose of this is to defeat terrorists and the insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and to allow these countries to become members of the international in good standing. I agree with Giuliani's point that in order to gain strength in the Middle East that the U.S. will have to win early battles. If we did not succeed in early battles the nation would appear weak and vulnerable to defeat. However, I think it is important to withdraw from the war in a timely manner. This does not mean pulling out as soon as the new President is in office, but gradually retreating until the troops are eventually gone. I believe the war is a lost cause and that you cannit suddenly stop a region that is constantly at war. Another foreign policy issue that Giuliani proposed was a stronger defense. This includes rebuilding a military force that can deter aggression and meet the wide variety of present and future challenges. Giuliani also proposed that the Army needs a minimum of ten new combat brigades. Again, I do not agree with more military spending at all. The U.S. is currently dealing with a $700+ billion tax deficit. Increasing spending on military would be a really poor choice right now since our country should probably be worrying about its citizens and rebuilding the economy. The final foregin policy issue I'm going to comment on is determined diplomacy. According to Giuliani, diplomacy should never be a tool that our enemies can manipulate to their advantage. Also, the U.S. should never accept bad negotiations. I agree with this whole idea of diplomacy because I think it's important for the president to make choices that are in the best interest of the nation.
www.foreignaffairs.org
www.wikipedia.org
Mitt Romney’s foreign policy statement is vague and nebulous. Barely once does he provide a clear and feasible option to solving the problems he outlines in his statement. He says that it is vital that we add 100,000 troops to our national defense, while ignoring the fact that the military is having great difficulty in meeting its recruitment quotas. Where will we get these 100,000 troops to add to the existing military? Even if the 100,000 troops were available, his basic theory that a stronger military will solve the world’s problems is inherently flawed. He uses a quote by former president Reagan, who said “There have been four wars in my lifetime. None of them came about because the United States was too strong.” Using this impeccable example of fallacious logic, no wars have come about because spousal abuse is prevalent in the U.S., either. Clearly, this doesn’t mean that spousal abuse is a positive activity. I am having trouble seeing the link between more fighters and increased peace. “Oh, but we’re fighting the terrorists!” some will claim. There is no argument as to whether there was an Al Qaida presence in Iraq before the United States invaded, that claim is patently false. So, now the United States military is fighting terrorists that they have created. More troops would merely exacerbate this problem.
A second problem Romney addresses are civil rights abuses, and while I agree that these should be one of the foremost issues in every politician’s mind, he provides no concrete plan to ending the genocide crisis in Darfur or the humanitarian crises in Myanmar, he merely mentions them by name once and moves on once again to strengthening the US against “radical Islam”.
An interesting, and frightening, item to note is that Romney claims that we need to “change the hearts and minds of hundreds of millions of Muslims” in order to end the practice of jihad across the globe. However, not only is this racist and assuming that all Muslims support violent holy war, it is false. Nowhere does Romney cite information claiming that “hundreds of millions” of Muslims support suicide bombs and violence. Romney is merely perpetuating a dangerous stereotype that paves the way for the United States to invade more Middle Eastern countries.
For my analysis of a third point, Romney supports “energy independence” for the United States. While a noble goal that all sensible politicians support, he provides no clear solution and merely states we need to “stop sending almost $1 billion a day to other oil-producing nations” and “rein in greenhouse gas emissions”. No clear solution is offered here, and he is reducing this important issue to a mere talking point that has no significant meaning.
In conclusion, Romney’s foreign policy platform is shaky and illogical. Not only does he not provide clear solutions to pressing problems, he uses faulty logic and dangerous statements when concerning Muslim relations with the United States. Romney’s statements are reminiscent of the fear mongering that the current administration utilized against Muslim states before we invaded Iraq. I do not believe that Romney has a solid position on any foreign policy issue at all.
-Silas “that whiny liberal” Berkowitz
All quotations taken from
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86402-p20/mitt-romney/rising-to-a-new-generation-of-global-challenges.html
Rudy Giuliani has the ultimate goal of building everlasting peace. In order to achieve this, his foreign affair policies involve more violence (a course to win the “war on terror”) and strengthening of the international system. Giuliani persists in advocating a “realistic peace” through a balance of “realism” and “idealism”. Yet, lacking in his policies is the very realistic idea that America isn’t exactly the most favored country in the world right now. Many countries are slumping away from the U.S.’s overbearing presence in foreign affairs. Giuliani compares the Iraq war to the Vietnam War, demonstrating how America’s withdrawal of troops allowed the Communist North to overcome the South. He seems not to recognize the level of morale in the U.S. at that time was very low, there was a draft instate, and that we were not winning. He doesn’t recognize the cost of this war either. A Joint Economic Committee reported that the cost of the Iraq war between 2003 and 2008 will be $607 billion dollars (newsweek). That’s a lot of money, and Americans are paying for it. Another topic Giuliani covers is the possibility of building a national defense missile system. Again, I do not see the peace-like qualities in this idea. We need to re-establish our presence in the world as a less arrogant, more peace-seeking country, and I do not see how building up our missile system and heightening the war on terror will do that. Later in his statement, Giuliani also criticizes the United Nations. If his aim is to strengthen the international system, I would say it is wise not to openly criticize the organization that has 192 countries active in it and has its world headquarters in New York City (wikipedia). Ultimately, Giuliani needs to recognize the importance of working with other countries and their leaders. This is what foreign policy is about, and we need to improve on our current standing in the world.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/70391
www.wikipedia.com
For this blog post I chose to analyze Senator Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy stance. Her view of the issue breaks down very simply. First, she feels we have to get out of Iraq. Then we as a nation need to focus more on statesmanship. We need to build relations with other countries to spread the message of democracy peacefully.
I agree completely with all of Senator Clinton’s plan. The United States has run into a period of isolation from other powerful nations. After the September 11th attacks, the Bush administration had a chance to create a unified front against terrorism all across the world, but instead of going along with the United Nations, President Bush chose to invade Iraq.
The first step in Senator Clinton’s plan is to withdraw from Iraq. I also believe this is the first step in regaining our respectability on the world scale. The Iraq War was opposed by the United Nations from the beginning, and the best way to get on better footing in the world is to cooperate with the United Nations.
After that, it is simply a matter of reaching out through diplomacy rather than warfare. It won’t be easy establishing ties with nations that generally turned against us in public opinion during the Bush administration.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
Obama’s foreign affair policies cover far more than the War in Iraq. He also wishes to focus on halting the spread of nuclear weapons and to focus on rebuilding our allies and forming new partnerships to strengthen our global impact positively.
Obama believes the best way to leave Iraq a better country is to pressure warring parties to find a lasting political solution. He plans to accomplish this by applying pressure by phasing out U.S. troops with the goal of removing all combat troops by the end of March 2008. (I do not understand how Obama has jurisdiction over U.S. troops before he even has the ability to be elected into office). He goes onto say that this process of removing troops could be temporarily suspended if the Iraqi government meets political and social benchmarks. He ultimately believes, “only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country”. I do not agree with this statement. I see a fundamental flaw in his logic: the Iraqi government does not want U.S. troops in Iraq so I do not foresee them bowing to Washington’s wishes to meet U.S. standards only to keep the troops there for a longer period of time. Obama goes on to say the U.S. should, “launch a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq”. I agree with this statement; however, I once again doubt his logic in initiating such a plan. “We should leave behind only a minimal over-the-horizon military force in the region to protect American personnel and facilities, continue training Iraqi security forces, and root out al Qaeda.” This plan simply put will not be effective in practice. A ‘minimal’ amount of troops will not be capable of rooting out al Qaeda while also protecting Americans in Iraq. Also, this plan does not foster ending the civil war in Iraq. The civil war is between the two religious sects the Shiites and Sunnis—this plan does nothing to foster peace between the two groups. Obama’s plan seems like a political copout to lightly brush off the conflicts in Iraq where we now have a political responsibility to follow through on helping rebuild the country we helped destroy.
Obama made it clear that as president, he will make it a top priority to halt the spread of nuclear weapons, “I will work with other nations to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons… America must lead a global effort to secure all nuclear weapons and material at vulnerable sites within four years”. I agree with this statement because nuclear weapons are such a grave threat to mankind. I do fault Obama for not specifying which countries will join in this effort with the U.S. I see this as a flaw because we cannot continue invading countries to disarm weaponry alone. If not handled correctly, this could turn into another Iraq situation. He goes on to say that he says he will negotiate a global band on the production of new nuclear weapons material. I see this as a step in the right direction. I also commend him for stating that the U.S. must be a leader in the mission to deemphasize nuclear weapons by scaling back out nuclear program. Over all, I think Obama has the right idea about stopping the production of nuclear weapons: they do not facilitate peace and no good can come from using them.
Obama realizes that foreign affair policies must often be an international effort. He plans to rebuild our ties to our allies in Europe and Asia and strengthen our relations throughout the Americas and Africa. He wants to do this by rallying our NATO allies to give more troops to security operations and to invest more in reconstruction and stabilization missions. He wants to use NATO to build alliances with Asian countries to promote a stability and prosperity and to help confront international threats ( anywhere from terrorist cells in the Philippines to the avian flu in Indonesia). He also acknowledged global warming as being an International effort. He prefaced his plan to work with other nations to develop alternative energies by saying that the U.S., as the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, has the greatest responsibility to lead by example through enacting a cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions. I entirely agree with his plan and philosophy of the international responsibility of protecting the environment. He is correct in saying that we must be at the forefront of the environmental movement, and that we must help other countries develop better methods of using energy.
Obama’s plan in Iraq is neither a satisfactory or comprehensive enough solution in my opinion. I do, however, believe that his ideas about stopping nuclear weapon production and his ideas about building up our international relations are right on track. Although I don’t think he has everything right, I do very much approve of his take on being part of a global effort for the good of all people—“the mission of the United States is to provide global leadership grounded in the understanding that the world shares a common security and a common humanity”.
www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama
ok... sorry about not having paragraphs it didn't post in the right format
I read Barack Obama's foreign policy statement, and found that I agreed with the vast majority of what he had to say. One thing in particular that impressed me was the amount of attention he placed on the long run results of present action or inaction. For example, Senator Obama names nuclear proliferation the number one threat to national security, which is a topic that most other candidates haven't addressed, to my knowledge.
In his statement, Obama focuses on the conflict in the entire Middle East, rather than just our own troop situation in Iraq, which I approve of; it shows commitment to resolving conflicts that may have led to 9/11 and the war in Iraq. Regarding Iraq itself, Obama supports ending the Iraq war responsibly and moving on to other, larger problems that need to be addressed; he believes that military force cannot resolve a civil war between Shiite and Sunni factions in Iraq; and he believes that we should begin withdrawing troops, in light of this. I support all of this; however, I am less sure about his stance on Israel. Regarding Israel, he maintains that we need to commit to the security of Israel; what he does not specify is what form that support would take. The US has provided weapons to Israel in the past, and Obama is ambiguous regarding to what extent he will provide for the security of Israel.
Another major aspect of his foreign policy would involve rebuilding alliances with other nations in order to tackle common threats with shared power. This is something that I also support strongly, because I've felt that the US has long ceased to be able to either pursue actions (such as military action) without consequence or withdraw from the rest of the world; we have become interdependent on the rest of the world for our own survival.
Overall, I found Obama's foreign policy to be surprisingly well articulated and farsighted, as well as aligning very closely to my own views.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I chose to read Senator Obama’s statement. I was surprised by how widespread his plans were, not only focusing on Iraq, but really almost all international relations. Indeed, I agreed with most of his ideas.
To start off with, Barack Obama addressed the problems in Iraq and how we could deal with them. Obama made a point of how invading Iraq was a move based on outdated ideas. While the United States was attacked on September 11, there is no one foreign country to blame, and to attack Iraq in retaliation was foolish. I agreed with this statement very much, for most people who have supported war in Iraq actually believed the country was behind 9/11, which is undoubtably false. He then went on to say that while the fighting of different factions in Iraq is regrettable, it is not the United State’s job to end their civil war. Obama stated that peace in Iraq can only be achieved by it’s own citizens and leaders. Overall, I was surprised by how much I agreed with his view on the war in Iraq.
However, Obama’s statement also fortunately addressed other issues in foreign policy as well. He stated that the U.S. needs a stronger military, for the sake of peace, which I do not agree with. He also suggested the United States be a key part of achieving peace in the Middle East. While I like peace as much as the next person, I feel that this is more the responsibility of the U.N. and organizations of many countries, not just the United States. I strongly agreed with several of his suggestions of ways to prevent terrorism. As we can see looking back on Nazi Germany, it is the most desperate of people that are will to accept and become a part of such radicalism. I agreed with Obama’s statements of how we as a country need to learn to once again work with other countries to stop terrorism, global warming, and the spread of nuclear weapons.
Overall, Obama’s statement was clear and positive. However, past suggestions of possible with war in Pakistan and his insistence that we must continue to be deeply involved in Middle Eastern politics leaves me uncertain as to whether or not Barack Obama is the best possible Democratic nominee in the upcoming election. However, Obama does most definitely seem ready to try to restore the U.S.’s reputation and improve international relations.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I chose Hillary Clinton as my candidate.
What I found most interesting and most thought-provoking about Hillary’s foreign policy goals was her section devoted to the War in Iraq. Although she asserts that she would be more than willing to use military force to protect America or its interests, she also states that the human cost of war is astounding. As president, if Senator Clinton was to invade a country, I’m sure that she would choose not to remark on the human costs of her war. After all, it is much easier to criticize someone else’s policies than your own.
What I agree with most is Senator Clinton’s point of helping the Iraqi people. Over the past four and a half years, millions of Iraqi citizens have suffered as a result of our occupation, watching their city crumble before their eyes. It is the Iraqis whom we must help to rebuild their nation, and the Iraqis that America should invest in. If we help the Iraqi to rebuild their country, they will also begin to reinvest in their nation’s economy, and this is essential to the country’s success. Although it might sound like a good idea, pumping money into a fledgling government cannot assuredly make its way back to the people.
I also support Senator Clinton’s positions concerning the treatment of veterans. Although the President has always praised veterans for their essential assistance throughout the years, he has also vetoed many pieces of legislation aimed at helping returning veterans. On November 13th, President Bush vetoed:
“• $3.4 billion for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), which provides mental health and suicide prevention services - at a time when the Army suicide rate is at its highest in over 25 years.
• $10 million for treating Brain Injury Prevention for our veterans.
• $5.2 billion for Veteran Job Training and placement programs, as well as homelessness prevention programs that benefit our veterans.” 1
It is essential that we take care of our troops once we are home, especially if we forecast pulling all troops out of Iraq.
Lastly, I particularly enjoyed reading Senator Clinton’s views on human rights. I personally believe that human rights cannot be sacrificed, no matter what the situation, and I believe that President Bush has violated human dignity by condoning torture. By focusing on human rights on a global as well as domestic scale, I think that Senator Clinton is dedicated to preserving basic human dignity across the globe.
1: http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20071113/cm_huffpost/072422
I chose to critique the foreign policy viewpoints of Mitt Romney. The first point that I wanted to bring up is the fact that Mitt Romney believes that the first thing our nation needs is 100,000 more troops. I strongly disagree with this point of view because I think that our nation and other nations have suffered enough unnecessary casualties. Along with that point, I think that 100,000 more troops would be quite hard to find. At this point our military is already feeling the pressure of low enlistment (which is why they have been upping the ante on trying to recruit young people). People, I don’t think will be as willing to fight in this war for much longer if it keeps going the way it is. Fighting is not going to solve all of our problems.
The second point I wanted to address is Governor Romney’s opinion about energy independence. I agree with Romney on that fact that our nation needs to become more energy independent. We need to learn to use energy more efficiently in our cars, homes and businesses. However, I don’t think that we should be looking as much into becoming more independent on the basis of oil drilling. I think we should be looking more into becoming independent using alternative energy resources. Drilling more offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should not be what this country should be relying on. We should be focusing more on more renewable and environmentally safe energy.
The last point that I wanted to comment on is Mitt Romney’s views on alliances. I agree that our nation needs to revitalize and strengthen old alliances and work to create new ones. Obviously the United States can’t save the ENTIRE world ALL by itself (note: hint of sarcasm…). I don’t think that we need alliances so much for the idea of having help to “control” other places but rather for the fact that I think America could use some support. What I mean by support is that at this point it seems as though our nation is just over here being extremely defensive. It is as though we feel the need to do everything and that everything is our responsibility to make into what we think is correct. We seem to be a nation who believes that we are alone and that everyone and everything is an enemy of ours. My belief is that if all countries create a few alliances eventually we will all technically be aligned with each other, which I think could have the potential to create much more peaceful situations. Hey a girl can dream right?!
~Asia
In reviewing the foreign policy statement of Senator Obama, I found myself maintaining generally concurrent stances. Overall, his plans and hopes were realistic while still being progressive. Reviewing in greatest detail his positions on nuclear weapons, global terrorism, and international partnerships, I was able to distinguish my convictions from his.
Senator Obama makes clear his opinion that the increase in nuclear weapons worldwide is presently the most pressing threat to the United States. Furthermore he expresses the catastrophic potential that these weapons possess, and the large quantity of supplies for these weapons that are currently in existence throughout the world. It is his hope to, “Secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons,” in a timely manner. I agree with this method because it provides an effective plan for solving our immediate situation as well as implementing preventive measures for the future. It is important that we take action to locate and eliminate these dangerous weapons. Their continued existence creates a looming threat for all. Senator Obama goes on to promote the development and enhancement of programs like and International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor and enforce nuclear activity. Lastly Obama encouraged direct action against Iran and North Korea specifically to prevent nuclear terror from erupting in either region. In this matter, however, I slightly disagree with his bold targeting. Actions taken in this manner may be received as threatening and could cause these countries to strike defensively.
On the matter of combating global terrorism, Barack Obama promotes a strong cooperative resistance. Citing this he referenced the widespread and withstanding, “Anticommunist alliance that won the Cold War.” Obama also proposes strengthened home security and a more honed intelligence system through which to accomplish an international cohesion. I agree with these positions of Senator Obama, that worldwide policy and agreement is an ambitious yet undeniable necessity and that a sharpened intelligence system will allow us a crucial understanding of the situation.
Accordingly, I support Senator Obama’s focus on international partnerships. He states, “Our alliances require constant cooperation and revision,” and as relationships and circumstances are ever-changing this certainly applies. Promoting specifically a further developed partnership with East Asia, I again agree that this perpetually growing region is a natural and logical connection for our country to make and maintain in. As Obama states, this is a key objective the aim to, “Promote stability and prosperity and help confront transitional threats.” He goes on to state that current international peacekeeping efforts are overextended. Matters are acknowledged but never acted upon. Incorporating other nations into UN activity and tightening the organization will allow for more accomplishments across the globe. Lastly, Senator Obama supports America’s leadership in dealing with the ominous implications of climate change. As the world’s greatest contributor to the problem, I fully support his assertion that America should also be number one in the solution. “Binding and enforceable commitments to reducing emissions,” will provide a strong base for an answer to this heated issue.
Overall, the foreign policy positions of Senator Obama were in accordance with my beliefs on the matters presented. I feel that many of the priorities and solutions expressed by him were ones that I myself would cite as most pressing in the world today. It is my further hope that these foreign policy matters are effectively addressed with the coming election.
After reading Senator Obama’s statement, I found that I generally agreed with his approach to foreign policy. Barack Obama has a clear, comprehensive plan on how to deal with the threat of terrorism and the current situation in Iraq. Obama believes that after Iraq, we should not turn inward but rather renew our leadership as a great nation. He states, “America cannot meet this century's challenges alone; the world cannot meet them without America.” I believe this to be a good approach to the issues we face around the world. However, we must also learn from our past mistakes and be cautious in our involvement with other nations.
First, Obama believes that we should “bring the Iraq war to a responsible end and refocus our attention on the broader Middle East.” I could not agree with Obama more on this statement. Iraq is a complicated situation in which the United States has done all it can do and more than it ever should have done in the first place. Too many valuable lives have been lost and too much money has been spent in this tiresome process of attempting to build a stable democracy in Iraq. As Obama states, “The U.S cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions.” I support Obama’s opinion that the only way we will leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these factions to come up with a solution. Obama believes beginning to withdraw U.S troops will put pressure on these groups to do so. The United States cannot impose democracy on Iraq. It must be an accepted idea. It is now up to the Iraqi leaders to work towards creating a stable government. Obama stated that he hopes for the removal of all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008. I do not understand how Barack Obama will have much influence over this since he would not technically be in office by this date however, Obama does seem to have more specific goals in mind which displays that he actually has set policies on the War in Iraq as opposed to other candidates who remain ambiguous on their plans for Iraq. Of course, Obama does not just want to leave Iraq completely alone to suffer the consequences. He feels that we should launch “a comprehensive regional and international diplomatic initiative to help broker an end to the civil war in Iraq, prevent its spread, and limit the suffering of the Iraqi people.” Obama also states that we should continue to train Iraqi forces and root out Al Qaeda. I feel that this policy would be a step in the right direction. Obama believes that by changing the dynamic in Iraq, the U.S will be able to focus on conflicts in other Middle Eastern countries. I think the U.S should keep a watchful eye on the development of nuclear weapons in other countries. However, we should be careful not to get involved in another conflict that we are not equipped to handle. We must have a clear plan and the support of other nations before we get involved in further conflicts throughout the world. The threat of nuclear weapons is a serious concern that Obama also plans to address.
Obama wants to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. He wants to ensure that nuclear weapons do not fall into the hands of terrorists. The result of this would be catastrophic and would pose a serious threat to the United States in addition to many other countries. Obama plans to work with other countries “to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world.” Obama believes we should cooperate with Russia “to update and scale back our dangerously outdated Cold War nuclear postures and de-emphasize the role of nuclear weapons.” I must criticize Obama for this ideology since it will be rather difficult to cooperate with Russia and gain their support in a united coalition against Iran’s development of nuclear weapons due to Russia’s trading partnership with Iran. Obama also hopes to gain support for the ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty while in office. Clearly the world would be a much safer place if no one had any nuclear weapons. Unfortunately this is not the case and probably never will be. Although Obama’s idea is a good one, I feel that it will fail to succeed in the world we live in today. Many nations will remain persistent in refusing to compromise with the U.S and the potential threat of terrorists building weapons of mass destruction will always be a viable concern. Obama hopes to create a strong international coalition against Iran and North Korea in regard to their nuclear weapons programs. I agree that we must gain the support of other nations to attempt to halt this threat. My only concern is whether we will actually be able to succeed in doing so.
Lastly, Obama favors direct, aggressive diplomacy before military action. As I have stated before, I agree that we should first attempt to solve conflicts throughout the world with negotiation and peacekeeping. I think the U.S has learned due to our failures in Iraq that military action should be used as a last resort. As Obama states, “I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy -- the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.” I think that Obama should really attempt to uphold this policy and be cautious in getting involved in conflicts such as the Israel/Palestinian conflict that he mentions that U.S should address.
Overall, I support many of Barack Obama’s stances on foreign policy however there are certain aspects of his policy that concern me. He seems to want to take initiative to solve many of the conflicts in the Middle East however; we must continue to consider the consequences of our actions. Nonetheless, I do have faith in Obama’s ability to restore the leadership position of the U.S.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I chose to read John Edwards' statement on foreign policy.
In general, I agree with Mr. Edwards' statements that America needs to move beyond the Iraq War and earn back the respect of other nations. He mentions that our country's approval rating from other countries such as Turkey and Indonesia have plummeted drastically.
Mr. Edwards believes that terrorist groups should be confronted by the full might of the military, but believes that "the war on terror" was a failure because our invasion of Iraq was like a portrayal of, in his words, "the jihadists' narrative that we want to conquer the Muslim world." I agree that the Iraq war backfired on the US plan to curb terrorism, but Mr. Edwards does not mention what it was that the Bush administration did wrong in the process of attacking Iraq, and does not mention what he would do instead. He says that he would never hesitate to use the full power of the military against terrorists, but to me, that would seem to lead to another Iraq. It seems that he is quick to criticize, and leaves out how he would have done things differently.
Another issue that Mr. Edwards talks about is Iran. He believes that Iran should be dealt with like a parent disciplining his or her child. Everything that can be done to isolate Iran and its dangerous leader should be done, from using greater sanctions to negotiating through diplomacy to make sure Iran knows that we do not wish them to have nuclear weapons. I agree with Mr. Edwards on this point; the current administration has not done enough to show our displeasure of a leader who believes that the holocaust did not happen and that Israel should be wiped off the map. We need to follow through on our struggle to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Mr. Edwards also believes that we should reach out to the emerging powers such as China, Russia, and India. We should strive to put more importance on international relations and build upon these relations with new countries. Although it sounds appealing, I don't believe that we could have good relations with these countries for quite a while. Russia, for example, is a country where democracy is in danger of collapsing, and China is already a communist country. My belief is that we would only want to reach out to these countries in order to keep an eye on them and try and influence them to implement our way of democracy. I see this as a possible conflict between the Western and Eastern nations in the future; the Eastern nations will want to be left alone.
Overall, I'd say that Mr. Edwards' comments sound good, but implementation could be difficult.
Source: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
When I began reading former Senator John Edwards’ foreign policy piece, courtesy of the Foreign Affairs, I was filled with optimism, hope, and assurance. Phrases such as “move beyond…one of the greatest strategic failures in U.S. history: the war in Iraq” and “We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity” create hopeful images of a great America (1).
At first, I felt the policy was lacking action. Yes, there are many facts about how our approval rating has dropped in some countries from 75% to 33% (1). And there are many criticism’s of the Bush administration and the lack of leadership it shows. John Edwards addresses “back in the day” standards, when a president, “did not just speak to Americans-he spoke to the world” (1).
After reading through two pages of what we should be, I finally got to the point of concrete actions Edwards plans to take as president. Naturally, as every presidential candidate has, Edwards addresses the war in Iraq. Stating that it’s one of the “greatest strategic failures in U.S. history,” Sen. John Edwards proposes immediate withdrawal of combat troops. Once we are out of Iraq, he believes the U.S. needs to “retain sufficient forces in the region to prevent a genocide, regional spillover of the civil war, or the establishment of an al Qaeda safe haven.” (1) I agree with Senator Edwards in needed to get out of the war as quickly as possible. He and I have similar beliefs in that the United States needs to reestablish its place as a role model in the world and as a world power. As to his approach to ending the Iraq war, I believe it is do-able.
Again, Sen. John Edwards stresses the need to reengage with the world’s major powers. We need to maintain or repair partnerships with longtime allies, and rebuild long-neglected relationships with Latin American countries. I don’t see a strong action Mr. Edwards plans to take in securing our place as a country to be looked up to, but the ideology is there, and I agree with it.
Finally, Senator Edwards addresses building up our national defenses. When reading through Mr. Edwards national defense bit, I found that there were many criticisms of the Bush administration, but little action policy. Many of John Edwards’ points indicated what needs to be done, but not any particular way to go about it. He does, however, offer at the end of the report, that he plans to create “a national security budget that will include all security programs at the Pentagon and the Department of Energy, as well as our homeland security, intelligence, and foreign affairs. The national security budget will eliminate wasteful and counterproductive overlaps and gather all of our resources behind a unified strategy.” (1)
In conclusion, I found Sen. John Edwards to have great ideas as to what needs to happen. However, I was slightly disappointed in the lack of programs or actions that should be followed up. Mr. Edwards can clearly find the flaws in the Bush administration, but needs to give more detail in what he will do as president.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
I looked at Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy as it was explained in his personal statemetn for Foreign Affairs magazine and thought that he had some good ideas. The first issue I looked at was his view on the war in Iraq. Giuliani writes that war in Iraq is very important, and that “Our aim should be to help them build accountable, functioning governments that can serve the needs of their populations, reduce violence within their borders, and eliminate the export of terror” (1). Giuliani goes on to stress that Iraq is especially important because if we give up and leave, it could become susceptible to the influence of other countries, especially Iran, that are a threat to the free world. Giuliani also notes that our leaving in the Vietnam war allowed the communists in North Vietnam to take over South Vietnam, and that change in power led to violence in other places (Cambodia) (1). I think Giuliani is right to consider all the consequences of pulling out of Iraq right away. The threat of Iran gaining a foothold in Iraq if we left right away is very real. Although some do not consider Iran a serious threat, I disagree. According to a CNN news story, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has made statements such as the holocaust is “a myth” and that Israel should be “wiped off the map” (2). Although I do not support going to war with Iran, I think messages like these should be a warning to the rest of the world that Iran is a threat. I am glad that Giuliani recognizes the importance of President Ahmadinejad‘s remarks and Iran‘s capabilities.
Giuliani also writes in his personal statement that defense spending should be increased. He advocates a national missile defense system (1). I agree that there is more danger in the world, especially from terrorism, and that defense spending will protect us in the long run. However, I do not think we can afford the plans Giuliani is pressing for. A new missile defense system will be very costly, which Giuliani acknowledges, and I do not think America could realistically fund this new program and the war in Iraq.
Giuliani stresses more intelligence efforts to prevent terrorist attacks in America, and he supports more technology for our intelligence efforts (1). I strongly agree with Giuliani’s idea of increasing our efforts to prevent a terrorist attack. Giuliani wrote, “… [the] Proliferation Security Initiative, a global effort to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction and related materials, should be expanded and strengthened” (1). I think that expanding this initiative is a very good decision which would increase our national security, and help counter terrorism with a global effort.
I also agree with Giuliani’s support of the Patriot Act in his personal statement. I believe the Patriot Act could save many lives if terrorists living in America are caught and thus unable to carry out terrorist attacks. A article in the New York Times describes the arrest of four men who allegedly were “…plotting to blow up fuel tanks, terminal buildings and the web of fuel lines running beneath Kennedy International Airport [ in New York City]” (3). Information said by one of the suspects to an informant (which was recorded) helped to uncover this alleged terrorist plot (3). This is an example of how intelligence efforts can play a key role in preventing terrorist attacks. I also support Giuliani’s hope for more security at ports and borders, however he does not explain how he intends to increase security in these areas.
Although I do not think all of Giuliani’s plans are realistic, I agree with most of his plans, and I think he would be a capable leader.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p20/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
(2) http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/12/14/iran.israel/
(3) http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/nyregion/03plot.html?pagewanted=2
I chose to research John Edwards because I know very little about him.
The first foreign policy issue I chose to read about is the war on terror or specifically the war in Iraq. Senator Edwards promotes immediate withdrawal of 40,000-50,000 troops from Iraq. He then proposes we gain allies to support the cause to prevent genocide from occurring in Iraq. He thinks we should do this internationally by allowing several nations control zones. Edwards realizes that terrorism has increased by 20% in a mere 18 months and that something must be done to control it. He suggests that the US gets on the “offense” rather than the “defense.” The goal is to protect the homeland. As of today foreign countries such as Iran, China, and Russia are monopolizing on our unpopularity. That is not to say that we should do nothing it is just we need to protect ourselves and promote democracy before we use military force. Al-Qaeda will require US military action and other countries military power in order to defeat it, the opportunity just hasn’t arisen yet.
I agree that the US should be on the offense and promoting national security before we bother attacking others. But the truth is we already have and so now we must do something about it. To me I think pulling out is a bad idea because I am almost positive genocide will erupt in Iraq. Senator Edwards does make a good point in saying that he is aware in order to defeat al-Qaeda we must use military strength, but we must first get alliances who will fight with us and we must be certain as to where, when, and how to attack.
The second foreign policy issue I read about was on foreign relations and goals. In the coming years it is important for international power to increase, boundaries to be redrawn, promote democracy, and most of all unite the nations. Stressing the importance of constitutionalism, pluralism, respect, freedom, and laws will make the world a better place. Continuation of limiting the use of dangerous chemicals on the earth, finding cures to diseases, and fixing world hunger also will contribute to better relations abroad. Senator Edwards specifically cites ways to help Darfur. He suggests we use 3,000 NATO troops to patrol the area and to make a fly free zone so that rebel’s supply of weaponry can be limited or terminated. He also talks about creating a Marshall Corps that would have 10,000 members who would be sent abroad to reconstruct and stabilize devastated areas such as Asia post-tsunami. Another way he wishes to build foreign relations is to openly discuss with Iran and North Korea in the heat of the issue to protect national security.
Here is where I think Senator Edward is rather ambiguous. He says a lot of things that I agree are great goals, but in real life none of it is attainable at this time. He also fails to present a ‘how’ to get his goal accomplished. It is unlikely that a Marshall Corps of 10,000 people can successfully be created. There is no way for us to solve hunger, disease, and pollution. It is important to continue to work towards those policies, but if we work too hard on too many things we will stretch ourselves thin.
The third foreign policy issue I chose to read about is the idea of being a world superpower. Senator Edwards realizes we are a world superpower but with the changes taking place that may no longer be the case. Other nations are building and becoming stronger, while the US has lost many allies and seems to be on its own. He stresses importance of re-gaining our once great friendships with Japan and Spain. Edwards also says we need to align ourselves with the European Union and specifically synchronize ourselves with Britain. On the other hand countries such as China, Russia, and India are all world superpowers that we have had a difficult time building a relation with. It is important for the US to find ways to communicate with them because they hold a lot of power and significance to us.
Lastly I could not agree more with Senator Edwards on his idea of being a world superpower. It is clear the United States is a world superpower, but not the only one. And being a superpower will not get you too far if you do not have any fellow strong, agreeing friends. We not only must build our friendships with our existing allies, but we must create new ones and learn how to confront issues head on as presidents of the past have done.
Overall I think Senator Edwards has good ideas, but that he has a big imagination as well. He just seems like the typical presidential candidate, which is not what I am looking for.
I decided to read Barack Obama's foreign policy position. It gives me a generally favorable representation of his ideas. I agree with a great deal of his platform.
He has done quite a bit to outline a solution for Iraq. He wants to remove all U.S. troops by March 31st, 2008, as the Iraq Study Group has recommended. He also says that we should find a political solution to the Sunni/Shiite conflicts, and work on regional and international diplomacy to help end the civil war. This makes sense to me, as I believe we should have some responsibility for the mess we've created. He seems determined to build up our diplomacy internationally.
He also takes a stance against global warming, which I believe is important. He says that America, as the largest producer of greenhouse gases, has the responsibility to lead in this area. He mentions a carbon trading system, although he doesn't elaborate, and he advocates using energy more efficiently. He stresses worldwide cooperation in this, and says that America has a key role in persuading everyone else.
Obama wants to invest in reducing global poverty and says he would dramatically increase foreign aid toward "worthwhile goals." He mentions fighting AIDS, building health care infrastructure, fighting terrorism and halting weapons proliferation. I agree with all of these goals, but he's not very specific in how to get there.
It's your usual platform of presidential promises, but I was surprised by the level of detail in some areas. Obama is one of the few candidates that actually seems to have a plan, instead of just spouting rhetoric. Although his comments about Pakistan lost him some points with me, I would still definitely consider supporting him.
Oops.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
~This is Kendra
I feel like the candidate that I am most leaning towards giving my support to in the 2008 election is Rudy Giuliani. This is why I decided to research his foreign policy further to see how I felt about it. For the most part, I feel that I agree with him. There are some areas, however, that I question, and some that I am just not sure about.
Giuliani starts out by recognizing that America wants peace, but also explains that we must think reasonably about attaining that peace. Giuliani places an emphasis on not backing down as the US did in retreats from Lebanon in 1983 and Somalia in 1993. I do believe that we should not show weakness in cases that we are attacked, but we also should consider the repercussions of having to appear strong. I do fully agree though on the fact that Giuliani says that we should help build accountable governments in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as reduce violence and terrorist activity in these areas. He also says that it best for local forces to do this, but we can not turn it over to them until we are sure that it is safe. I agree with this and so does the UN Secretary Ban Kimoon who expressed his concerns that leaving Iraq too early may hurt the people of Iraq and lead to further deterioration (http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs). The consequences of leaving Iraq quickly would be too great. This is the way that I feel, and it is the same policy that Giuliani takes. He also uses the Vietnam War as an example of backing out too early. In fighting terror Giuliani does not suggest war, but rather working with Special Forces and local governments to make sure that terrorism doesn’t have a place in any country. I think using these tactics will ensure that nations take responsibility and also feel that we are not barging in on their country.
Giuliani also maintains that we need to bulk up our defense with new additions and technology to the military. He also thinks that we need to update and add different weapons to make other groups not want to threaten the United States because of repercussions. I am still not sure how I feel about this topic. In one sense I agree, but then part of me thinks that this is somewhat hypocritical. Why should other nations be not be allowed to have missiles and we should? Then again for what purpose are these countries using their missiles? One part of the defense strategy I do agree with however is the Proliferation Security Initiative, which tries to stop the shipment of weapons of mass destruction. I think this could work to keep weapons out of terrorists’ hands. Giuliani also speaks of preserving the gains made by the Patriot Act. I guess I am unsure of exactly what gains have been made, because this act has mainly gotten negative press. The Patriot Act is supposed to be used to better track terrorists (http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm). Although I think some gains are not traceable, the negative attention to this act and the denial of some liberties may be masking these gains. I question whether this act should be continued as a tool in the war on terror.
Giuliani took an interesting stance on diplomacy. He explained that many people believe it is just accommodation and on the other hand many think it solves all things, so we have to meet somewhere in the middle. He says that choosing who we talk to is almost as important as specific things that are mentioned and deals that are made. I very much agree that the United States’ refusal to talk may be just as important as what we say. Also Giuliani says that we must go into talks knowing exactly what we want to get out of them. The Reagan-Gorbachev Summit was used an example. It is true that in this debate Reagan demanded what he wanted and even walked out until the Soviet Union would compromise (http://www.cbs.com/stories/2004/06/10/eveningnews). We have to be somewhat flexible, but cannot compromise our beliefs and values as a country just for the sake of a “compromise.”
One other important principle that I found interesting in the plan is that the United States government has to be more united. We have had a divided government 10 years out of the last 38 (Edwards). I think it will be a hard job to unite the government if there are two different parties represented, but we do need a more united front. I feel that this more than any military arrangement would give us an advantage over terrorists and enemies. When other countries see that we are fighting against ourselves, what kind of image does that portray to them? These are just a few of the key points in Giuliani’s foreign policy. Some I question, but many I fully agree with.
Note: The main source of this post was from the Foreign Affairs article givens to us by Ms. Aby. Every other source is cited within the text.
I immediately knew mine and John McCain’s views on foreign policy would not be concurrent. Regarding the war in Iraq, first and foremost, we held little common ground. One of his first statements he made was that the “consequences of failure” we are subject to after immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be astronomical. I do not agree with that statement at all. The war we face in Iraq, first of all, is not one that we can win. As our uninvited stay grows stale, we’re throwing more and more of our youth at a fruitless war for oil. This war ends when we say it ends. Prolonging our exit will only continue the casualties of both sides and misuse our limited national resources. Nothing is being resolved through our occupation of Iraq, and any problems that withdrawing now opposed to later may cause are not going to go away with time; they are only going to mushroom as the war continues.
McCain’s comments on efforts to support Israel are also displeasing to me. He wants to offer further aid to Israel by granting them “needed military equipment and technology” for protection. His earlier paragraph, however, discussed the concern of Iran’s threat to the United States, partly rooted in Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons. This I mainly saw as blatantly hypocritical. It comes to me as no surprise that Iran would wish to possess nuclear weapons at a time when the United States is spreading it’s military power all over the world. America’s tyrannical way of dealing with other countries needs to cease. By not doing so, we’re only encouraging other nations to test us, terrorism being a legitimate example of this. Invading Iran, another idea McCain wants to “remain on the table”, is an equally awful idea. The circumstances McCain is describing Iran being under don’t seem far off from the circumstances of another event four years ago involving Weapons of Mass Destruction. I felt like he was buttering me up for a second Middle-Eastern war involving oppressed citizens and nuclear materials. History repeats itself is the cliché, right? Well, I can guarantee you that having McCain win the presidency would only make that possibility more substantial.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p10/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
I chose to evaluate Senator Obama’s foreign policy agenda. He seems to be most concerned, based on his statement to Foreign Affairs, about legitimizing the United States on the international scale and recovering respect once lost from the global community.
The first issue I would like to evaluate is Obama’s resolution to stop the spread of nuclear weapons through the world. Obama warned of the dangers of terrorists getting control of nuclear facilities and suggested working toward the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world within four years of his presidency. He supports a global ban on nuclear facilities and cooperating internationally to build multilateral support of nuclear deterrence. One interesting idea he posed that I think is very interesting and a good idea is the International Atomic Energy Agency to control the production of nuclear energy. I like this idea because it removes the fear of several nations about certain countries using “nuclear energy” sources instead to create nuclear weaponry. I think Obama’s plan allows for the international community to get actively involved in the general security of the world.
The second issue of Obama’s that I chose was his advocacy of the promotion of democracy abroad. Obama calls for the United States to become economically and politically involved in the spread of democracy on the international scale. I think Senator Obama approaches this issue very well in that he calls for a “partnership” instead of a more imperialist kind of stance. I think Obama would be able to help the international community “help themselves” in a positive way that would avoid a mentality that “we” are better than “them”.
The final issue I’ve decided to address of Obama’s is what he calls “restoring America’s trust”. Obama talks about how foreign aid and foreign relations are impossible without the trust of the American public. He addressed a real concern in my mind, which is that the president needs to prove to the American public that every action he takes is in their best interest. In the current system where we all know there’s a high sense of political cynicism, I think it’s necessary for the president to win back the hearts and minds of the public he or she serves. Obama seems prepared to restore the American people’s faith in the political system and the potential that he can bring to the office. I think that as long as Obama is able to bring about the kind of social change in America the way he says he wants to, there is bound to be an improvement of “America’s trust”, further enabling the support of foreign aid and relations abroad.
Source:http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I chose to read John Edwards’ foreign policy statement. One criticism of Edwards is that he is too idealistic. This comes across strongly in his foreign policy stance. He wants to restore America’s moral leadership – which is a point in itself, despite the fact that it shapes his other points – reengage with the world powers, and create a strong defense.
First, he wants to restore the US’ moral leadership in the world. This basically means that he wants our country to stand for the things that are morally (and logically) sound. For example, he wants to diminish global poverty and global warming. He obviously doesn’t support crude methods of conduct that violate international standards (torture, exploitation). He believes that if we return to our core values, we will get America back on path. He wants America to be a “moral beacon” to the rest of the free world, but not in a condescending way.
I think this issue is very idealistic but truly one of the best solutions. The US is losing its global standing. We have been in the world’s pilot seat since WW2, but we are slipping towards the passengers’ seats. If we want to steer global policy and not just ride along, we must regain the respect of other countries.
His interest in regaining moral ground has ulterior motives. He is not simply trying to make the US a happy, liberal camp, but rather he is trying to foster peaceable international relations once again. He knows that if we can regain the respect of the world powers, then we can attempt to start friendly negotiations and use their support for difficult issues. He wants to adopt the upcoming world powers into the G8 as well as creating new allies and sustaining the relationships that we already have. His main concerns are China, Russia, and India. He acknowledges that China is a huge factor in the global economy and policy arena. He says that while we often have conflicting interests with China, we still need them. He wants to use a multi-national coalition to pressure China into playing ball. He takes a similar stance with Russia. He wants to use them, because there are many mutually beneficial courses of action that can enacted together. He is also afraid of their quasi-dictatorial government and wants to apply some pressure to change it. Finally, he fully supports India. He believes that the US and India have similar goals, and they can both help each other out.
I think his world cooperation plan is great. We have no hope of surviving on our own, especially in today’s globalized world. An international approach to the major issues would get a lot more done that a vigilante US trying to solve everything.
His military policy is interesting too. He wants to have a straightforward outline of the purpose and goal of the military. He says, “The U.S. armed forces have three important missions: deterring or responding to those who wish to do us harm, ensuring that the problems of weak and failing states do not create dangers for the United States, and maintaining our strategic advantage over major competitor states, in part so that they choose to cooperate with us, rather than challenge our interests militarily.” This sets limits which can be used to govern the military so that it doesn’t get flooded with power.
I think this policy is good. Setting limits on the military ensures that it will be treated as a specific tool and not a Swiss-army knife. This may prevent the US from using its military abroad for strange, unrelated reasons. It will keep the force goal-oriented, and if Edwards sticks to his plan, it will hopefully take away military abuses.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p40/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html
I chose to do my post yet again on Giuliani just because I wanted to see how his stances on these issues compared with my beliefs. I wasn’t very surprised to find the common ground we seemed to be on for a lot of issues.
I agree with Giuliani that withdrawing from the Iraq war would be a mistake on the part of the U.S. Entering the war in the first place might not have been the right move, but leaving now and letting Iraq fall to pieces and would be, as Giuliani said, a sentence for Iraq to again become a refuge for terrorists. I believe he is right in looking back at past occurrences for guidance in what and what not to do in the Iraq war situation. Therefore his comparison of the Vietnam War to the Iraq war is valid, and that causes of failure in the Vietnam War are good to take note of when deciding course of action in the Iraq war. I disagree with him one portion of this particular stance: I don’t think it’s possible to completely defeat terrorism and the ideology behind it. Islamic extremists and for that matter terrorists in general have been around forever. They aren’t going anywhere. A more realistic stance might be one that aims to disable terrorism or cause it to function inadequately. Another, possibly accompanying aim might be to stabilize the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan to the point where terrorism is less of a threat.
In terms of general diplomacy policies and plans, I completely agree with Giuliani. America (for the most part) is not hated because of its message, but the way the message is portrayed in other countries. If there were a way to accurately explain the basic American message (hot topics aside) to other countries, it is possible for the U.S to gain more support abroad. I also agree with the way he seems to be approaching basic communications and negotiations. A lot of time is wasted in approaching some enemies in the wrong way. His stance seems to be no nonsense while still maintaining negotiation options. Then again, diplomacy is not the most concrete subject to take a stance on and a lot of talking is done without actually saying anything of real worth.
There is a section in Giuliani’s stance titled “Using economic and cultural influence”. This is the one section I really sort of disagreed with. He talks about how the U.S should extend its own ideals to other countries in the form of private investment, cultural and commercial influences. Companies like Pepsi and McDonalds should be introduced into other countries to form some type of alliance. He goes on to mention that the U.S should help “zones” without government by forming societies. Earlier in the document it says that extending democracy will help other countries. While I love the way our country works and the freedom of democracy, I’m not so sure we should be tromping around and forcing it on others. Not because that is my stance, but more for the reason of present U.S. climate with the Iraq war. The U.S should make a decision about the extent of involvement in foreign affairs with helping other governments and stick with it.
I did happen to read through a couple of the other sections of foreign affairs and found that I basically agreed with his stance on defense, but had the same sort of disagreement on extending benefits as I did with the one on cultural and economic influence. Overall I thought Giuliani didn’t have bad plan for U.S foreign affairs.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p50/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
Michelle Ludwig
I chose to read John McCain’s foreign policy stance, because I felt that he was one of the candidates that I felt I knew the least about. I was mostly divided in how I felt on his stances, but I could probably say that I agree with most of his stances more than I disagree with them.
The first stance I looked at was about fighting the war on terror. McCain is not a supporter of how we went into Iraq based on our low troop levels and lack of a comprehensive plan. Although this may be so, he is a firm supporter in staying in Iraq and not withdrawing until things are cleaned up in Iraq. He also opposes preemptive withdrawal strategies, because he feels that leaving Iraq until we have completely stabilized the country would lead to “a historic loss at the hands of Islamist extremists who, after having defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and the United States in Iraq, will believe that the world is going their way and that anything is possible.” Although I am extremely against the war in Iraq, I agree with McCain’s strategy. Because we invaded their country and started this war, we can’t leave that country until we have completed the job that we came in there to do. Also, if we don’t finish what we started now, because the country is so weak, who’s to say that it won’t simply be taken over by some other sort of dictator? Then the soldiers that have died would be able to say that they risked their lives every day for absolutely nothing.
John McCain also feels like we need to get involved in the other countries in that area to help prevent future problems. He would also like to have an increase in forces in Afghanistan and also to strengthen their army through a partnership with NATO. Also, he would like to work more with Pakistan’s president, Pervez Musharraf to remove the Taliban and Al Queda camps that are still left in Pakistan, and he feels that we should bring aid to Pakistan to help them fight the Taliban. He feels we should also provide military aid to Israel and he also wishes to create a free trade area from Morocco to Afghanistan for non terrorist countries. Finally, he feels like we should devote much time, money, and resources in aiding moderate Muslims.
McCain also expressed many changes that he would like to make here at home. He plans on increasing the army size from the current 750,000 to about 900,000. He also feels strongly that we should be providing more money to the army for more supplies, because we are currently giving about 4 cents for every dollar, which is even less money then we spent during the Cold War. Personally, I’m not a big fan of all my money going to the military. I think that maybe it is a good idea for right now because we are in this war, but after the war is over I don’t think that we should be giving that much. Personally, I think that are money would be much better spent on something other than the military. He also plans on training more experts in the languages of Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, and Pashto. With this, his goal is to put a stronger importance on the learning of foreign culture in both military and civilian schools. I agree with this idea. I think it’s a good idea for us to be learning more about the people that surround us, but I don’t necessarily feel like it should be the most important thing for students to focus on.
“Being a great power does not mean that we can do whatever we want whenever we want, nor should we assume that we have all the wisdom, knowledge, and resources necessary to succeed.” One of my favorite things about what John McCain talked about is creating stronger allies with other countries. He strongly wants to increase our relation with Mexico to help with illegal immigration and drugs. Also, he would like to better the relationship with Brazil and give both Brazil and Mexico a stronger voice in his new creation, The League of Nations. The League of Nations seemed mostly like another version of the United Nations to me, but he said that it will not be a replacement, however something to help the UN so that when the UN fails to address something, the League of Nations can take over that. He would also like to make a new security partnership with Austrailia, India, and Japan, as well as work on our growing relationships with Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Vietnam. I really like how he finds creating stronger allies important, because I really feel like communication is the key to a more peaceful world.
I would have to say that overall I agree with most of the foreign policy stances of John McCain, however I am rather unsure of his plans for changes here in the United States.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p20/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
Mitt Romney and Foreign Policy
Building U.S. Military: Romney believes that the United States must build up and modernize the armed forces. He states that during the Clinton administration the country lagged in militaristic development and will/is suffering the consequences of this. In order to maintain the position as a strong nation , Romney believes that at least 4 percent of the gross national product should be spent effectively in the area of defense spending.
My position: I personally do not have enough prior knowledge on the subject to thoroughly support or disagree with Romney's stance on military spending, so my thoughts are based purely on the information he has provided. According to Romney the Clinton administration drastically decreased the defense budget losing an estimated “$50 billion a year in military spending” ( F. Affairs). The war currently being fought is now supposedly suffering from the prior military cutbacks. I agree with Romney that the United States needs to maintain a strong and modern military if they hope to stay on top of the global totem pole. Yet, I would much rather see this spot earned out of respect for our strides in technology, economic success, or as models for peace,versus forcing others to “bow down” due to our massive military power.
Transform Civilian-based agencies: According to Mitt Romney the civilian agencies of the United States need a “makeover” so that they can be more productive among foreign countries. By organizing the agencies along border lines and electing officials to manage them , Romney hopes to put some type of leadership and organization back into the programs so that all levels run efficiently.
My Position: Transforming non-military and civilian agencies seems to be a productive use of time and energy. It makes no sense that people are being killed and being deprived of shelter and family in these countries of need, while agencies fight over meal allowances( agencies were fighting over who would pay the $11 for their meals). I agree completely with Romney that these agencies need organization in order to be successful. I also agree with non-militaristic approaches whenever possible, instead of initiating a combative mission.
“Make new friends.. But keep the old”: Mitt Romney states that, “ the United States is stronger when its friends stand alongside it.” Romney thinks that the United States must strengthen its past alliances (such as the NATO alliance) to defeat radical Islam. He also believes that the United Nations needs some type of restructuring to make the organization more efficient and work together holistically. Romney calls for a “Partnership for Prosperity and Progress” to help address the current problems facing Islamic countries and forming a coalition to deal with these types of problems in the future.
My Position: I agree that peaceful ties must occur if the United States hopes to end this period of warfare . Peace is a state of harmony that so rarely can be achieved, but if America hopes to even begin to grasp it, it must first strengthen and renew alliances. I completely agree with Mitt Romney that reorganization is essential because what we have now is not working to the best of its abilities.
It seems to me that Barack Obama’s basic foreign policy strategy is to strengthen our allies. In addition to helping us win the war on terrorism, allies would help us combat global warming because we could put pressures on other nations, such as China, which pollutes almost as much as the US.
According to Obama, we should strengthen NATO and other international organizations. Obama also believes that we need to focus more on bettering the relations between the Israelis and Palestinians. I thought it interesting when he mentioned that the UN Human Rights commission has passed eight resolutions against the Israelis, but not one about Darfur or Zimbabwe. Obama used this to point out that the UN needs reform.
Obama believes that the war in Iraq was a mistake, and that the real fight needs to be against the terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan. I’m not sure how much support he will get for wanting to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as the people in the US seem to be very upset with war right now. I agree with Barack Obama that the US should “pressure Iraqi leaders by phased withdrawal.” The pressure caused by beginning to leave Iraq would force the nation to be able to defend itself. The US needs to strengthen its allies in order to win the war against terrorism. It is also important to gain friendships with developing nations through economic aid with strings attached, such as halting development of nuclear technology. Economic aid can help get at the root of the problem; if people are living I especially liked how Obama said that the US would not be a “patron, but a partner” to these developing nations. I believe that if you recognize an individual’s status and treat him as your equal, he will be more likely to live up to the status behavior. If you treat him like he is beneath you, he will behave poorly and become angry with you. I think that to some degree, this applies to nations as well.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
A presidential candidate must make numerous standpoints on various issues; the economy, education, healthcare, and so on. Of these assorted subjects, one that seems to be brought to the forefront quite often is that of foreign policy, of which Barack Obama seems to have an appealing viewpoint on. Within his statement, Obama declares that America must bring the Iraq war to an end, but after doing so, must not isolate itself from the World. He goes on to say that America must confront new threats with the help of other nations, and that our leadership must be renewed. I agree that the Iraq war must be brought to a reasonable end as over 3,300 Americans have lost their lives, and that the United States must maintain relations with other nations for we can’t meet all challenges alone. I also agree that there must be a change in leadership and that our military must be reorganized as currently no single army unit is able to respond to a crisis other than Iraq, and that 88% of the National Guard is unprepared to be deployed overseas. However, Obama goes further stating we must participate in stability and reconstruction operations globally, this of which I disagree. I find that we must use our resources and focus on ourselves initially, only providing for others when the United States is significantly stable and then only when necessary, while trying to remain reluctant in terms of nation building. For many causes are appropriate for attention and funding, but the most intelligent choice must be made regarding these causes as to provide an efficient and competent response. I believe that this balance would coincide with Barack’s goal of global image and security while maintaining America’s own economy. For as Obama said, “the world shares a common security and a common humanity,” but a nation must first be capable before it can aid others.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
http://www.barackobama.com/
I agree with Hillary Clinton on her foreign policy positions regarding: (1) future plans for US involvement in Iraq, (2) the need to become associated with India, and (3) diminishing the use of military for US influence in world affairs.
First, Hillary Clinton recognizes the potential power of India. She acknowledges that “India has a special significance both as an emerging power and as the world's most populous democracy (1).” Her speculation of India’s future is undeniably correct, and it is beneficial for the United States to establish a friendly relationship with India. The economic growth of India is staggering, and the 2006 July-September quarter saw a growth rate of 9.2%. Rajeev Malik, a JP Morgan economist, claims that “it [India’s economic performance] is definitely better than expectations (9).” The economic boom in India will give it substantial influence “to cooperate on issues of mutual concern, including combating terrorism, cooperating on global climate control, protecting global energy supplies, and deepening global economic development (1).”
Second, Clinton claims a strong stand against the war in Iraq, and she believes that removal of America’s involvement is the proper course of action. Clinton rightfully claims that “the war is sapping our military strength, absorbing our strategic assets, diverting attention and resources from Afghanistan, alienating our allies, and dividing our people (1).” The United States has experienced financial loss of almost 1.6 trillion dollars from the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (7). In support of her claim that we are distancing from our allies, the conflict in Iraq has ultimately damaged the US reputation around the world (5). Her plan to boost “the health care, benefits, training, and support they [returning US soldiers] deserve (1)” will ease a soldier’s problem of “exploding health care expenses for returning veterans (6).” Sixty-eight percent the US adult population oppose the war (8). Clinton’s plan to withdraw from Iraq will satisfy public opinion and end the conflict that has drained the military, economy, and morale of the United States.
Finally, Clinton discourages military as the sole means of US influence in international affairs. She speaks the absolute truth in saying the United States should “use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy (1).” The excessive number of US troops involved in world affairs is leading to a dangerous over-stretch of current military resources. The problem has been revealed that “the current level of troops simply cannot be sustained because of strains on service personnel (2).” Similarly, Michael O’Hanlon of the Washington DC Brookings Institution claims that “the US military risked being broken by the burdens of peacekeeping and post-war security duties (3). Reducing the US reliance on military will avoid the over-stretch which “is undermining the readiness of the military as a whole (4).” Clinton is wise in asserting that “soldiers are not the answer to every problem (1).”
1.http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p10/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html
2.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6990855.stm
3.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3071313.stm
4.http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E1DC143FF93AA25751C1A9659C8B63
5. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE1DD163FF937A15752C0A9619C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2
6.http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13tues1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
7.http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ihrXXebCc-1ukON23aArsxLrveNwD8ST20L01
8.http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
9.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6158595.stm
I chose to research Mitt Romney and his stance on Foreign Affairs for the upcoming election. Mitt Romney plans to strengthen US defense in many different ways. He plans to do this by increasing the number of troops by 100,000, modernize our military, and increase our gross domestic products of defense by 4%(1). I do not agree with this plan of action having to do with the countries security. I believe that we need to decrease our full time military and have as few troops overseas or deployed somewhere as possible. We have so many other issues our country is facing that need the financial backing more so than our defense system. I am not at all saying that we should have no defense, but to increase it while still in war where we have lost those who are passionate about the military is just wrong. Romney's stance on the war in Iraq is simply that we continue to occupy Iraq until he sees fit. There really was no detailed plan for Iraq but there was a plan for other things such as confronting Nuclear Terrorism.
(1) www.mittromney.com
Michelle Howard
I chose to read Barack Obama’s foreign policy because he is the candidate that shares many of the same views on issues with me. I read about three of his policies: Iraq, nuclear weapons, and terrorism.
Obama’s starting point on his policy about Iraq is that we need to bring the Iraq war to an end. I have supported this point for awhile because I believe that the war is costing too many lives, too much money, and making our situation worse. In addition to this, Obama states, “...we cannot impose a military solution on a civil war between Sunni and Shiite factions.” I think this is true because, in my opinion, only the people in Iraq will be able to work out their own conflicts. We should let them do that and not get too deeply involved. Instead, I think we should help them realize that they need to come to a solution with their problems. On this point, Obama states, “...in the end only Iraqi leaders can bring real peace and stability to their country.”
His next policy statement was on “halting the spread of nuclear weapons.” I agree with him when he says that nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapon that we could face. Nuclear weapons are the most destructive and too many are in the hands of our enemies or could be accessed easily by them. I like when he says, “As president, I will work with other nations to destroy, secure, and stop the spread of these weapons in order to dramatically reduce the nuclear dangers for our nation and the world.” In addition to this, he says America shouldn’t use nuclear weapons. I agree with that because if we start to use them, other nations will use them too. One of his last points was to “negotiate a verifable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material.” This would attempt to restore some of the peace in the world.
The last policy I read was called “combating global terrorism”. The first part I agreed with was when he says that we should “refocus our efforts on Afghanistan and Pakistan.” I don’t necessarily agree with his views on Pakistan, but I do agree that we should be looking for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan instead of occupying Iraq. Obama also wants to combat terrorism by joining with our allies throughout the world. I think that is a good idea because terrorism can’t be fought alone and we aren’t the only nation under threat of attack. In addition, he says, “...we must strengthen our homeland security.” I still think that airport security is too lax because it is so easy to miss something with so many people flying each day and so much luggage being shipped. In addition to airways, we should also be making tighter restrictions on our postal service and shipping through ports. Obama says that he will ensure all cargo is screened for radiation. However, I don’t think that global terrorism can truly be defeated, but by starting with these measures we can protect ourselves from experiencing it.
here is my source:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I read the foreign policy of Rudy Giuliani. In his policy he stated three basic goals that the next president needs to focus on. The first challenge will be to "set a course for victory in the terrorists' war on global order." The second challenge is to strengthen the international relationships and systems that are being attacked by the terrorists. The third challenge is to extend the current international systems to include other nations.
I agree with most of his policy on foreign affairs. The international systems that are being attacked definitely need to be reinforced. The United States has lost much trust and standing around the world, which is exactly what the terrorists wanted when they attacked. They are trying to hurt us in any way possible. The only way to achieve victory in this war, which is Mr. Guiliani's first goal, is to strengthen our bonds with those countries who were our allies. We need to show the terrorists, not that we can blow things up too, but that we can withstand their attack and strengthen ourselves by befriending nations that have similar morals and goals as us. I also agree with his third goal. The United States must try and make friends where we never thought we could. Instead of treating the Middle East like an enemy, we need to befriend them and give them opportunities that we have in the West. We should not force these opportunities upon them through war, but open the possibility of trade and technology sharing. If the countries want to use our technology and our products, then we should allow them, but forcing our innovations, such as democracy, on them makes it an oppression, not an opportunity.
I do not agree with how he wants to achieve these goals. He believes that force should be used to defeat the terrorists, when force actually helps breed hatred of America. The reason that we are in this conflict is because we believed that we were better than the Middle East and that they needed our help. These countries never asked for our help, they never believed us to be better than them, they only asked that we leave them alone. We would not listen to them, and instead tried to force their friendship, thus breeding terrorists with a hatred for the West. The only way to defeat terrorism is to take away the reason for hatred. There is no way to stop the hatred if we continue to kill, thus we must leave the region unless our assistance is requested.
(1)http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501/rudolph-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
Rudolph W. Giuliani says towards the beginning of his statement regarding foreign relations, “America is a nation that loves peace and hates war (1).” He goes on to say that peace is unrealistic at this time and the only way to achieve it in the future is through strength. He goes on to propose that the U.S. Army alone needs atleast, “a minimum of ten new combat brigades (1),” and expresses the need to evaluate the need for more spending in various other areas of the military. Surely these bigger and better weapons aren't intended to promote peace? Giuliani goes on to say “The next U.S. president must also press ahead with building a national missile defense system (1).” Keeping in mind that that last year 28.5 percent of the president's budget was already directed towards the military while other crises such as the state of the environment were only awarded 1.4 percent of these funds (2). Proposing an even larger emphasis on war and weapons would take away from other internal problems at an even greater rate. The presidential hopeful says, “To achieve a realistic peace, U.S. diplomacy must be tightly linked to our other strengths (1),” and goes on stating his belief that, “For diplomacy to succeed, the U.S. government must be united (1).” By evaluating the heavily debated issue of foreign policies and recognizing the anti-war tendencies of current U.S. citizens, it is hard to imagine a united government on the basis of foreign policy in the near future, especially with a pro-war president. Overall it seems as if Rudy Giuliani has the wrong ideas for the direction our nation should be headed. Based on his somewhat contradictory statements and his extreme stance on continuing violence in a country whose majority feels the opposite, it is unlikely that he will be elected or his views strongly represented in the government.
(1) http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86501-p20/rudolph-w-giuliani/toward-a-realistic-peace.html
(2)www.askquestions.org/ img/GovSpend.gi
I read Obama's goals on foreign policy. I am not as familiar with his platform but I generally liked what I read.
Near the begining of Obama's statment on "Common Security for Our Common Humanity" I found a quote about America isolating itself. Obama says "America cannot meet the threats of this century alone, and the world cannot meet them without America. We can neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. We must lead the world, by deed and by example." I like that Obama thinks that the U.S. needs to not force our agenda down the throats of other nations. Also I agree with him when he talks about how the U.S can't completely remove itself from world problems because we have contributed to them, I think he is trying to convey that the U.S is strong but also needs to realize that we cannot believe that the U.S. solution is always the best option.
I am upset with the current situation in Iraq and how depleted the military is becoming. Obama touched on expanding our military with 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, I think that could benefit the U.S but I question whether it would just be another reason to continue the war because we have the man power. I think Obama is on the right track about revaluating each defense program the U.S. has and what the needs are currently. I think that the Bush administration has failed in this area by continually sending more troops. Obama's solution to this is to train our troops better and get them the proper equipment and armor so they can do their job more effieciently.
I read the foreign policy views of Barack Obama. The first thing he says is he wants to gradually withdraw troops from Iraq and have them all out by March 31, 2008. He also says the only chance we have of improving Iraq is to strongly pressure the warring parties there to come to a lasting compromise, and focus more on the middle east as a whole when it comes to fighting terrorism. He believes we need to acknowledge the fact that the only way Iraq will find peace is through their own leaders. I agree with what Obama has to say because I think it is unrealistic to think we can end terrorism around the world by going after only one country.
Next Senator Obama says we need to start an initiative to help end the civil war in Iraq and limit the suffering of its people. We also need to make it clear to the people that we do not want to make a base for the U.S. permanently in Iraq. I disagree with what Obama says here becuase I think the U.S. needs to stop its habits of nation building for other countries, especially by means of war and conflict, and focus on our own problems here. Leaving any military personnel there, even if we claim it is to help them make peace, will make the Iraqi people feel threatened, and cause conflict.
One of Senator Obama's other goals is to secure, destroy and stop the spread of nuclear weapons. He wants to do so within four years. To help accomplish this goal he thinks the U.S. should cooperate with Russia to make it more democratic and accountable. We can take advantage of new technologies while we work to deter the use of nuclear weapons. For the most part I agree with what Obama thinks about nuclear weapons except for the part about making Russia more democratic. I feel like this is more nation building for the U.S. to begin, and it is possible that it will cause more conflict.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p0/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
I first would like to take this sentence to express my disappointment in the fact that Ron Paul was not an option for this blog post. That being said, I chose to look at Senator Barack Obama’s foreign policy statement. I agreed with enough of it to be mildly impressed.
First of all, I like his views on Iraq. He was one of the people to disagree with the war in the first place, and thus was one of the people who’s been right all along. I trust him a lot not only with Iraq, but with the rest of the middle east. He believes there is a war to be fought in the middle east, but it is not a war in Iraq. Iraq was a distraction to getting the people who attacked us on September 11, and he has a plan to draw back all of our troops by March 31, 2008.
I also agree with his views on revitalizing our military. If I had an option I would not want America to have the strongest military, because I feel it puts a target on our back. However, cutting our military spending would not remove that target, and we would be prone to an attack based on what we’ve done in the middle east already, so I agree with Obama that we need to make sure our military remains one of the strongest by recruiting and training the best soldiers possible. I’m anti-war but at the same time I understand that in some cases war is necessary. So does Obama. He disagrees with stupid war, but in case a necessary war comes knocking on our door we should have the strongest military possible to swiftly defeat our enemies and move on. However, I do disagree with his statement that we should not rule out military force in defending one of our allies. I feel that if our allies have a war on their doorstep, we should let them deal with it on their own for a while, and only step in if they are struggling. I don’t believe in fighting wars for others like Obama apparently does.
One final thing I also like about Senator Obama’s policy is that he understands his job as a president. He is not a dictator, and he understands he needs the American people’s backing whenever he performs a military action. He says “Ultimately, no foreign policy can succeed unless the American people understand it and feel they have a stake in its success” and I really like reading that statement from him. He won’t go under the radar with bombings and he will make sure the American people know as well as they can what is going on overseas.
Overall I like Barack Obama’s foreign policy and feel that if he were president he would not disappoint the country with a stupid, foolish war like the war in Iraq. I agree with enough of what he said to feel that he is competent and I trust him to stick to his guns enough to feel that he’d be a strong Commander in Chief.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p60/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
From reading McCain’s foreign policy goals, I found that I agreed with his vision but not the way in which he intends to achieve it.
1. Winning the War on Terror: McCain states that he will unconditionally support Isreal by providing needed military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its ‘qualitative military edge.’ He then claims that the goal of finding genuine peace should be the priority. It is pretty illogical to hope to find peace when we continually support the Zionist regime. I realize that both sides suffer and I do not want to quantify it. However, if we really want to find lasting peace, providing bombs to the Isrealis is definitely not the solution. He also claims that in order to support Isreal, it is critical to isolate Hamas. Hamas took control of the Palestinian government a couple of years ago. The main reasons why they were so popular was because they were less corrupt than the former Fatah party and also because they appealed to the war-torn people of Palestine through their social service programs. The United States and many other developing nations have isolated this party by cutting off aid to Palestine. When millions of people suffer due to the lack of necessary aid, it only alienates them more and impedes the process of finding a long term solution.
2. Revitalizing the Transatlantic Partnership: I agree with McCain when he says that we have alienated too many of our Cold War partners in our War on Terror efforts. He also says that to be a good leader, we need to be a good ally. I wholeheartedly agree with this sentence. Even though America will never achieve its post-WW2 status, it will still be a leader for many years to come. We should use this leadership to its full potential in order to achieve peace in a multilateral world. He also talks a lot about how we should encourage other nations to be democratic. I do believe that democracy is pretty sweet. However, in order to achieve ‘democracy,’ our government has engaged in a lot of unethical actions. Iraq is a perfect example of this. It is true when they say that democracies are the least likely to have conflicts with each other but achieving democracy is a road full of bloodshed. Iraq is now at the brink of a full blown civil war because we wanted to democratize them. We also have a lot of programs in Latin America to counter the ‘contras.’ The School of Americas is an American military program that trains people in order to kill and torture Latin Americans demanding a better government. This is done because most of these rebels are left wing and America fears the growing liberal influence in Latin America. At this point, are we really ‘liberating’ these undemocratic nations?
3. Aiding an African Renaissance: I was very glad to find out that McCain cared about assistance to Africa because a lot of the other candidates seemed to have ignored this continent. McCain wants to eradicate malaria and help provide prevention and treatment for HIV/AIDS. I believe that humanitarian efforts are where we should focus our economic might on instead of revamping the military. He says that his administration will do everything possible to ameliorate the lives of millions of Africans. He also doesn’t want to see another ‘Darfur’ in Sudan and wants to stop the genocide. I also agree that we should always be staunch defenders of human rights. However, it is contradictory when he thinks that we should continue with our occupation of Iraq where hundreds of people die every day as a direct result of American action and then want to protect people in Africa. I am not saying that genocide is justifiable but I think that we should focus on our actions and their implications before others’.
source:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86602-p10/john-mccain/an-enduring-peace-built-on-freedom.html
After reading Obama’s foreign policy statement, I discovered that while I agree with him on several subjects, some of his plans seem inadvisable. One thing I did agree with was his policy for Iraq. The United States cannot solve a civil war between Islamic sects militarily, he claims, and must begin gradual withdrawal of troops. Putting pressure on Iraqi leaders in this way may or may not work, but it’s better than trying to “win” or, oppositely, pulling out all troops immediately and receiving even more criticism from the rest of the world.
Another of Obama’s foreign policy positions was the situation in other Middle Eastern countries. He advocates the support of Israel, which he refers to as a bastion of democracy in the area, forcing Iran to abandon its nuclear program through either diplomacy or military action, and trying to get the Syrian government to retreat from radicalism. First of all, if the United States must get involved at all in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, openly supporting Israel would be a fatal blow to any negotiations the U.S. could facilitate. If any solution is to be reached, the involved third party or parties must be neutral. As for Iran, it worries me that Obama expresses that he “will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.” As President, how loosely does he define “imminently threatened”? The U.S. has just gone to based on what revealed itself as faulty intelligence. I would like him to be clearer in this instance. I’d like to know exactly what circumstances necessitate unilateral force. Also, his use of the term “vital interests” could be a poor choice. An elite theorists might argue that the consideration of fossil fuels as a “vital” American interest is what spawned the war in Iraq in the first place.
Lastly, Obama advocates U.S. interests in creating strong democracies worldwide. His reasons for this are sound: such governments would be more globally responsible, thus helping American interests. However, he also proposes raising the budget $50 billion dollars in this area, and for what? Meddling in other nations’ governments. A truly strong democratic system must come from within the nation itself. Without national belief in democracy, the system will not take root. Obama wants to make every country a better place, not just the U.S. That is a nice idea, but it is not remotely plausible. It is costly, and unlikely to do much in the long run. Overall, his foreign policy includes too much involvement in other countries’ affairs. There is only so much the U.S. can do. The president should solve the most pressing dilemmas first, which include domestic issues. I am concerned that Obama may quickly overreach his abilities. The last thing our country needs right now is to be mired in more international conflict.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p50/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
P.s. while reviewing my lovely post I realize I failed to site my sources....
I used www.foreignaffairs.com like the rest of you :)
While reading Barak Obama’s foreign policy goals, I realized that I cannot entirely agree or disagree with his platform. I agree that we do need to pull out of Iraq, but I also disagree with some of his views on building up the military and when it is appropriate to use it.
I agree with Obama’s time table of drawing troops out of Iraq by March 31, 2008. Obama says “ The best chance we have to leave Iraq a better place is to pressure these warring parties to find a lasting political solution. And the only effective way to apply this pressure is to begin a phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a date consistent with the goal set by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.” The United States’ militia cannot continue to fight another country’s civil war. We need to be a leader in helping Iraq achieve a peaceful goal.
Obama’s foreign policy issues pertaining to the military are what bothered me the most. He states that “a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace.” I disagree with this statement and believe that sustaining peace comes from having strong leaders who can skillfully and powerfully communicate with other world and foreign leaders. Obama should not put as much pressure on a military that has already been weakened by an unnecessary war. However, I do agree that the US should put forward effort in revitalizing it’s military. It is important that the men and women serving in the military have the proper training and equipment when sent into dangerous situations. “As commander in chief, I would also use our armed forces wisely. When we send our men and women into harm's way, I will clearly define the mission, seek out the advice of our military commanders, objectively evaluate intelligence, and ensure that our troops have the resources and the support they need.”
Directly after he states this is where I was conflicted with his message.
I was conflicted with some of Obama’s views on when it is appropriate to use the military. Obama says “I will not hesitate to use force, unilaterally if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.” This seems contradictory to the statements he had made before it. I mostly disagree with the phrasing of this. I believe it shows that he may set up the use of the military using force on broad terms. Where are the lines drawn for our ‘vital interests’ or what defines a threat? I agree that we cannot rule out using force in every case, but we also cannot threaten back with our military in every case. We need a leader who will solve foreign issues by using effective diplomacy and intelligence, and force as a last resort.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p10/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
From Priscilla-
After reading Senator Obama’s After reading Senator Obama’s statement regarding foreign policies, I supported his ideas of moving beyond Iraq, revitalizing our military and strengthening partnerships.
Senator Obama recognizes that the war in Iraq as the prominent issue pressing the nation right now when it comes to its foreign agenda. He believes it is time for the nation’s civilian leaders to acknowledge the truth that military solution cannot be impose on a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Only the leaders of these two factions can really bring peace to Iraq. The nation must bring a responsible end to the war by gradually redrawing troops from Iraq. The nation should leave behind miniscule number of troops to train and root out Al Qaeda. Redirecting the nation’s attention from Iraq will help deal with the growing problem of Iran‘s nuclear power, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, and the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestinian nations. Most importantly he believes we should strengthen and support the security of Israel, the nation's only true ally in the region. He believes the conflict between Isreal and Palestine needs to be resolve by identifying and strenthening states who are trully commited to peace, and isolating those that seek conflict and instability. There should be tougher sanctions placed on Iran to press them financially to stop their nuclear program.
Senator Obama recongnizes that American leadership in the world solidly depends on its military’s capability to ensure peace. According to the nation’s military leaders, the Marine Corps and the U.S Army are facing a crises right now. The is not a single Army unit that is capable of handling a new crisis, and the majority of the National Guards have not been prepared enough to handle a crisis. It has been weaken by the Iraq war. Obama believes when U.S troops finally leave Iraq, there should be a great revitalization in the military to prepare it for future uncertainties. He will provide our military men and women with the best equipments, armors, incentives and training. Before he sends any of our millitary men and women in harms way, he will clearly define the mission, seek out intelligence from the military leaders and make sure the military have the resources they need to combat the mission. Something that was definitely missing in this war.
Lastly Obama recognizes the effects of the war in Iraq. It has damaged the reputation and some alliances, partnerships and cooperation the United States had with many countries. Obama believes that to maintain American leadership in the world, such alliances should be renewed with countries that will help combat the war on terrorism. He is going to do so by pursuasion and not by power. He is also going to create new alliances in the Asias and Africas by way of contributing and helping to their growth and development.
All these ideas are very similar to the ways I think the nation's foreign policy should be and the way he plans to do it is much more realistic.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p30/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.htmlstatement regarding foreign policies, I supported his ideas of moving beyond Iraq, revitalizing our military and strengthening partnerships.
Senator Obama recognizes that the war in Iraq as the prominent issue pressing the nation right now when it comes to its foreign agenda. He believes it is time for the nation’s civilian leaders to acknowledge the truth that military solution cannot be impose on a civil war between the Shiites and the Sunnis. Only the leaders of these two factions can really bring peace to Iraq. The nation must bring a responsible end to the war by gradually redrawing troops from Iraq. The nation should leave behind miniscule number of troops to train and root out Al Qaeda. Redirecting the nation’s attention from Iraq will help deal with the growing problem of Iran‘s nuclear power, the resurgence of Al Qaeda, and the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah in Palestinian nations. Most importantly he believes we should strengthen and support the security of Israel, the nation's only true ally in the region. He believes the conflict between Isreal and Palestine needs to be resolve by identifying and strenthening states who are trully commited to peace, and isolating those that seek conflict and instability. There should be tougher sanctions placed on Iran to press them financially to stop their nuclear program.
Senator Obama recongnizes that American leadership in the world solidly depends on its military’s capability to ensure peace. According to the nation’s military leaders, the Marine Corps and the U.S Army are facing a crises right now. The is not a single Army unit that is capable of handling a new crisis, and the majority of the National Guards have not been prepared enough to handle a crisis. It has been weaken by the Iraq war. Obama believes when U.S troops finally leave Iraq, there should be a great revitalization in the military to prepare it for future uncertainties. He will provide our military men and women with the best equipments, armors, incentives and training. Before he sends any of our millitary men and women in harms way, he will clearly define the mission, seek out intelligence from the military leaders and make sure the military have the resources they need to combat the mission. Something that was definitely missing in this war.
Lastly Obama recognizes the effects of the war in Iraq. It has damaged the reputation and some alliances, partnerships and cooperation the United States had with many countries. Obama believes that to maintain American leadership in the world, such alliances should be renewed with countries that will help combat the war on terrorism. He is going to do so by pursuasion and not by power. He is also going to create new alliances in the Asias and Africas by way of contributing and helping to their growth and development.
All these ideas are very similar to the ways I think the nation's foreign policy should be and the way he plans to do it is much more realistic.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401-p30/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html
Post a Comment