what changes can we expect in U.S. foreign policy in January ’09?

by Gordon Cooper

From Broader View Weekly, August 1, 2008

While the economy seemed to have center stage through most of the recent coverage of this presidential campaign, the international tour just completed by Barack Obama has reminded us that the next person who stands behind the Seal of the President of the United States of America will have to deal with foreign affairs as well. It is essential; therefore, that we examine the challenges that this administration has dealt with and compare them with the challenges ahead for the next Commander – in – Chief.

It goes without saying (but I guess I’ll say it anyway) that it is oh so easy to speak in grandiose language and brilliantly conceived and orchestrated speeches before a friendly crowd and a complicit press corps. It is, however, a totally different challenge when one is seated behind the desk in the people’s Oval Office. Decisions will have to be made, not just for votes or easy treatment in the media, but for the future of our nation and also for the security of nations who depend upon our armed forces.

It is necessary then to evaluate what one means by ‘change’ and if those changes are for the better or if they are only changes for the sake of change alone.

First of all, we should re-examine the foreign policy of the outgoing Bush administration and determine its successes and failures. Many today claim that the decision to enter Iraq with a coalition of like-minded leaders to hold Saddam Hussein responsible for his repeated violations of UN mandates was a mistake. I think an objective treatment by future historians in generations to come will see it as one of the great military successes or our time. We now have a nation that has settled religious differences and has established a renewed relationship with the west. It is true that much work remains there and it will be necessary for our troops to remain there for a few more years, but it is undeniable that many of the critics were proven wrong and Bush was proven right.

The initial response of Bush following the wake-up call we received on September 11, 2001 was to call our attention to those foreign governments whose policy was to sponsor and encourage terrorism throughout our globe. We acted in concert with many other nations to bring the Taliban to its knees in Afghanistan, then we moved on to Iraq and after many broken ultimatums we, along with our allies, removed the corrupt administration of Saddam.

The message heard from both McCain and Obama is one of change, as both candidates sense a mood of discontent in the air. They, along with their advisors, want to call attention to the need for a ‘new sheriff in town’ who will make all things right and ‘clean up this town’.

This, as I said above, is good on the campaign trail, but the day in January 2009 after the inaugural balls have all ended and they sit for the first time in that presidential chair, they will face a different scene. This will be the first time that a new president has taken office with U.S. troops actively engaged on battlefields since Richard Nixon inherited the Viet Nam conflict. This new president will not have the luxury of a build up period; he will have to decide the proper course for a build –down and possible re-deployment. It is very likely that he will face a cleverly timed terrorist attack like the one inflicted upon the voters in Spain just before their elections.

The Taliban, once weakened, has re-strengthened itself with the aid and comfort of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Obama has brazenly said he would invade their borders if he had intelligence of a terrorist target there. That policy may make headlines here and present an image of bravado, but it doesn’t make sense in the real world. He also said he would negotiate “without preconditions” with an Iranian leader who just bragged about his defiance of international sanctions set in place to halt his nuclear ambitions.

It is to be expected that many solid campaign promises will melt into liquid and then evaporate into vapor when the heat of the Oval Office gets turned up to the boiling point. However, we must be very careful that we elect the man who will not melt under the same temperatures and pressure. It is important that we elect a ROCK – not just a ROCK STAR.

McCain has been battle tested. He has stared into the face of torturers and held his ground for the security of his fellow soldiers and his nation. He has the maturity to see the world as it is. While Obama makes his pretty speeches and garners his tender treatment by a fawning media, the terrorists and some evil world leaders are plotting our destruction. It will not matter what economic changes we make if we are not secure within our borders.