Future US foreign policy

Ok I'll try to respond as best I can. Firstly, let's deal with this experience thing. I agree that experience is important but I do not agree that it is the be all and end all. For me, what is far more important is judgement, judgement that is arrived at through careful consideration of the options, careful analysis consulting numerous people who might have different viewpoints, and coming to a rational foreign policy stance. What is also important to me is that unilaterally rattling the sabre and using megaphone diplomacy is frankly unproductive and I think this has been amply demonstrated over the last 8 years. I think we therefore need desperately a change of course, because our foreign policy is in a rut right now. Of course, I would point that Obama got the judgement call right in relation to the Iraq war: on the most fundamental foreign policy issue of recent years, he made the right call. McCain and Hillary Clinton did not. I am of the centre left and do not seek to hide this. That said, I had much respect for the foreign policy of George Bush the elder, which was a rational and pragmatic foreign policy that sought to solve problems in a realistic fashion (the best example of this was George Bush senior bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together for peace talks, being impartial to both sides, building trust, etc.) Indeed, George Bush senior was, in my view, a far better president than a lot of people give him credit for and hence I was intrigued when I read (sorry but forgot where) that Obama was looking to model his foreign policy on the elder George Bush. General elections tend to create more heat than light, ie people will call McCain a warmonger whilst others will call Obama a weak pacifist. The truth however, as always lies in between. If one looks carefully at the stances of both candidates in relation to Iraq for example, what one sees (despite all the protestations to the contrary in a general election campaign where each side attempt to whip up its base) is both candidates converging to a similar position (ie the US will withdraw its forces within a set timeframe - which George Bush even himself now talks about - but that such withdrawal will have to be carefully done.) What heartens me is that either Obama or McCain will be immeasurably better than George Bush, so at least from that point of view, things can only get better. Re Obama, yes he has said he is prepared to talk to US enemies - he was castigated for that, but we see George Bush (junior) himself authorising talks with Iran by sending a US envoy to talks with this enemy recently. Is that weakness? No, it was George Bush (junior) acting with common sense, a bit tardily unfortunately. Also re Obama, he is not the soft weak leftie as he is being depicted - hence my point about him modelling his foreign policy on George Bush the elder. He has stated that efforts in Afghanistan to defeat Al-Quada need to be intensified, as he believes that is the central front on the war on terror. He has also said that he will pursue the terrorists in Pakistan if need be. I don't think this has exactly been music to the ears of liberals and muslims. For me, a successful foreign policy can only work if you are clear what your interests are but also try to find out what are the legimitate interests of other countries and try, if possible, to reach compromise (and that means talking and that means allies but also however, it also requires you to be tough when necessary, ie when the other side are doing something unacceptable or refuse to compromise). Foreign policy must be approached with an open mind and critically the President must examine all the facts carefully and not take an ideological / pre-disposed stance first (something George Bush singularily failed to do, just after the September 11th attacks, he was saying 2 days later to attack Iraq not having bothered to find out whether they were behind the Sept 11th attacks or not.) Foreign policy calls therefore for a cool head, careful consideration of information from all/different quarters and sound judgement, and I believe that Obama has these qualities. To be fair, I suspect that McCain has these qualities as well, but his attempts to play the 'hard man', his insistence that the Iraq war was right when it is so obvious that the reasons for going to war in Iraq were totally wrong and some of his loose talk (bomb, bomb, bomb Iran) in the heat of this election campaign obscures this and makes me feel that there is a real risk that he will continue George Bush (junior)'s failed foreign policy. That said, I suspect, like Obama, McCain will be much more reasonable and rational in office once the election is over, though how that will play with the Republican base is a very different matter! It is just that, in view of what I have said above, I am not prepared to take the risk of McCain following the same failed foreign policy of George Bush. We simply cannot afford that.

I agree that McCain is not Bush and have not called him a war monger nor do I engage in the silliness of 'McBush' name calling. The McCain of 2000 I had a lot of respect for, indeed had he been the Republican nominee back then, I would have found him far more preferable to Al Gore. I think Americans are lucky this time to have two candidates whom in my view, though very different, will perform well as President. That said, I am of the centre-left and was very against the Iraq war so supporting McCain for me is rather difficult at this point. I also think, sadly, that McCain has started to lose some of his 'independent' gloss as he has over the last few months reverted to a number of traditional Republican positions, positions that he disagreed with earlier on in the Bush administration (like those 2001 tax cuts for example). That is a shame but I understand in politics that you have to keep the base happy to get selected as the nominee. I also have noted in the press that he has a 95% voting record with the Republicans in the Senate, so he seems to toe the Republican line a bit more often than would at first appear. To sum up though, the Republicans were wise to select McCain as their candidate, he was by far the best available that they had. He does create some political space between himself and the toxic Bush brand, I think if the Republicans had selected anyone else (with the possible exception of Guilliani), they would have been in for a real hammering at the Presidential level. McCain will be able to appeal to independents and moderate Democrats and that is why he remains competitive so far. The question remains whether the anti-Bush tide is too strong for him to prevail. I suspect though that this won't be decided until the debates, when people can compare the two side by side.