Obama vs. Palin on Foreign Policy

Christopher Hitchens writes of Pakistan:

Sen. Barack Obama has, if anything, been the more militant of the two presidential candidates in stressing the danger here and the need to act without too much sentiment about our so-called Islamabad ally. He began using this rhetoric when it was much simpler to counterpose the "good" war in Afghanistan with the "bad" one in Iraq.

Never mind that now; he is committed in advance to a serious projection of American power into the heartland of our deadliest enemy. And that, I think, is another reason why so many people are reluctant to employ truthful descriptions for the emerging Afghan-Pakistan confrontation: American liberals can't quite face the fact that if their man does win in November, and if he has meant a single serious word he's ever said, it means more war, and more bitter and protracted war at that—not less.

More protracted war, yes. The anti-war Left, the isolationist Right, and the rest of the Doves will not like this. But I see Obama's position not just as more war, but smarter war.

This is one area I've been rather impressed with Obama--his willingness not simply to present Afghanistan as the "good" war, but to also engage in the possibility of moving into Pakistan, something that is looking far, far more likely these days.

The experience debate rages on between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. Well let's assume that McCain and Biden factor each other out. They are both rather hawkish, experienced, knowledgeable men. They were both for the Iraq War, and both invested time and energy in coming up with a solution to the failed strategy that embodied the first four years of that war.

So neither really counts.

Now let's look at what's left. On the one hand Obama. On the other Palin.

I'm well aware of the tasteless editing of ABC and Mr. Gibson's interview with Sarah Palin. Even so, her answers on foreign affairs were abysmal at best. At worst, her responses (combined with her complete lack of resume, or seeming interest in anything other than domestic issues) were downright frightening.

Obama, on the other hand, has been grilled on this quite extensively, both in the primaries and on many interviews, including what was almost, but not quite, hostile territory on the Factor with Bill O'Reilly.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

And of course, Obama has made some brilliant remarks regarding his foreign policy vision, which is so much more complex and visionary than anything Palin has to offer...

We must lead by building a 21st century military to ensure the security of our people and advance the security of all people. We must lead by marshalling a global effort to stop the spread of the world’s most dangerous weapons. We must lead by building and strengthening the partnerships and alliances necessary to meet our common challenges and defeat our common threats.

So, all things being factored equally--McCain and Biden offsetting one another--and Obam clearly pulling ahead of Palin, from my point of view the Obama/Biden ticket is the better choice for a new American century of democracy and freedom for all people.

Obviously deeper analysis of both Senator McCain and Senator Obama's foreign policies are in order, but just skimming the surface of this debate makes it quite clear, that while McCain is often right on foreign policy issues, his opponent is too. And their running mates are far disparate in terms of quality and foreign policy know-how.

~LeftHawk