Centerfield

William, I think you missed the entire point of my response to Raf which is that you cannot get an answer from this singular focus without understanding the reasoning behind the general foreign policy approach.

That is why I started off with theoretical questions regarding Iran. If Obama accepts the Grand Bargin with Iran, that totally changes what can be done in Iraq and how Iraqis will regard it.

Raf wanted to know most of all the real differences between McCain, Obama and Hillary. As long as you focus on "promises" of what each would do in Iraq and not look at the their policy team, general policy, their behavior, past comments and present pandering, you get nothing real but words.

Obama believes that leaving will bring peace to Iraq. Hillary is more circumspect. McCain laughs. How the hell, do you evaluate their real intentions without specific questions and vetting their history? Credibility and policy count far more than trying to distinguish between Hillary and Obama on Iraq. Obama makes a big point about AQ. Well, let me state some FACTS here. 1. the recent election the Democrats have been dying for in Pakistan has led the winners to declare NO MILITARY SOLUTION WILL SOLVE ELIMINATING AQ. They say Musharraf following US policy is why Pakistan is in trouble and that US forces will NEVER be allowed into Pakistan. So Obama now seems brilliant, yes? Well AQ in Iraq is preparing to give money and weapons to the Palestinians. So what will Obama do to eliminate AQ in Iraq, or in Syria, or in Gaza, or in Lebanon as he has made "getting" them his big mission to sound like a hawk? Do you see the point? Iraq is just the slogan for a much broader issue and I suggest people do see the link at SF thread to Malley and Zbig. This is a far better way to get past primary pandering.

If Obama could say what he did in 2004 and then to AIPAC, what does it matter how he triangulates today? So I do not see what your question really gets at. If Democrats have a prayer in stopping Obama on the 14th of March, they had better look far past Iraq to the big picture.

You talk about managing wars correctly, but as head of the Senate Foreign Relations Sub Committee on Eastern Europe and NATO, has Obama said one word about the lack of NATO troops in Afghanistan? He has blamed the results on our not towing the line for Europe. Is that right? Is he out shouting how other nations should help in Iraq? Does he even support sanctions for Iran as then spin enriched gas? So while you spin the nuance, no one debates the bigger picture and Obama faces McCain.

Then I am forced to pick one or the other.

Wonderful. And that was my point to Raf with the clock on your wall and mine ticking to an irreversable consequence. Maybe Brian is right, or maybe terribly wrong.

I repeat, Obama and Hillary can argue about nuance in Iraq to pander to who ever. Once they take office a different context will appear. In that sense Brian is exactly right. To distinguish between McCain, Hillary and Obama in terms of where they would lead us, we need to look far pasr Iraq at what their real foreign policy is, specific answers to specific questions. While we debate Iraq, the primary will be over. It is that simple.

There are many questions that McCain needs to answer. How much of the Bush policies will be continued, domestic and foreign? Who the heck is he going to hire and has he drunk at least the diluted kool-aid of the PNAC-types who want a pax Americana? He is smart enough to realize that the idea of a permanent American military presence in Iraq will be provocative in many different ways including that the US will be/is seen as occupying Iraq solely for oil - what can he do to change that?
Years ago the Iraq occupation would have been contrary to basic American conservative doctrine, or so we were led to believe from the conservative outcry when Clinton helped out Kosovo, so if a political solution does not appear let's say after one or two more years, then what?

How is he going to reconcile the shear idiocy of paying for the war by deficit? He's already drunk that kool-aid, according to his latest speeches, how is he going to rebuild the US military so that it is more able to handle domestic defense when there are so many other competing needs like simply maintaining our infrastructure. How is he going to fix the personnel problems including the acceptance of less than desirable recruits in the military? Finally,does McCain have the guts, unlike Bush, to make this war a sacrifice shared by all rather than resting it on the shoulders of the families of a few hundred thousand soldiers?

These questions should be posed to Hillary and Obama as well. What will they do to back up their rhetoric?

On the funny side I half wonder if the only thing that deters anyone from invading Oakland or LA is that fact that some of our criminals are more heavily armed than any soldier could be.

That's a real problem. Yeah, me, too.

I decided against McCain, mostly because the corruption of a party a third term in power is an even higher cost for me than Iraq being right. And, if top admin officials come to McCain, and say, we want to do something to take away more American rights or to do something against my/American values and interests like torturing prisoners, will he say no? He's already been hedging even on torture.

Nor does McCain seem like a good choice to me even on Iraq. When he gives a speech talking about how the US ran away from its occuptation responsibility, then I'll start thinking of him as being good on Iraq. Is there any reason to believe that he's ever going to understand that vital bit, without which what Iraq can't be understood?

One heartening thing to consider is that Presidents have a long history of changing their minds on foreign policy when in office. JFK found out, for example, that the missile gap that'd been a big issue of his was far in our favor..... Bush II campaigned against that wasteful nation-building stuff.

In the end, I decided on Obama as my least bad Iraq choice because he seems to me to have the most energy for learning new things in the campaign and has lived awhile outside the US, which seems likely to me to give him extra perspective - the most foreign-policy of any President in awhile, I think.

Hillary's decision to FOLLOW somebody else's Iraq policy, and not based on events on Iraq didn't warm me to her as a choice. If she wants to lead, she has to lead.

But I sure wish there were a better choice.

McCain HAS spoken of 'occupational responsibility' - several times. I heard him. He has a son there in the armed services and he cares about the issue.
But generally I appreciate the different comments here.
I would say that either one of them - Obama, Hillary, or McCain would be a significant and substantial improvement over Dubya. There are alot of Neocons who do not accept McCain (National Review) because of his Realist connections. Criticisms recently in Der Spiegel show that Kissinger is undoubtedly McCain's most similar thinker, and he showed clearly in that interview that he was not taken with the Perle - Wolfowitz, Cheney - Rumsfeld school of thought. McCain even has said he's thinking of leaving in Gates. This all fits in with his friendship with Scowcroft too. So this points to the restoration of Sanity.
I too wonder who I will support. I want to see who each of the three pick as their running mates. Gen Colin Powell is watching very closely - he is on the fence between McCain and Obama I think. I feel similarly, with Hillary being a close third, that is right now, and especially if something happens like Pakistan cracks up, I rate them 1) McCain 2) Obama 3) Clinton . As someone said earlier, I want to watch carefully though to see whether McCain bends too much to the right. I don't think he will. The strongest argument I've seen is that this is all just politics and that McCain is a true Moderate by heart and by nature. His hero is Churchill - tough on foreign issues and moderate at home. A good combination, I believe. I do not think McCain deserves the hate and ridicule from many interests and factions, including bloggers and pundits, and cable news channels like CNN.

Off topic, but Powell was and is part of this mess. Why see what he says? As far as I'm concerned he lost most of his credibility years ago and has a lot to answer for.

Hi Max. Yeah, I wouldn't try to characterize your response on that thread in any kind of simple terms. You laid out in detail what you want to know, and the specific issues involved.

I guess part of my motivation for posting this is the general absence of any "memory" of what Hillary did on the Iraq issue, early in her campaign. It's a live issue whether she "meant" the earlier stuff, or the later stuff. And it's a huge problem for her, now, if she gets elected ... because promises were made about troops coming out in 60 days. But she tried. For a while.

McCain has tried too, at times. Listen to him talk informally, or in an in-depth interview, and you realize the occasional war-cheerleading you hear from him is not where he's really at. In terms of his understanding and judgment, he has something in common with the leading foreign policy moderates, like Biden and Lugar.

The only one who hasn't tried much to break the mold a bit, on this issue, is Obama. That's one reason I'm likely to vote either McCain or Hillary. There's some seasoning and some thoughtfulness with those two that Obama can't match.

Well, there are many reasons I have some serious issues with Patrick..a..I mean..Obama. Please take a look at Simon's thread about Michelle Obama I post below. At the end of it, I post a strange but interesting article on Zbig and Patrick/Obama. The general objections I have concern how Obama played this race (a pun) and a series of behavior that distrubs me, but Iraq is another matter.

But perhaps the most serious problem I have is the foreign policy question. Now I know Obama's ranting about ending NAFTA, promising the moon etc., but I hardly feel confident in Zbig, Malley, Rice and others at the helm. In short order I think shrewder enemies and the media/Rpeublicans on his back will make him struggle, and I mean struggle.

Yes, Hillary started out centrist and hawkish. She has had to pull back in order to pull this out. What were her options? The Democratic Party has some serious problems. The irony of the JFK mantel is not lost on me and I have never voted for a Republican.

Because of the particular derangment of the Democrats, I see no point in Iraq being a measure of much. McCain at least turned it around. So I suggested Raf, might look in a different direction for his answer and ask broader questions to ferrot out the policy differences. I didn't mean to make any personal attack on your asking the question again here. I think we share much of the same perspection, so I can feel your pain.

McCain did fight his party. Hillary fought her Party for more than three years and I have more respect for her now than before. I hope she doesn't lift a finger for Obama who has played race and sexism (yes, see his comment about Hillary periodically attacking him.) I can't stand his wife and many of his advisors, so perhaps my decision will be easy.

Again, in terms of Iraq, it is absurd to believe Iraq will chill if we leave. As Iran and others fill the void and AQ reappears, Obama will waiver. It will be a mess as he talks and talks and talks. Like Brian says, he will have to act, but without the support a more realistic honest would have garnered him during the campaign.

Of course, this is my opinion. I am not impressed. Imagine, I'm a liberal and Obama has actually begun to really bother me.

What Hillary did in terms of Iraq, was like McCain -blast the mess Bush was making. I have several reports where she bascially warned of the book FIASCO before it was written. Like Kerry, her idea was to fix Iraq and not make it a vain loss of life. She battled until a few months ago, when her advisors said she will not beat the Left on this issue no matter how much sense her views make. She'll be another Joe. Obama picked what the Left wanted while tryng to appear centrist. LOL

Well, time to sleep....here is Simon's thread (not to trump yours in any way). I do this because at the bottom is an interesting link to the Zbib/Patrick/Obama connection. Yes, a bit conspiritorial, but interesting never the less,

here

Well, at this rate it will done for Obama and McCain on March 4, unless Hillary pulls a big upset. The Democrats DO NOT CARE about foreign policy. They do not care about the Middle East, Putin, China, Darfur. They care about what their country can do for them. Again, read the last link I posted on Simon's thread. I am a bit bitter that the Democrats have turned away this Liberal with a song, a dance and Yes we can which is a borrowed line. I find this campaign the most disturbing one I have ever experianced and at this point I find you one brave man, William, for even making the effort to discuss Iraq and foreign affairs in an effort to support Hillary. Blacks intimidating Black leaders to support Obama? I will not vote for him and frankly, I wouldn't believe him if he posted here and answered your question directly while quoting Patrick, or JFK, or MLK, or FDR, ot Truman. Jesse, Teddy, Bradley, Zbig, Clyburn, Mathews, Oberman, Sebilius, Sharpton, Edwards, they can ALL support him. If I were the Clintons, I would let Gore take the mantle and move to a more adoring Europe. Thank you Carl. Thank you Dean.

Again, excuse my rant here. I have read your posts and I usually agree with your views. I first came to centerfield almost three years ago. I feel I have gone full circle trying to make sense of Democratic derangment and I find myself in the same place....like a rolling stone......

Oh, and one last thing: I didn't answer your question did I?

McCain and Hillary never imagined four years ago, Bush would screw this up so bad. McCain should have shouted more, but he was worried he wouldn't get the Republican nod. Conservatives don't like him so much, but he figured in the end, security would drive politics. Hillary made the same calculation and thought by election time security would count enough with voters that Iraq would not become the central issues and the Democrats become completley deranged. He anticipated Iraq would improve. They did not understand the media was moving to the Left. They did not undertand the America people would begin to sour on global reality as long as we had no terrorism here. 9/11 wore off and the Left made big inroads on the internet and media.

As Brian said, Obama couldn't out flank Hillary on the right and with Dean, Pelosi, Reid in charge, why not become THE MAN, pick up on anti-Iraq and actually take the game away from Hillary? So I understand that Hillary shouted but stayed true to her centrist sentiment as a strategy until the end. McCain didn't shout loud enough, but had a nomination to win and figured Iraq would improve. I still repect his character. Both Hillary and McCain broke the mold on Iraq, but Obama played it like he always has. That is why that strange post I linked is a bit chilly, don't you think? The Manchurian candidates of Patrick and Obama? What did Obama do at Columbia? But anyway, Hillary and McCain will or would deal with Iraq as it relates to the broader issues and neither want more US losses (or losses in vain) or more hardware beaten up.

Still, there is a bigger game. As Tully said the Russians are nuts. The terrorists are nuts. Ahmadinejad is nuts. And now comes along novel tecnology and a zillions ways to false flag or deliver with no return address. We have never lived in that world. Brian will call this fear. You judge that one. I wonder if he gives any credit to the administration.

Anyway I think fear is a completely wrong characterization. One largge scale cyber attack on the West would cost 35 billion per day. One WMD at Long Beach would cost more than that in shipping freezing alone. The numbers are staggering. Now would be a great time to strengthen our ties and form a united front. Yep a decent time for a JFK or a Reagan. Talking is great, but behind Obama is a team. The ideas he sports and the divisiveness he is creating does not bode well. Take Iraq as a great example of how molded he is. So I hope at least I answered the question. He copies Hillary's plans pretty much on Iraq, but plays to the Left as his central calling card. Bravo..for being so conventioanl...and that is another irony.

Shane, I'm glad McCain understands we have an occupational responsibility. But I'm talking about something different - the US failure to provide internal security, a vital part of that responsibility, for years, right up until Petraeus was put in charge.

Here's a good book on the subject.

Iraq is easy to understand if you know that, hard if you don't.

Max writes:
One largge scale cyber attack on the West would cost 35 billion per day.

Er, large-scale cyber attacks are a regular fact of life today. ALL OVER THE WORLD. Therefore, it looks to me like we'd lose about as much as we lose today.

Just wanted to say thanks to Will (and Max) for keeping this discussion going. It's been thoughtful on both threads. I've said elsewhere that I have a reason to hope that Obama and Hillary will end up being more responsible then their current rhetoric suggests. I also see McCain being one who, while certainly not willing to retreat, would be willing to adjust in a way that Bush and the current GOP establishment wouldn't be.

It is a tough choice, no matter what.

Yeah, I sense the same thing, Rafique -- that everyone would be more responsible than their rhetoric. But, at the same time, it becomes more and more jarring to me to hear the rhetoric turn a little more toward the ends of the spectrum and the party bases every day. My visceral reaction is that I don't want any of these people to be president, if they do what they say they're going to do.

Will, that is a fantastic observation. I couldn't agree with you more. I was never a Hillary worshipper and actually had high hopes for the Manchurain candidate Obama (tell me that link I pointed out to you didn't make you wonder HUntington/Zbig/Patrick/Soros...sheesh).

McCain I do respect but I wonder if he's up to the task, too tarnished by Bush and or if he will yield enough on some social liberal values I support.

I wish RFK would return, or even a Powel who had never strayed off the deep end. Biden if he could control his mouth. Why does our process produce so few brillant candidates and why are Americans so uncritical and undemanding? It's always ask what our country can do for us.

I find Obama scary, I find McCain a bit tired. I find Hillary a bit stiff and unexciting (well not compared to Gore). I would prefer Hillary to the two others and despite my worries about McCain, he will be confident. I can see Obama do a lot of damage, winning in a most divisive way.

And you know what is really sad? Just look at the Free Republic and see what they say about McCain. What they say about Hillary is understandable given their partisan pathology, but McCain? I see so many there admit Repblican Independents voted for Obama just to see Hillary lose. Now they are screaming Obama is far worse.

No, our political system is bad, led by a media with its head up its ,,,,,

I was talking about this Jon.

Again, we certainly have forgotten the cost break-downs of all those things we considered in the few years following 9/11. Still, one tanker sunk in the Straight of Malacca or the Gulf, one event at Long Beach or Boston, one downed commercial airliner and huge costs unfold. Wonder if the Republicans make it as hard on the Democrats,

Now, there may be nothing to prevent this but certainly media has moved very hard away from potential problems. What happened to the approach of preparing for the semi-worst? Zbig's 2003 comments I posted at SF conclude we must solve the real problems that cause terrorism. Please not that OBL osn recently explained that OBL doesn't considers Americans civilians because they pay taxes....Well, bringing things up would introduce factors not friendly to what some want to focus on. And I suggest you read a bit of Huntington to see that Zbig actually is a variant of the Clash of Civilization equation. Huntington's now unspoken solution is rather disturbing, if you think what I say is alarmist...LOL

So many currents under the still waters of a balmy day.

Count me among those who seriously doubts whether our foreign policy really will differ all that much depending on the choice of our next president.

Max, I know you have a lengthy list of scary global things that truly do merit concern. There are lots of folks out there who are nuts. I respond to that acknowledgement by wondering what sorts of things we can realistically do. I think nukes are a pandora's box. We can try to control existing ones until they expire, but the know-how and capability issue makes for an open Pandora's box paradigm...you don't ask if, you wonder when..., and you pray for the best.

I think many of the nuts are beyond our power to realistically control. Obviously, Iraq shows the vast difficulty in reforming and controlling even a country that had suffered under the yoke of a cruel despot. Why would we think we'll have better luck with Russia, Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? If you can't fix or control madmen, you settle for next best, which is to let some other poor unfortunate entity catch their attention. Or you try to cooperate with everyone to minimize the threat.

The United States is and has for some time now been the primary focus of the ire of almost an entire region's nations (those of the middle east), in addition to a representative sampling across the globe. I'd rather that change BEFORE another handful of intelligent, capable, and highly motivated nations acquires nukes.

That's going to require a modulation of the American tone from the axis of evil days. IMO, any of the 3 remaining candidates is better suited to this than GWB. But the biggest point I have stands in both sympathy with the next President and in contradiction to the hypothesis that Obama alone is some sort of dove simpleton. And that point is this:

The circumstances of international political conflict all across the Globe are largely beyond our control. The positive returns on involvement start to diminish rapidly, especially unilateral involvement.

First Kritter, excuse my rants though I think they have some purpose beyond catharsis. Compare the quotes below. I hardly think Obama is an idiot dove as Brian calls it. There is a vast difference between Zbig, Malley and other Obama advisors coupled with his politcal triangulation and a sounder centrist record. Is that Hillary or McCain or as Willima suggest, someone yet unknown? Maybe the latter. For someone who brought up Reagan, I think Obama was actually making a bad joke.

I never hailed everything that Bush did, but there are many ways to step forward now. Obama's position on Iran, his logic behind Iraq getting better the faster we pull out, his silence on a range of issues, is disturbing. JFK stumbled, but Avalon at Yale reveals a brilliant mind and grasp of detail and hardball. I am astonished the degree Patrick and Obama have always parroted each other. While I completely agree we need to set out on a fresh foot, that hardly means to experiment. We know what to do (try) and implementing it was Bush's biggest failure. Again, Carter set out as somewhat centrist with Vance and Zbig, but helped make a mess that today we are paying for from the Mullahs to OBL. Even Putin remembers Soviet soldiers being tortured by the Mujhadeen. I bet many Russians laugh as we get bogged down. We could make enormous mistakes, even with a hawkish President with Liberal ideals. WMD, terrorist groups, former enemies moving more towards adversaries far beyond the actions of Bush. As Tully said..LOL the Russians are nuts. Zbig made a move towards China and now they have US neutron bomb plans. Clinton let Gore make a deal with Iran and now we have a bad situation.

The plan truth is not as Zbig describes it, that terrorism has causes we can and must be responsible to solve. So I ask you to read both Obama and JFK. Yes, I know I'm being a bit unfair to Obama here and JFK addressed a somewhat different world, but there are so many lifted lines in today's rhetoric, it is hard to know where to start. On one hand you have identity politics, lifted lines and a vague message. And then you have a strong, confident message, with goals and clear moral lines in JFK's words. We were far from perfect in 1960, but there was a forward-looking theme with clear demarcations of good and bad, up and down. The irony is that today, candidates wear past leader's clothing while turning the page on the past and in some great ways, putting it down. Hell, Tyson was no Ali. So I think it fair to keep the obstacles in focus with the same kind of idealistic realism..LOL, not derail the necessary confident thrust of our unique position and leadership, to know how to negotiate and unite without compromising our ideals and our alliances or ever underestimating the task at hand. This is extremely difficult stuff because our adversaries are shrewder.

Everyone keeps saying how critical this election is, yet, on policy and record, many say, why worry? So I hear what you're saying, but I think we need better ears and eyes, better inspection and questioning because the pathways are numerous. Journalism has become advocacy. Hell, JFK saw media as a threat to Statemsnaship in difficult times. Had RFK not been attorney general, who knows if Florida would still exist. The fault dear brutus stuff,,,,you know what I mean. People do matter, character does matter, strategy does matter.

We have come a long way from ask not what your country.....so I give you some quotes.

“They’re trying to bamboozle you. It’s the same old okie-doke. Y’all know about okie doke, right? ... They try to bamboozle you. Hoodwink ya. Try to hoodwink ya.”
— Barak Obama

“You’ve been hoodwinked. You’ve been had. You’ve been took. You’ve been led astray, led amok. You’ve been bamboozled.”
— Malcolm X

"In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility - I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it -- and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." - JFK

Good discussion on all points.
I have two short comments.

Messianic figures scare the shit out of me. I don't trust them at all.

Let us hope that the next president, whoever, gets out of the unilateral business and back into the governance business. No more signing statements and a respect for the role of Congress and the courts.
Which means, of course, a congress with a backbone.