{"id":4349,"date":"2008-04-21T08:44:27","date_gmt":"2008-04-21T16:04:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.amptoons.com\/blog\/archives\/2008\/04\/21\/why-im-voting-for-obama-obama-is-genuinely-better-than-clinton-on-foreign-policy-2\/"},"modified":"2008-04-21T08:44:27","modified_gmt":"2008-04-21T16:04:15","slug":"why-im-voting-for-obama-obama-is-genuinely-better-than-clinton-on-foreign-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/?p=4349","title":{"rendered":"Why I'm Voting For Obama: Obama Is Genuinely Better Than Clinton On Foreign Policy"},"content":{"rendered":"

Previously<\/a>, I argued that the differences between Obama and Clinton even on desperately important domestic issues, such as LGBTQ rights or health care, are unlikely to make a real difference in policy outcomes. This is because the differences between the candidates — both centrist Democrats — on these policies are small, and the enormous effects of political constraints and legislative give-and-take will matter so much that the small differences between Clinton’s and Obama’s policies will be a wash.<\/p>\n

But Presidents have much more control over foreign policy, especially matters of war and peace. This is an area where even small differences can potentially matter a lot. Specifically, a President’s beliefs about the use of military power, versus diplomatic approaches, is essential. There are areas of foreign policy in which the President will be forced to compromise with Congress, for better or worse: trade policy, for example, and immigration law. But there is no area where the President has more freedom to choose than military and diplomatic policy.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, it can be hard to determine what the differences between Clinton and Obama on foreign policy are. Listening to what they say is of limited use, because currently they’re both primarily concerned with persuading swing voters and superdelegates to support them, and everything they say is tailored to that end. ((Although I hasten to add that what they say is not entirely <\/em>meaningless. First of all, the political pressures limiting what Clinton and Obama say now, will still operate (although less powerfully) once either of them takes office. And secondly, on the rare occasion that Obama and Clinton’s public statements on foreign policy do diverge, that may indicate a real difference in their approaches to foreign policy.))<\/p>\n

What matters more is who each candidate has chosen to be their foreign policy advisers. The press and public don’t pay much attention to these advisers, except when one gaffes ((“Monster.” — S. Powers, 2008.)) ; furthermore, the candidates are probably planning to be stuck with most of these advisers for years to come. So the foreign policy teams Clinton and Obama pick probably reflect their real policy preferences — or at least, reflect their real preferences more than calculated candidate statements to the public do.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, it’s important to realize that the advisers a president “brings with” will stick around for years. Some of them will have the President’s ear while the President is in office, which is important. Many of them will be elevated into positions of greater importance within foreign policy circles, which is an effect that can last long after the President who elevated them leaves office. (Many of President Nixon<\/em>‘s foreign policy people remain important foreign policy people today.)<\/p>\n

This is one of the most important effects a President can have. In the months before we invaded Iraq, the greatest advantage that the Bush\/Cheney pro-war group had is that the bounds of “serious” foreign policy views were being set almost entirely by people who were in favor of invading Iraq; those who were not in favor of preemptive war were not considered serious, and so had a limited impact on the national debate.<\/p>\n

The invasion of Iraq has been a disaster, and that disaster will probably continue for many years to come<\/a>. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who would otherwise be alive are now dead, because of our invasion. Even more Iraqis have not been killed, but have been hurt in other ways; they’ve been horribly injured, their lives have been constrained, their infrastructure (even more) destroyed, their children’s and grandchildren’s prospects for the future dimmed. ((Obligatory Saddam-Was-A-Monster statement: None of this is to say that Saddam Hussain wasn’t a monster. But our invasion has made things much worse.)) In addition, thousands of Americans have been killed and tens of thousands grievously wounded or traumatized. After that come the less important, but still substantial costs: Costs in<\/a> money<\/a>, costs in missed opportunities<\/a>, and costs to the US’s international standing and effectiveness<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Over the next thirty years, there will be many times when the tenor of the “expert class” of foreign policy thinkers will again set the bounds of what is “serious” and what is not. As we’ve seen in Iraq, when the “serious” opinion excludes all people who oppose wars of choice, the costs to the world are hideous. The foreign policy experts riding on Clinton’s and Obama’s coattails are therefore important to consider.<\/p>\n

And it’s here that we find a real difference between the candidates. Stephen Zunes, writing in Foreign Policy in Focus<\/a>, reports:<\/p>\n

Obama advisors like Joseph Cirincione have emphasized<\/a> a policy toward Iraq based on containment and engagement and have downplayed the supposed threat from Iran. Clinton advisor Holbrooke, meanwhile, insists<\/a> that \u201cthe Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,\u201d the country is \u201cthe most pressing problem nation,\u201d and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler.<\/p>\n

\u2026it may be significant that Senator Clinton\u2019s foreign policy advisors, many of whom are veterans of her husband\u2019s administration, were virtually all strong supporters of President George W. Bush\u2019s call for a U.S. invasion of Iraq. By contrast, almost every one of Senator Obama\u2019s foreign policy team was opposed to a U.S. invasion. […]<\/p>\n

Hillary Clinton has a few advisors who did oppose the war, like Wesley Clark, but taken together, the kinds of key people she’s surrounded herself with supports the likelihood that her administration, like Bush’s, would be more likely to embrace<\/a> exaggerated and alarmist reports regarding potential national security threats, to ignore<\/a> international law and the advice of allies, and to launch offensive wars.<\/p>\n

By contrast, as The Nation magazine noted<\/a>, a Barack Obama administration would be more likely to examine <\/a> the actual evidence of potential threats before reacting, to work more closely with America’s allies to maintain peace and security, to respect the country’s international legal obligations, and to use military force only as a last resort.<\/p>\n

In terms of Iran, for instance, [Obama advisor] Cirincione has downplayed the supposed threat, while Clinton advisor Holbrooke insists <\/a> that “the Iranians are an enormous threat to the United States,” the country is “the most pressing problem nation,” and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is like Hitler. This is consistent with Clinton’s vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment<\/a> that opened the door to a potential Bush attack on Iran, and with Obama’s opposition to it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which experts do you want influencing the boundaries of acceptable foreign policy thought for the next three decades: The ones who supported invading Iraq, or the ones who opposed it?<\/p>\n

Matt Yglesias writes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Obama people are more likely to value international law, strategic restraint, and a narrow focus on al-Qaeda whereas Clinton people are more likely to take a pragmatic\/instrumental view of international institutions, worry that nothing will happen without American leadership, and to have more sympathy for the Bushian idea that you need broad confrontation with rogue regimes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Which expert do you want whispering in the President’s ear for the next four to eight years, when the next important foreign policy decisions come — Susan Rice, who has been arguing for the last six years that humanitarian intervention in Darfur should be among the US’s most pressing foreign policy goals, or Richard Holbrooke, who has been a cheerleader for invading Iraq from the start? (Holbrooke is a leading contender for Secretary of State if Clinton is elected.)<\/p>\n

And at the most basic level, which President do you want: The one whose foreign policy team consists almost elusively of people who got the single most important foreign policy question of the last decade wrong, or the one who hires people who didn’t<\/em> get it wrong?<\/p>\n

* * *<\/strong>
\n
\nNote: The original draft of this post included a section arguing that foreign policy is a feminist issue. The section got to be so long that I decided to make it a separate post, which I will post later today.<\/em><\/p>\n

* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n

PLEASE DON’T POST COMMENTS ARGUING THAT INVADING IRAQ WAS A GOOD IDEA, or arguing that supporting hawks is a good idea.<\/strong> If you want to do that, use this post instead<\/a>.<\/p>\n

This thread is intended to be an argument for progressives who agree with core progressive ideas, and in particular progressive ideas about war.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

* * *<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Previously, I argued that the differences between Obama and Clinton even on desperately important domestic issues, such as LGBTQ rights or health care, are unlikely to make a real difference in policy outcomes. This is because the differences between the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27,40,42],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4349","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-elections-and-politics","category-international-issues","category-iraq"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4349","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4349"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4349\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4349"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4349"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/amptoons.com\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4349"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}